research paper methodologies

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Methodology

Definition:

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

Structure of Research Methodology

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

I. Introduction

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

II. Research Design

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

III. Data Collection Methods

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

IV. Data Analysis Methods

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

V. Ethical Considerations

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

VI. Limitations

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

VII. Conclusion

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

Research Methodology Types

Types of Research Methodology are as follows:

Quantitative Research Methodology

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

Qualitative Research Methodology

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

Mixed-Methods Research Methodology

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

Case Study Research Methodology

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

Action Research Methodology

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

Experimental Research Methodology

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

Survey Research Methodology

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

Grounded Theory Research Methodology

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

Research Methodology Example

An Example of Research Methodology could be the following:

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

Introduction:

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

Research Design:

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

Participants:

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

Intervention :

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

Data Collection:

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

Data Analysis:

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

Ethical Considerations:

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

Data Management:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusion:

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

How to Write Research Methodology

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

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

When to Write Research Methodology

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

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

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

Applications of Research Methodology

Here are some of the applications of research methodology:

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

Purpose of Research Methodology

Research methodology serves several important purposes, including:

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

Advantages of Research Methodology

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

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

Research Methodology Vs Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and...

Data Interpretation – Process, Methods and...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Research Paper Title Page – Example and Making...

Research Paper Introduction – Writing Guide and...

Background of The Study – Examples and Writing...

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Groups of Research Methods

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

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

II.  Content

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

The remainder of your methodology section should describe the following:

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

In addition, an effectively written methodology section should:

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

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

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

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

III.  Problems to Avoid

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

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

To locate data and statistics, GO HERE .

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

Methods and the Methodology

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

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

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

• << Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Next: Qualitative Methods >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 10:20 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Here's What You Need to Understand About Research Methodology

Table of Contents

Research methodology involves a systematic and well-structured approach to conducting scholarly or scientific inquiries. Knowing the significance of research methodology and its different components is crucial as it serves as the basis for any study.

Typically, your research topic will start as a broad idea you want to investigate more thoroughly. Once you’ve identified a research problem and created research questions , you must choose the appropriate methodology and frameworks to address those questions effectively.

What is the definition of a research methodology?

Research methodology is the process or the way you intend to execute your study. The methodology section of a research paper outlines how you plan to conduct your study. It covers various steps such as collecting data, statistical analysis, observing participants, and other procedures involved in the research process

The methods section should give a description of the process that will convert your idea into a study. Additionally, the outcomes of your process must provide valid and reliable results resonant with the aims and objectives of your research. This thumb rule holds complete validity, no matter whether your paper has inclinations for qualitative or quantitative usage.

Studying research methods used in related studies can provide helpful insights and direction for your own research. Now easily discover papers related to your topic on SciSpace and utilize our AI research assistant, Copilot , to quickly review the methodologies applied in different papers.

The need for a good research methodology

While deciding on your approach towards your research, the reason or factors you weighed in choosing a particular problem and formulating a research topic need to be validated and explained. A research methodology helps you do exactly that. Moreover, a good research methodology lets you build your argument to validate your research work performed through various data collection methods, analytical methods, and other essential points.

Just imagine it as a strategy documented to provide an overview of what you intend to do.

While undertaking any research writing or performing the research itself, you may get drifted in not something of much importance. In such a case, a research methodology helps you to get back to your outlined work methodology.

A research methodology helps in keeping you accountable for your work. Additionally, it can help you evaluate whether your work is in sync with your original aims and objectives or not. Besides, a good research methodology enables you to navigate your research process smoothly and swiftly while providing effective planning to achieve your desired results.

What is the basic structure of a research methodology?

Usually, you must ensure to include the following stated aspects while deciding over the basic structure of your research methodology:

1. Your research procedure

Explain what research methods you’re going to use. Whether you intend to proceed with quantitative or qualitative, or a composite of both approaches, you need to state that explicitly. The option among the three depends on your research’s aim, objectives, and scope.

2. Provide the rationality behind your chosen approach

Based on logic and reason, let your readers know why you have chosen said research methodologies. Additionally, you have to build strong arguments supporting why your chosen research method is the best way to achieve the desired outcome.

3. Explain your mechanism

The mechanism encompasses the research methods or instruments you will use to develop your research methodology. It usually refers to your data collection methods. You can use interviews, surveys, physical questionnaires, etc., of the many available mechanisms as research methodology instruments. The data collection method is determined by the type of research and whether the data is quantitative data(includes numerical data) or qualitative data (perception, morale, etc.) Moreover, you need to put logical reasoning behind choosing a particular instrument.

4. Significance of outcomes

The results will be available once you have finished experimenting. However, you should also explain how you plan to use the data to interpret the findings. This section also aids in understanding the problem from within, breaking it down into pieces, and viewing the research problem from various perspectives.

5. Reader’s advice

Anything that you feel must be explained to spread more awareness among readers and focus groups must be included and described in detail. You should not just specify your research methodology on the assumption that a reader is aware of the topic.  

All the relevant information that explains and simplifies your research paper must be included in the methodology section. If you are conducting your research in a non-traditional manner, give a logical justification and list its benefits.

6. Explain your sample space

Include information about the sample and sample space in the methodology section. The term "sample" refers to a smaller set of data that a researcher selects or chooses from a larger group of people or focus groups using a predetermined selection method. Let your readers know how you are going to distinguish between relevant and non-relevant samples. How you figured out those exact numbers to back your research methodology, i.e. the sample spacing of instruments, must be discussed thoroughly.

For example, if you are going to conduct a survey or interview, then by what procedure will you select the interviewees (or sample size in case of surveys), and how exactly will the interview or survey be conducted.

7. Challenges and limitations

This part, which is frequently assumed to be unnecessary, is actually very important. The challenges and limitations that your chosen strategy inherently possesses must be specified while you are conducting different types of research.

The importance of a good research methodology

You must have observed that all research papers, dissertations, or theses carry a chapter entirely dedicated to research methodology. This section helps maintain your credibility as a better interpreter of results rather than a manipulator.

A good research methodology always explains the procedure, data collection methods and techniques, aim, and scope of the research. In a research study, it leads to a well-organized, rationality-based approach, while the paper lacking it is often observed as messy or disorganized.

You should pay special attention to validating your chosen way towards the research methodology. This becomes extremely important in case you select an unconventional or a distinct method of execution.

Curating and developing a strong, effective research methodology can assist you in addressing a variety of situations, such as:

• When someone tries to duplicate or expand upon your research after few years.
• If a contradiction or conflict of facts occurs at a later time. This gives you the security you need to deal with these contradictions while still being able to defend your approach.
• Gaining a tactical approach in getting your research completed in time. Just ensure you are using the right approach while drafting your research methodology, and it can help you achieve your desired outcomes. Additionally, it provides a better explanation and understanding of the research question itself.
• Documenting the results so that the final outcome of the research stays as you intended it to be while starting.

Instruments you could use while writing a good research methodology

As a researcher, you must choose which tools or data collection methods that fit best in terms of the relevance of your research. This decision has to be wise.

There exists many research equipments or tools that you can use to carry out your research process. These are classified as:

a. Interviews (One-on-One or a Group)

An interview aimed to get your desired research outcomes can be undertaken in many different ways. For example, you can design your interview as structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. What sets them apart is the degree of formality in the questions. On the other hand, in a group interview, your aim should be to collect more opinions and group perceptions from the focus groups on a certain topic rather than looking out for some formal answers.

In surveys, you are in better control if you specifically draft the questions you seek the response for. For example, you may choose to include free-style questions that can be answered descriptively, or you may provide a multiple-choice type response for questions. Besides, you can also opt to choose both ways, deciding what suits your research process and purpose better.

c. Sample Groups

Similar to the group interviews, here, you can select a group of individuals and assign them a topic to discuss or freely express their opinions over that. You can simultaneously note down the answers and later draft them appropriately, deciding on the relevance of every response.

d. Observations

If your research domain is humanities or sociology, observations are the best-proven method to draw your research methodology. Of course, you can always include studying the spontaneous response of the participants towards a situation or conducting the same but in a more structured manner. A structured observation means putting the participants in a situation at a previously decided time and then studying their responses.

Of all the tools described above, it is you who should wisely choose the instruments and decide what’s the best fit for your research. You must not restrict yourself from multiple methods or a combination of a few instruments if appropriate in drafting a good research methodology.

Types of research methodology

A research methodology exists in various forms. Depending upon their approach, whether centered around words, numbers, or both, methodologies are distinguished as qualitative, quantitative, or an amalgamation of both.

1. Qualitative research methodology

When a research methodology primarily focuses on words and textual data, then it is generally referred to as qualitative research methodology. This type is usually preferred among researchers when the aim and scope of the research are mainly theoretical and explanatory.

The instruments used are observations, interviews, and sample groups. You can use this methodology if you are trying to study human behavior or response in some situations. Generally, qualitative research methodology is widely used in sociology, psychology, and other related domains.

2. Quantitative research methodology

If your research is majorly centered on data, figures, and stats, then analyzing these numerical data is often referred to as quantitative research methodology. You can use quantitative research methodology if your research requires you to validate or justify the obtained results.

In quantitative methods, surveys, tests, experiments, and evaluations of current databases can be advantageously used as instruments If your research involves testing some hypothesis, then use this methodology.

3. Amalgam methodology

As the name suggests, the amalgam methodology uses both quantitative and qualitative approaches. This methodology is used when a part of the research requires you to verify the facts and figures, whereas the other part demands you to discover the theoretical and explanatory nature of the research question.

The instruments for the amalgam methodology require you to conduct interviews and surveys, including tests and experiments. The outcome of this methodology can be insightful and valuable as it provides precise test results in line with theoretical explanations and reasoning.

The amalgam method, makes your work both factual and rational at the same time.

Final words: How to decide which is the best research methodology?

If you have kept your sincerity and awareness intact with the aims and scope of research well enough, you must have got an idea of which research methodology suits your work best.

Before deciding which research methodology answers your research question, you must invest significant time in reading and doing your homework for that. Taking references that yield relevant results should be your first approach to establishing a research methodology.

Moreover, you should never refrain from exploring other options. Before setting your work in stone, you must try all the available options as it explains why the choice of research methodology that you finally make is more appropriate than the other available options.

You should always go for a quantitative research methodology if your research requires gathering large amounts of data, figures, and statistics. This research methodology will provide you with results if your research paper involves the validation of some hypothesis.

Whereas, if  you are looking for more explanations, reasons, opinions, and public perceptions around a theory, you must use qualitative research methodology.The choice of an appropriate research methodology ultimately depends on what you want to achieve through your research.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Research Methodology

1. how to write a research methodology.

You can always provide a separate section for research methodology where you should specify details about the methods and instruments used during the research, discussions on result analysis, including insights into the background information, and conveying the research limitations.

2. What are the types of research methodology?

There generally exists four types of research methodology i.e.

• Observation
• Experimental
• Derivational

3. What is the true meaning of research methodology?

The set of techniques or procedures followed to discover and analyze the information gathered to validate or justify a research outcome is generally called Research Methodology.

4. Where lies the importance of research methodology?

Your research methodology directly reflects the validity of your research outcomes and how well-informed your research work is. Moreover, it can help future researchers cite or refer to your research if they plan to use a similar research methodology.

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Using AI for research: A beginner’s guide

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is research methodology?

The basics of research methodology

Why do you need a research methodology, what needs to be included, why do you need to document your research method, what are the different types of research instruments, qualitative / quantitative / mixed research methodologies, how do you choose the best research methodology for you, frequently asked questions about research methodology, related articles.

When you’re working on your first piece of academic research, there are many different things to focus on, and it can be overwhelming to stay on top of everything. This is especially true of budding or inexperienced researchers.

If you’ve never put together a research proposal before or find yourself in a position where you need to explain your research methodology decisions, there are a few things you need to be aware of.

Once you understand the ins and outs, handling academic research in the future will be less intimidating. We break down the basics below:

A research methodology encompasses the way in which you intend to carry out your research. This includes how you plan to tackle things like collection methods, statistical analysis, participant observations, and more.

You can think of your research methodology as being a formula. One part will be how you plan on putting your research into practice, and another will be why you feel this is the best way to approach it. Your research methodology is ultimately a methodological and systematic plan to resolve your research problem.

In short, you are explaining how you will take your idea and turn it into a study, which in turn will produce valid and reliable results that are in accordance with the aims and objectives of your research. This is true whether your paper plans to make use of qualitative methods or quantitative methods.

The purpose of a research methodology is to explain the reasoning behind your approach to your research - you'll need to support your collection methods, methods of analysis, and other key points of your work.

Think of it like writing a plan or an outline for you what you intend to do.

When carrying out research, it can be easy to go off-track or depart from your standard methodology.

Tip: Having a methodology keeps you accountable and on track with your original aims and objectives, and gives you a suitable and sound plan to keep your project manageable, smooth, and effective.

With all that said, how do you write out your standard approach to a research methodology?

As a general plan, your methodology should include the following information:

• Your research method.  You need to state whether you plan to use quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis, or mixed-method research methods. This will often be determined by what you hope to achieve with your research.
• Explain your reasoning. Why are you taking this methodological approach? Why is this particular methodology the best way to answer your research problem and achieve your objectives?
• Explain your instruments.  This will mainly be about your collection methods. There are varying instruments to use such as interviews, physical surveys, questionnaires, for example. Your methodology will need to detail your reasoning in choosing a particular instrument for your research.
• What will you do with your results?  How are you going to analyze the data once you have gathered it?
• Advise your reader.  If there is anything in your research methodology that your reader might be unfamiliar with, you should explain it in more detail. For example, you should give any background information to your methods that might be relevant or provide your reasoning if you are conducting your research in a non-standard way.
• How will your sampling process go?  What will your sampling procedure be and why? For example, if you will collect data by carrying out semi-structured or unstructured interviews, how will you choose your interviewees and how will you conduct the interviews themselves?
• Any practical limitations?  You should discuss any limitations you foresee being an issue when you’re carrying out your research.

In any dissertation, thesis, or academic journal, you will always find a chapter dedicated to explaining the research methodology of the person who carried out the study, also referred to as the methodology section of the work.

A good research methodology will explain what you are going to do and why, while a poor methodology will lead to a messy or disorganized approach.

You should also be able to justify in this section your reasoning for why you intend to carry out your research in a particular way, especially if it might be a particularly unique method.

Having a sound methodology in place can also help you with the following:

• When another researcher at a later date wishes to try and replicate your research, they will need your explanations and guidelines.
• In the event that you receive any criticism or questioning on the research you carried out at a later point, you will be able to refer back to it and succinctly explain the how and why of your approach.
• It provides you with a plan to follow throughout your research. When you are drafting your methodology approach, you need to be sure that the method you are using is the right one for your goal. This will help you with both explaining and understanding your method.
• It affords you the opportunity to document from the outset what you intend to achieve with your research, from start to finish.

A research instrument is a tool you will use to help you collect, measure and analyze the data you use as part of your research.

The choice of research instrument will usually be yours to make as the researcher and will be whichever best suits your methodology.

There are many different research instruments you can use in collecting data for your research.

Generally, they can be grouped as follows:

• Interviews (either as a group or one-on-one). You can carry out interviews in many different ways. For example, your interview can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. The difference between them is how formal the set of questions is that is asked of the interviewee. In a group interview, you may choose to ask the interviewees to give you their opinions or perceptions on certain topics.
• Surveys (online or in-person). In survey research, you are posing questions in which you ask for a response from the person taking the survey. You may wish to have either free-answer questions such as essay-style questions, or you may wish to use closed questions such as multiple choice. You may even wish to make the survey a mixture of both.
• Focus Groups.  Similar to the group interview above, you may wish to ask a focus group to discuss a particular topic or opinion while you make a note of the answers given.
• Observations.  This is a good research instrument to use if you are looking into human behaviors. Different ways of researching this include studying the spontaneous behavior of participants in their everyday life, or something more structured. A structured observation is research conducted at a set time and place where researchers observe behavior as planned and agreed upon with participants.

These are the most common ways of carrying out research, but it is really dependent on your needs as a researcher and what approach you think is best to take.

It is also possible to combine a number of research instruments if this is necessary and appropriate in answering your research problem.

There are three different types of methodologies, and they are distinguished by whether they focus on words, numbers, or both.

➡️ Want to learn more about the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and how to use both methods? Check out our guide for that!

If you've done your due diligence, you'll have an idea of which methodology approach is best suited to your research.

It’s likely that you will have carried out considerable reading and homework before you reach this point and you may have taken inspiration from other similar studies that have yielded good results.

Still, it is important to consider different options before setting your research in stone. Exploring different options available will help you to explain why the choice you ultimately make is preferable to other methods.

If proving your research problem requires you to gather large volumes of numerical data to test hypotheses, a quantitative research method is likely to provide you with the most usable results.

If instead you’re looking to try and learn more about people, and their perception of events, your methodology is more exploratory in nature and would therefore probably be better served using a qualitative research methodology.

It helps to always bring things back to the question: what do I want to achieve with my research?

Once you have conducted your research, you need to analyze it. Here are some helpful guides for qualitative data analysis:

➡️  How to do a content analysis

➡️  How to do a thematic analysis

➡️  How to do a rhetorical analysis

Research methodology refers to the techniques used to find and analyze information for a study, ensuring that the results are valid, reliable and that they address the research objective.

Data can typically be organized into four different categories or methods: observational, experimental, simulation, and derived.

Writing a methodology section is a process of introducing your methods and instruments, discussing your analysis, providing more background information, addressing your research limitations, and more.

Your research methodology section will need a clear research question and proposed research approach. You'll need to add a background, introduce your research question, write your methodology and add the works you cited during your data collecting phase.

The research methodology section of your study will indicate how valid your findings are and how well-informed your paper is. It also assists future researchers planning to use the same methodology, who want to cite your study or replicate it.

• How it works

"Christmas Offer"

Terms & conditions.

As the Christmas season is upon us, we find ourselves reflecting on the past year and those who we have helped to shape their future. It’s been quite a year for us all! The end of the year brings no greater joy than the opportunity to express to you Christmas greetings and good wishes.

At this special time of year, Research Prospect brings joyful discount of 10% on all its services. May your Christmas and New Year be filled with joy.

We are looking back with appreciation for your loyalty and looking forward to moving into the New Year together.

"Claim this offer"

In unfamiliar and hard times, we have stuck by you. This Christmas, Research Prospect brings you all the joy with exciting discount of 10% on all its services.

Offer valid till 5-1-2024

We love being your partner in success. We know you have been working hard lately, take a break this holiday season to spend time with your loved ones while we make sure you succeed in your academics

Discount code: RP23720

Published by Nicolas at March 21st, 2024 , Revised On March 12, 2024

The Ultimate Guide To Research Methodology

Research methodology is a crucial aspect of any investigative process, serving as the blueprint for the entire research journey. If you are stuck in the methodology section of your research paper , then this blog will guide you on what is a research methodology, its types and how to successfully conduct one. 

Table of Contents

What Is Research Methodology?

Research methodology can be defined as the systematic framework that guides researchers in designing, conducting, and analyzing their investigations. It encompasses a structured set of processes, techniques, and tools employed to gather and interpret data, ensuring the reliability and validity of the research findings. 

Research methodology is not confined to a singular approach; rather, it encapsulates a diverse range of methods tailored to the specific requirements of the research objectives.

Here is why Research methodology is important in academic and professional settings.

Facilitating Rigorous Inquiry

Research methodology forms the backbone of rigorous inquiry. It provides a structured approach that aids researchers in formulating precise thesis statements , selecting appropriate methodologies, and executing systematic investigations. This, in turn, enhances the quality and credibility of the research outcomes.

Ensuring Reproducibility And Reliability

In both academic and professional contexts, the ability to reproduce research outcomes is paramount. A well-defined research methodology establishes clear procedures, making it possible for others to replicate the study. This not only validates the findings but also contributes to the cumulative nature of knowledge.

Guiding Decision-Making Processes

In professional settings, decisions often hinge on reliable data and insights. Research methodology equips professionals with the tools to gather pertinent information, analyze it rigorously, and derive meaningful conclusions.

This informed decision-making is instrumental in achieving organizational goals and staying ahead in competitive environments.

Contributing To Academic Excellence

For academic researchers, adherence to robust research methodology is a hallmark of excellence. Institutions value research that adheres to high standards of methodology, fostering a culture of academic rigour and intellectual integrity. Furthermore, it prepares students with critical skills applicable beyond academia.

Enhancing Problem-Solving Abilities

Research methodology instills a problem-solving mindset by encouraging researchers to approach challenges systematically. It equips individuals with the skills to dissect complex issues, formulate hypotheses , and devise effective strategies for investigation.

Understanding Research Methodology

In the pursuit of knowledge and discovery, understanding the fundamentals of research methodology is paramount. 

Basics Of Research

Research, in its essence, is a systematic and organized process of inquiry aimed at expanding our understanding of a particular subject or phenomenon. It involves the exploration of existing knowledge, the formulation of hypotheses, and the collection and analysis of data to draw meaningful conclusions. 

Research is a dynamic and iterative process that contributes to the continuous evolution of knowledge in various disciplines.

Types of Research

Research takes on various forms, each tailored to the nature of the inquiry. Broadly classified, research can be categorized into two main types:

• Quantitative Research: This type involves the collection and analysis of numerical data to identify patterns, relationships, and statistical significance. It is particularly useful for testing hypotheses and making predictions.
• Qualitative Research: Qualitative research focuses on understanding the depth and details of a phenomenon through non-numerical data. It often involves methods such as interviews, focus groups, and content analysis, providing rich insights into complex issues.

Components Of Research Methodology

To conduct effective research, one must go through the different components of research methodology. These components form the scaffolding that supports the entire research process, ensuring its coherence and validity.

Research Design

Research design serves as the blueprint for the entire research project. It outlines the overall structure and strategy for conducting the study. The three primary types of research design are:

• Exploratory Research: Aimed at gaining insights and familiarity with the topic, often used in the early stages of research.
• Descriptive Research: Involves portraying an accurate profile of a situation or phenomenon, answering the ‘what,’ ‘who,’ ‘where,’ and ‘when’ questions.
• Explanatory Research: Seeks to identify the causes and effects of a phenomenon, explaining the ‘why’ and ‘how.’

Data Collection Methods

Choosing the right data collection methods is crucial for obtaining reliable and relevant information. Common methods include:

• Surveys and Questionnaires: Employed to gather information from a large number of respondents through standardized questions.
• Interviews: In-depth conversations with participants, offering qualitative insights.
• Observation: Systematic watching and recording of behaviour, events, or processes in their natural setting.

Data Analysis Techniques

Once data is collected, analysis becomes imperative to derive meaningful conclusions. Different methodologies exist for quantitative and qualitative data:

• Quantitative Data Analysis: Involves statistical techniques such as descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, and regression analysis to interpret numerical data.
• Qualitative Data Analysis: Methods like content analysis, thematic analysis, and grounded theory are employed to extract patterns, themes, and meanings from non-numerical data.

The research paper we write have:

• Precision and Clarity
• Zero Plagiarism
• High-level Encryption
• Authentic Sources

Choosing a Research Method

Selecting an appropriate research method is a critical decision in the research process. It determines the approach, tools, and techniques that will be used to answer the research questions. 

Quantitative Research Methods

Quantitative research involves the collection and analysis of numerical data, providing a structured and objective approach to understanding and explaining phenomena.

Experimental Research

Experimental research involves manipulating variables to observe the effect on another variable under controlled conditions. It aims to establish cause-and-effect relationships.

Key Characteristics:

• Controlled Environment: Experiments are conducted in a controlled setting to minimize external influences.
• Random Assignment: Participants are randomly assigned to different experimental conditions.
• Quantitative Data: Data collected is numerical, allowing for statistical analysis.

Applications: Commonly used in scientific studies and psychology to test hypotheses and identify causal relationships.

Survey Research

Survey research gathers information from a sample of individuals through standardized questionnaires or interviews. It aims to collect data on opinions, attitudes, and behaviours.

• Structured Instruments: Surveys use structured instruments, such as questionnaires, to collect data.
• Large Sample Size: Surveys often target a large and diverse group of participants.
• Quantitative Data Analysis: Responses are quantified for statistical analysis.

Applications: Widely employed in social sciences, marketing, and public opinion research to understand trends and preferences.

Descriptive Research

Descriptive research seeks to portray an accurate profile of a situation or phenomenon. It focuses on answering the ‘what,’ ‘who,’ ‘where,’ and ‘when’ questions.

• Observation and Data Collection: This involves observing and documenting without manipulating variables.
• Objective Description: Aim to provide an unbiased and factual account of the subject.
• Quantitative or Qualitative Data: T his can include both types of data, depending on the research focus.

Applications: Useful in situations where researchers want to understand and describe a phenomenon without altering it, common in social sciences and education.

Qualitative Research Methods

Qualitative research emphasizes exploring and understanding the depth and complexity of phenomena through non-numerical data.

A case study is an in-depth exploration of a particular person, group, event, or situation. It involves detailed, context-rich analysis.

• Rich Data Collection: Uses various data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents.
• Contextual Understanding: Aims to understand the context and unique characteristics of the case.
• Holistic Approach: Examines the case in its entirety.

Applications: Common in social sciences, psychology, and business to investigate complex and specific instances.

Ethnography

Ethnography involves immersing the researcher in the culture or community being studied to gain a deep understanding of their behaviours, beliefs, and practices.

• Participant Observation: Researchers actively participate in the community or setting.
• Holistic Perspective: Focuses on the interconnectedness of cultural elements.
• Qualitative Data: In-depth narratives and descriptions are central to ethnographic studies.

Applications: Widely used in anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies to explore and document cultural practices.

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory aims to develop theories grounded in the data itself. It involves systematic data collection and analysis to construct theories from the ground up.

• Constant Comparison: Data is continually compared and analyzed during the research process.
• Inductive Reasoning: Theories emerge from the data rather than being imposed on it.
• Iterative Process: The research design evolves as the study progresses.

Applications: Commonly applied in sociology, nursing, and management studies to generate theories from empirical data.

Research design is the structural framework that outlines the systematic process and plan for conducting a study. It serves as the blueprint, guiding researchers on how to collect, analyze, and interpret data.

Exploratory, Descriptive, And Explanatory Designs

Exploratory design.

Exploratory research design is employed when a researcher aims to explore a relatively unknown subject or gain insights into a complex phenomenon.

• Flexibility: Allows for flexibility in data collection and analysis.
• Open-Ended Questions: Uses open-ended questions to gather a broad range of information.
• Preliminary Nature: Often used in the initial stages of research to formulate hypotheses.

Applications: Valuable in the early stages of investigation, especially when the researcher seeks a deeper understanding of a subject before formalizing research questions.

Descriptive Design

Descriptive research design focuses on portraying an accurate profile of a situation, group, or phenomenon.

• Structured Data Collection: Involves systematic and structured data collection methods.
• Objective Presentation: Aims to provide an unbiased and factual account of the subject.
• Quantitative or Qualitative Data: Can incorporate both types of data, depending on the research objectives.

Applications: Widely used in social sciences, marketing, and educational research to provide detailed and objective descriptions.

Explanatory Design

Explanatory research design aims to identify the causes and effects of a phenomenon, explaining the ‘why’ and ‘how’ behind observed relationships.

• Causal Relationships: Seeks to establish causal relationships between variables.
• Controlled Variables : Often involves controlling certain variables to isolate causal factors.
• Quantitative Analysis: Primarily relies on quantitative data analysis techniques.

Applications: Commonly employed in scientific studies and social sciences to delve into the underlying reasons behind observed patterns.

Cross-Sectional Vs. Longitudinal Designs

Cross-sectional design.

Cross-sectional designs collect data from participants at a single point in time.

• Snapshot View: Provides a snapshot of a population at a specific moment.
• Efficiency: More efficient in terms of time and resources.
• Limited Temporal Insights: Offers limited insights into changes over time.

Applications: Suitable for studying characteristics or behaviours that are stable or not expected to change rapidly.

Longitudinal Design

Longitudinal designs involve the collection of data from the same participants over an extended period.

• Temporal Sequence: Allows for the examination of changes over time.
• Causality Assessment: Facilitates the assessment of cause-and-effect relationships.
• Resource-Intensive: Requires more time and resources compared to cross-sectional designs.

Applications: Ideal for studying developmental processes, trends, or the impact of interventions over time.

Experimental Vs Non-experimental Designs

Experimental design.

Experimental designs involve manipulating variables under controlled conditions to observe the effect on another variable.

• Causality Inference: Enables the inference of cause-and-effect relationships.
• Quantitative Data: Primarily involves the collection and analysis of numerical data.

Applications: Commonly used in scientific studies, psychology, and medical research to establish causal relationships.

Non-Experimental Design

Non-experimental designs observe and describe phenomena without manipulating variables.

• Natural Settings: Data is often collected in natural settings without intervention.
• Descriptive or Correlational: Focuses on describing relationships or correlations between variables.
• Quantitative or Qualitative Data: This can involve either type of data, depending on the research approach.

Applications: Suitable for studying complex phenomena in real-world settings where manipulation may not be ethical or feasible.

Effective data collection is fundamental to the success of any research endeavour. 

Designing Effective Surveys

Objective Design:

• Clearly define the research objectives to guide the survey design.
• Craft questions that align with the study’s goals and avoid ambiguity.

Structured Format:

• Use a structured format with standardized questions for consistency.
• Include a mix of closed-ended and open-ended questions for detailed insights.

Pilot Testing:

• Conduct pilot tests to identify and rectify potential issues with survey design.
• Ensure clarity, relevance, and appropriateness of questions.

Sampling Strategy:

• Develop a robust sampling strategy to ensure a representative participant group.
• Consider random sampling or stratified sampling based on the research goals.

Conducting Interviews

Establishing Rapport:

• Build rapport with participants to create a comfortable and open environment.
• Clearly communicate the purpose of the interview and the value of participants’ input.

Open-Ended Questions:

• Frame open-ended questions to encourage detailed responses.
• Allow participants to express their thoughts and perspectives freely.

Active Listening:

• Practice active listening to understand areas and gather rich data.
• Avoid interrupting and maintain a non-judgmental stance during the interview.

Ethical Considerations:

• Obtain informed consent and assure participants of confidentiality.
• Be transparent about the study’s purpose and potential implications.

Observation

1. participant observation.

Immersive Participation:

• Actively immerse yourself in the setting or group being observed.
• Develop a deep understanding of behaviours, interactions, and context.

Field Notes:

• Maintain detailed and reflective field notes during observations.
• Document observed patterns, unexpected events, and participant reactions.

Ethical Awareness:

• Be conscious of ethical considerations, ensuring respect for participants.
• Balance the role of observer and participant to minimize bias.

2. Non-participant Observation

Objective Observation:

• Maintain a more detached and objective stance during non-participant observation.
• Focus on recording behaviours, events, and patterns without direct involvement.

Data Reliability:

• Enhance the reliability of data by reducing observer bias.
• Develop clear observation protocols and guidelines.

Contextual Understanding:

• Strive for a thorough understanding of the observed context.
• Consider combining non-participant observation with other methods for triangulation.

Archival Research

1. using existing data.

Identifying Relevant Archives:

• Locate and access archives relevant to the research topic.
• Collaborate with institutions or repositories holding valuable data.

Data Verification:

• Verify the accuracy and reliability of archived data.
• Cross-reference with other sources to ensure data integrity.

Ethical Use:

• Adhere to ethical guidelines when using existing data.
• Respect copyright and intellectual property rights.

2. Challenges and Considerations

Incomplete or Inaccurate Archives:

• Address the possibility of incomplete or inaccurate archival records.
• Acknowledge limitations and uncertainties in the data.

Temporal Bias:

• Recognize potential temporal biases in archived data.
• Consider the historical context and changes that may impact interpretation.

Access Limitations:

• Address potential limitations in accessing certain archives.
• Seek alternative sources or collaborate with institutions to overcome barriers.

Common Challenges in Research Methodology

Conducting research is a complex and dynamic process, often accompanied by a myriad of challenges. Addressing these challenges is crucial to ensure the reliability and validity of research findings.

Sampling Issues

Sampling bias:.

• The presence of sampling bias can lead to an unrepresentative sample, affecting the generalizability of findings.
• Employ random sampling methods and ensure the inclusion of diverse participants to reduce bias.

Sample Size Determination:

• Determining an appropriate sample size is a delicate balance. Too small a sample may lack statistical power, while an excessively large sample may strain resources.
• Conduct a power analysis to determine the optimal sample size based on the research objectives and expected effect size.

Data Quality And Validity

Measurement error:.

• Inaccuracies in measurement tools or data collection methods can introduce measurement errors, impacting the validity of results.
• Pilot test instruments, calibrate equipment, and use standardized measures to enhance the reliability of data.

Construct Validity:

• Ensuring that the chosen measures accurately capture the intended constructs is a persistent challenge.
• Use established measurement instruments and employ multiple measures to assess the same construct for triangulation.

Time And Resource Constraints

Timeline pressures:.

• Limited timeframes can compromise the depth and thoroughness of the research process.
• Develop a realistic timeline, prioritize tasks, and communicate expectations with stakeholders to manage time constraints effectively.

Resource Availability:

• Inadequate resources, whether financial or human, can impede the execution of research activities.
• Seek external funding, collaborate with other researchers, and explore alternative methods that require fewer resources.

Managing Bias in Research

Selection bias:.

• Selecting participants in a way that systematically skews the sample can introduce selection bias.
• Employ randomization techniques, use stratified sampling, and transparently report participant recruitment methods.

Confirmation Bias:

• Researchers may unintentionally favour information that confirms their preconceived beliefs or hypotheses.
• Adopt a systematic and open-minded approach, use blinded study designs, and engage in peer review to mitigate confirmation bias.

Tips On How To Write A Research Methodology

Conducting successful research relies not only on the application of sound methodologies but also on strategic planning and effective collaboration. Here are some tips to enhance the success of your research methodology:

Tip 1. Clear Research Objectives

Well-defined research objectives guide the entire research process. Clearly articulate the purpose of your study, outlining specific research questions or hypotheses.

Tip 2. Comprehensive Literature Review

A thorough literature review provides a foundation for understanding existing knowledge and identifying gaps. Invest time in reviewing relevant literature to inform your research design and methodology.

Tip 3. Detailed Research Plan

A detailed plan serves as a roadmap, ensuring all aspects of the research are systematically addressed. Develop a detailed research plan outlining timelines, milestones, and tasks.

Tip 4. Ethical Considerations

Ethical practices are fundamental to maintaining the integrity of research. Address ethical considerations early, obtain necessary approvals, and ensure participant rights are safeguarded.

Tip 5. Stay Updated On Methodologies

Research methodologies evolve, and staying updated is essential for employing the most effective techniques. Engage in continuous learning by attending workshops, conferences, and reading recent publications.

Tip 6. Adaptability In Methods

Unforeseen challenges may arise during research, necessitating adaptability in methods. Be flexible and willing to modify your approach when needed, ensuring the integrity of the study.

Tip 7. Iterative Approach

Research is often an iterative process, and refining methods based on ongoing findings enhance the study’s robustness. Regularly review and refine your research design and methods as the study progresses.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the research methodology.

Research methodology is the systematic process of planning, executing, and evaluating scientific investigation. It encompasses the techniques, tools, and procedures used to collect, analyze, and interpret data, ensuring the reliability and validity of research findings.

What are the methodologies in research?

Research methodologies include qualitative and quantitative approaches. Qualitative methods involve in-depth exploration of non-numerical data, while quantitative methods use statistical analysis to examine numerical data. Mixed methods combine both approaches for a comprehensive understanding of research questions.

How to write research methodology?

To write a research methodology, clearly outline the study’s design, data collection, and analysis procedures. Specify research tools, participants, and sampling methods. Justify choices and discuss limitations. Ensure clarity, coherence, and alignment with research objectives for a robust methodology section.

How to write the methodology section of a research paper?

In the methodology section of a research paper, describe the study’s design, data collection, and analysis methods. Detail procedures, tools, participants, and sampling. Justify choices, address ethical considerations, and explain how the methodology aligns with research objectives, ensuring clarity and rigour.

What is mixed research methodology?

Mixed research methodology combines both qualitative and quantitative research approaches within a single study. This approach aims to enhance the details and depth of research findings by providing a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem or question.

You May Also Like

Should you use MLA or APA citation style in your dissertation, thesis, or research paper? Choose by reading this comprehensive blog.

The dynamic discipline of computer science is driving innovation and technological progress in a number of areas, including education. Its […]

Find out if you need permission to publish your dissertation in canada. Understand copyright, university rules, and third-party content.

Ready to place an order?

USEFUL LINKS

Learning resources.

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

What is the methods section of a research paper ?  

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

Why is the methods section important?  

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

Structure of methods section of a research paper  

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

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

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

How to write the methods section of a research paper  

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

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

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

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

What to include in the methods section of a research paper  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References  

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

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

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

What is IMRaD Format in Research?

What is a Review Article? How to Write it?

What Is Research Methodology? A Plain-Language Explanation & Definition (With Examples)

By Derek Jansen (MBA)  and Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Last updated April 2023)

If you’re new to formal academic research, it’s quite likely that you’re feeling a little overwhelmed by all the technical lingo that gets thrown around. And who could blame you – “research methodology”, “research methods”, “sampling strategies”… it all seems never-ending!

In this post, we’ll demystify the landscape with plain-language explanations and loads of examples (including easy-to-follow videos), so that you can approach your dissertation, thesis or research project with confidence. Let’s get started.

Research Methodology 101

• What exactly research methodology means
• What qualitative , quantitative and mixed methods are
• What sampling strategy is
• What data collection methods are
• What data analysis methods are
• How to choose your research methodology
• Example of a research methodology

What is research methodology?

Research methodology simply refers to the practical “how” of a research study. More specifically, it’s about how  a researcher  systematically designs a study  to ensure valid and reliable results that address the research aims, objectives and research questions . Specifically, how the researcher went about deciding:

• What type of data to collect (e.g., qualitative or quantitative data )
• Who  to collect it from (i.e., the sampling strategy )
• How to  collect  it (i.e., the data collection method )
• How to  analyse  it (i.e., the data analysis methods )

Within any formal piece of academic research (be it a dissertation, thesis or journal article), you’ll find a research methodology chapter or section which covers the aspects mentioned above. Importantly, a good methodology chapter explains not just   what methodological choices were made, but also explains  why they were made. In other words, the methodology chapter should justify  the design choices, by showing that the chosen methods and techniques are the best fit for the research aims, objectives and research questions. 

So, it’s the same as research design?

Not quite. As we mentioned, research methodology refers to the collection of practical decisions regarding what data you’ll collect, from who, how you’ll collect it and how you’ll analyse it. Research design, on the other hand, is more about the overall strategy you’ll adopt in your study. For example, whether you’ll use an experimental design in which you manipulate one variable while controlling others. You can learn more about research design and the various design types here .

Need a helping hand?

What are qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods?

Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods are different types of methodological approaches, distinguished by their focus on words , numbers or both . This is a bit of an oversimplification, but its a good starting point for understanding.

Let’s take a closer look.

Qualitative research refers to research which focuses on collecting and analysing words (written or spoken) and textual or visual data, whereas quantitative research focuses on measurement and testing using numerical data . Qualitative analysis can also focus on other “softer” data points, such as body language or visual elements.

It’s quite common for a qualitative methodology to be used when the research aims and research questions are exploratory  in nature. For example, a qualitative methodology might be used to understand peoples’ perceptions about an event that took place, or a political candidate running for president. 

Contrasted to this, a quantitative methodology is typically used when the research aims and research questions are confirmatory  in nature. For example, a quantitative methodology might be used to measure the relationship between two variables (e.g. personality type and likelihood to commit a crime) or to test a set of hypotheses .

As you’ve probably guessed, the mixed-method methodology attempts to combine the best of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to integrate perspectives and create a rich picture. If you’d like to learn more about these three methodological approaches, be sure to watch our explainer video below.

What is sampling strategy?

Simply put, sampling is about deciding who (or where) you’re going to collect your data from . Why does this matter? Well, generally it’s not possible to collect data from every single person in your group of interest (this is called the “population”), so you’ll need to engage a smaller portion of that group that’s accessible and manageable (this is called the “sample”).

How you go about selecting the sample (i.e., your sampling strategy) will have a major impact on your study.  There are many different sampling methods  you can choose from, but the two overarching categories are probability   sampling and  non-probability   sampling .

Probability sampling  involves using a completely random sample from the group of people you’re interested in. This is comparable to throwing the names all potential participants into a hat, shaking it up, and picking out the “winners”. By using a completely random sample, you’ll minimise the risk of selection bias and the results of your study will be more generalisable  to the entire population. 

Non-probability sampling , on the other hand,  doesn’t use a random sample . For example, it might involve using a convenience sample, which means you’d only interview or survey people that you have access to (perhaps your friends, family or work colleagues), rather than a truly random sample. With non-probability sampling, the results are typically not generalisable .

To learn more about sampling methods, be sure to check out the video below.

What are data collection methods?

As the name suggests, data collection methods simply refers to the way in which you go about collecting the data for your study. Some of the most common data collection methods include:

• Interviews (which can be unstructured, semi-structured or structured)
• Focus groups and group interviews
• Surveys (online or physical surveys)
• Observations (watching and recording activities)
• Biophysical measurements (e.g., blood pressure, heart rate, etc.)
• Documents and records (e.g., financial reports, court records, etc.)

The choice of which data collection method to use depends on your overall research aims and research questions , as well as practicalities and resource constraints. For example, if your research is exploratory in nature, qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups would likely be a good fit. Conversely, if your research aims to measure specific variables or test hypotheses, large-scale surveys that produce large volumes of numerical data would likely be a better fit.

What are data analysis methods?

Data analysis methods refer to the methods and techniques that you’ll use to make sense of your data. These can be grouped according to whether the research is qualitative  (words-based) or quantitative (numbers-based).

Popular data analysis methods in qualitative research include:

• Qualitative content analysis
• Thematic analysis
• Discourse analysis
• Narrative analysis
• Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)
• Visual analysis (of photographs, videos, art, etc.)

Qualitative data analysis all begins with data coding , after which an analysis method is applied. In some cases, more than one analysis method is used, depending on the research aims and research questions . In the video below, we explore some  common qualitative analysis methods, along with practical examples.  

Moving on to the quantitative side of things, popular data analysis methods in this type of research include:

• Descriptive statistics (e.g. means, medians, modes )
• Inferential statistics (e.g. correlation, regression, structural equation modelling)

Again, the choice of which data collection method to use depends on your overall research aims and objectives , as well as practicalities and resource constraints. In the video below, we explain some core concepts central to quantitative analysis.

How do I choose a research methodology?

As you’ve probably picked up by now, your research aims and objectives have a major influence on the research methodology . So, the starting point for developing your research methodology is to take a step back and look at the big picture of your research, before you make methodology decisions. The first question you need to ask yourself is whether your research is exploratory or confirmatory in nature.

If your research aims and objectives are primarily exploratory in nature, your research will likely be qualitative and therefore you might consider qualitative data collection methods (e.g. interviews) and analysis methods (e.g. qualitative content analysis). 

Conversely, if your research aims and objective are looking to measure or test something (i.e. they’re confirmatory), then your research will quite likely be quantitative in nature, and you might consider quantitative data collection methods (e.g. surveys) and analyses (e.g. statistical analysis).

Designing your research and working out your methodology is a large topic, which we cover extensively on the blog . For now, however, the key takeaway is that you should always start with your research aims, objectives and research questions (the golden thread). Every methodological choice you make needs align with those three components. 

Example of a research methodology chapter

In the video below, we provide a detailed walkthrough of a research methodology from an actual dissertation, as well as an overview of our free methodology template .

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

199 Comments

Thank you for this simple yet comprehensive and easy to digest presentation. God Bless!

You’re most welcome, Leo. Best of luck with your research!

I found it very useful. many thanks

This is really directional. A make-easy research knowledge.

Thank you for this, I think will help my research proposal

Thanks for good interpretation,well understood.

Good morning sorry I want to the search topic

Thank u more

Thank you, your explanation is simple and very helpful.

Very educative a.nd exciting platform. A bigger thank you and I’ll like to always be with you

That’s the best analysis

So simple yet so insightful. Thank you.

This really easy to read as it is self-explanatory. Very much appreciated…

Thanks for this. It’s so helpful and explicit. For those elements highlighted in orange, they were good sources of referrals for concepts I didn’t understand. A million thanks for this.

Good morning, I have been reading your research lessons through out a period of times. They are important, impressive and clear. Want to subscribe and be and be active with you.

Thankyou So much Sir Derek…

Good morning thanks so much for the on line lectures am a student of university of Makeni.select a research topic and deliberate on it so that we’ll continue to understand more.sorry that’s a suggestion.

Beautiful presentation. I love it.

please provide a research mehodology example for zoology

It’s very educative and well explained

Thanks for the concise and informative data.

This is really good for students to be safe and well understand that research is all about

Thank you so much Derek sir🖤🙏🤗

Very simple and reliable

This is really helpful. Thanks alot. God bless you.

very useful, Thank you very much..

thanks a lot its really useful

in a nutshell..thank you!

Thanks for updating my understanding on this aspect of my Thesis writing.

thank you so much my through this video am competently going to do a good job my thesis

Thanks a lot. Very simple to understand. I appreciate 🙏

Very simple but yet insightful Thank you

This has been an eye opening experience. Thank you grad coach team.

Very useful message for research scholars

Really very helpful thank you

yes you are right and i’m left

Research methodology with a simplest way i have never seen before this article.

wow thank u so much

Good morning thanks so much for the on line lectures am a student of university of Makeni.select a research topic and deliberate on is so that we will continue to understand more.sorry that’s a suggestion.

Very precise and informative.

Thanks for simplifying these terms for us, really appreciate it.

Thanks this has really helped me. It is very easy to understand.

I found the notes and the presentation assisting and opening my understanding on research methodology

Good presentation

Im so glad you clarified my misconceptions. Im now ready to fry my onions. Thank you so much. God bless

Thank you a lot.

thanks for the easy way of learning and desirable presentation.

Thanks a lot. I am inspired

Well written

I am writing a APA Format paper . I using questionnaire with 120 STDs teacher for my participant. Can you write me mthology for this research. Send it through email sent. Just need a sample as an example please. My topic is ” impacts of overcrowding on students learning

Thanks for your comment.

We can’t write your methodology for you. If you’re looking for samples, you should be able to find some sample methodologies on Google. Alternatively, you can download some previous dissertations from a dissertation directory and have a look at the methodology chapters therein.

All the best with your research.

Thank you so much for this!! God Bless

Thank you. Explicit explanation

Thank you, Derek and Kerryn, for making this simple to understand. I’m currently at the inception stage of my research.

Thnks a lot , this was very usefull on my assignment

excellent explanation

I’m currently working on my master’s thesis, thanks for this! I’m certain that I will use Qualitative methodology.

Thanks a lot for this concise piece, it was quite relieving and helpful. God bless you BIG…

I am currently doing my dissertation proposal and I am sure that I will do quantitative research. Thank you very much it was extremely helpful.

Very interesting and informative yet I would like to know about examples of Research Questions as well, if possible.

I’m about to submit a research presentation, I have come to understand from your simplification on understanding research methodology. My research will be mixed methodology, qualitative as well as quantitative. So aim and objective of mixed method would be both exploratory and confirmatory. Thanks you very much for your guidance.

OMG thanks for that, you’re a life saver. You covered all the points I needed. Thank you so much ❤️ ❤️ ❤️

Thank you immensely for this simple, easy to comprehend explanation of data collection methods. I have been stuck here for months 😩. Glad I found your piece. Super insightful.

I’m going to write synopsis which will be quantitative research method and I don’t know how to frame my topic, can I kindly get some ideas..

Thanks for this, I was really struggling.

This was really informative I was struggling but this helped me.

Thanks a lot for this information, simple and straightforward. I’m a last year student from the University of South Africa UNISA South Africa.

its very much informative and understandable. I have enlightened.

An interesting nice exploration of a topic.

Thank you. Accurate and simple🥰

This article was really helpful, it helped me understanding the basic concepts of the topic Research Methodology. The examples were very clear, and easy to understand. I would like to visit this website again. Thank you so much for such a great explanation of the subject.

Thanks dude

Thank you Doctor Derek for this wonderful piece, please help to provide your details for reference purpose. God bless.

Many compliments to you

Great work , thank you very much for the simple explanation

Thank you. I had to give a presentation on this topic. I have looked everywhere on the internet but this is the best and simple explanation.

thank you, its very informative.

Well explained. Now I know my research methodology will be qualitative and exploratory. Thank you so much, keep up the good work

Well explained, thank you very much.

This is good explanation, I have understood the different methods of research. Thanks a lot.

Great work…very well explanation

Thanks Derek. Kerryn was just fantastic!

Great to hear that, Hyacinth. Best of luck with your research!

Its a good templates very attractive and important to PhD students and lectuter

Thanks for the feedback, Matobela. Good luck with your research methodology.

Thank you. This is really helpful.

You’re very welcome, Elie. Good luck with your research methodology.

Well explained thanks

This is a very helpful site especially for young researchers at college. It provides sufficient information to guide students and equip them with the necessary foundation to ask any other questions aimed at deepening their understanding.

Thanks for the kind words, Edward. Good luck with your research!

Thank you. I have learned a lot.

Great to hear that, Ngwisa. Good luck with your research methodology!

Thank you for keeping your presentation simples and short and covering key information for research methodology. My key takeaway: Start with defining your research objective the other will depend on the aims of your research question.

My name is Zanele I would like to be assisted with my research , and the topic is shortage of nursing staff globally want are the causes , effects on health, patients and community and also globally

Thanks for making it simple and clear. It greatly helped in understanding research methodology. Regards.

This is well simplified and straight to the point

Thank you Dr

I was given an assignment to research 2 publications and describe their research methodology? I don’t know how to start this task can someone help me?

Sure. You’re welcome to book an initial consultation with one of our Research Coaches to discuss how we can assist – https://gradcoach.com/book/new/ .

Thanks a lot I am relieved of a heavy burden.keep up with the good work

I’m very much grateful Dr Derek. I’m planning to pursue one of the careers that really needs one to be very much eager to know. There’s a lot of research to do and everything, but since I’ve gotten this information I will use it to the best of my potential.

Thank you so much, words are not enough to explain how helpful this session has been for me!

Thanks this has thought me alot.

Very concise and helpful. Thanks a lot

Thank Derek. This is very helpful. Your step by step explanation has made it easier for me to understand different concepts. Now i can get on with my research.

I wish i had come across this sooner. So simple but yet insightful

really nice explanation thank you so much

I’m so grateful finding this site, it’s really helpful…….every term well explained and provide accurate understanding especially to student going into an in-depth research for the very first time, even though my lecturer already explained this topic to the class, I think I got the clear and efficient explanation here, much thanks to the author.

It is very helpful material

I would like to be assisted with my research topic : Literature Review and research methodologies. My topic is : what is the relationship between unemployment and economic growth?

Its really nice and good for us.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR EXPLANATION, ITS VERY CLEAR TO ME WHAT I WILL BE DOING FROM NOW .GREAT READS.

Short but sweet.Thank you

Informative article. Thanks for your detailed information.

I’m currently working on my Ph.D. thesis. Thanks a lot, Derek and Kerryn, Well-organized sequences, facilitate the readers’ following.

great article for someone who does not have any background can even understand

I am a bit confused about research design and methodology. Are they the same? If not, what are the differences and how are they related?

Thanks in advance.

concise and informative.

Thank you very much

How can we site this article is Harvard style?

Very well written piece that afforded better understanding of the concept. Thank you!

Am a new researcher trying to learn how best to write a research proposal. I find your article spot on and want to download the free template but finding difficulties. Can u kindly send it to my email, the free download entitled, “Free Download: Research Proposal Template (with Examples)”.

Thank too much

Thank you very much for your comprehensive explanation about research methodology so I like to thank you again for giving us such great things.

Good very well explained.Thanks for sharing it.

Thank u sir, it is really a good guideline.

so helpful thank you very much.

Thanks for the video it was very explanatory and detailed, easy to comprehend and follow up. please, keep it up the good work

It was very helpful, a well-written document with precise information.

how do i reference this?

MLA Jansen, Derek, and Kerryn Warren. “What (Exactly) Is Research Methodology?” Grad Coach, June 2021, gradcoach.com/what-is-research-methodology/.

APA Jansen, D., & Warren, K. (2021, June). What (Exactly) Is Research Methodology? Grad Coach. https://gradcoach.com/what-is-research-methodology/

Your explanation is easily understood. Thank you

Very help article. Now I can go my methodology chapter in my thesis with ease

I feel guided ,Thank you

This simplification is very helpful. It is simple but very educative, thanks ever so much

The write up is informative and educative. It is an academic intellectual representation that every good researcher can find useful. Thanks

Wow, this is wonderful long live.

Nice initiative

thank you the video was helpful to me.

Thank you very much for your simple and clear explanations I’m really satisfied by the way you did it By now, I think I can realize a very good article by following your fastidious indications May God bless you

Thanks very much, it was very concise and informational for a beginner like me to gain an insight into what i am about to undertake. I really appreciate.

very informative sir, it is amazing to understand the meaning of question hidden behind that, and simple language is used other than legislature to understand easily. stay happy.

This one is really amazing. All content in your youtube channel is a very helpful guide for doing research. Thanks, GradCoach.

research methodologies

Please send me more information concerning dissertation research.

Nice piece of knowledge shared….. #Thump_UP

This is amazing, it has said it all. Thanks to Gradcoach

This is wonderful,very elaborate and clear.I hope to reach out for your assistance in my research very soon.

This is the answer I am searching about…

realy thanks a lot

Thank you very much for this awesome, to the point and inclusive article.

Thank you very much I need validity and reliability explanation I have exams

Thank you for a well explained piece. This will help me going forward.

Very simple and well detailed Many thanks

This is so very simple yet so very effective and comprehensive. An Excellent piece of work.

I wish I saw this earlier on! Great insights for a beginner(researcher) like me. Thanks a mil!

Thank you very much, for such a simplified, clear and practical step by step both for academic students and general research work. Holistic, effective to use and easy to read step by step. One can easily apply the steps in practical terms and produce a quality document/up-to standard

Thanks for simplifying these terms for us, really appreciated.

Thanks for a great work. well understood .

This was very helpful. It was simple but profound and very easy to understand. Thank you so much!

Great and amazing research guidelines. Best site for learning research

hello sir/ma’am, i didn’t find yet that what type of research methodology i am using. because i am writing my report on CSR and collect all my data from websites and articles so which type of methodology i should write in dissertation report. please help me. i am from India.

how does this really work?

perfect content, thanks a lot

As a researcher, I commend you for the detailed and simplified information on the topic in question. I would like to remain in touch for the sharing of research ideas on other topics. Thank you

Impressive. Thank you, Grad Coach 😍

Thank you Grad Coach for this piece of information. I have at least learned about the different types of research methodologies.

Very useful content with easy way

Thank you very much for the presentation. I am an MPH student with the Adventist University of Africa. I have successfully completed my theory and starting on my research this July. My topic is “Factors associated with Dental Caries in (one District) in Botswana. I need help on how to go about this quantitative research

I am so grateful to run across something that was sooo helpful. I have been on my doctorate journey for quite some time. Your breakdown on methodology helped me to refresh my intent. Thank you.

thanks so much for this good lecture. student from university of science and technology, Wudil. Kano Nigeria.

It’s profound easy to understand I appreciate

Thanks a lot for sharing superb information in a detailed but concise manner. It was really helpful and helped a lot in getting into my own research methodology.

Comment * thanks very much

This was sooo helpful for me thank you so much i didn’t even know what i had to write thank you!

You’re most welcome 🙂

Simple and good. Very much helpful. Thank you so much.

This is very good work. I have benefited.

Thank you so much for sharing

This is powerful thank you so much guys

I am nkasa lizwi doing my research proposal on honors with the university of Walter Sisulu Komani I m on part 3 now can you assist me.my topic is: transitional challenges faced by educators in intermediate phase in the Alfred Nzo District.

Appreciate the presentation. Very useful step-by-step guidelines to follow.

I appreciate sir

wow! This is super insightful for me. Thank you!

Indeed this material is very helpful! Kudos writers/authors.

I want to say thank you very much, I got a lot of info and knowledge. Be blessed.

I want present a seminar paper on Optimisation of Deep learning-based models on vulnerability detection in digital transactions.

Need assistance

Dear Sir, I want to be assisted on my research on Sanitation and Water management in emergencies areas.

I am deeply grateful for the knowledge gained. I will be getting in touch shortly as I want to be assisted in my ongoing research.

The information shared is informative, crisp and clear. Kudos Team! And thanks a lot!

hello i want to study

Hello!! Grad coach teams. I am extremely happy in your tutorial or consultation. i am really benefited all material and briefing. Thank you very much for your generous helps. Please keep it up. If you add in your briefing, references for further reading, it will be very nice.

All I have to say is, thank u gyz.

Good, l thanks

thank you, it is very useful

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis) - Grad Coach - […] the literature review is to inform the choice of methodology for your own research. As we’ve discussed on the Grad Coach blog,…
• Free Download: Research Proposal Template (With Examples) - Grad Coach - […] Research design (methodology) […]
• Dissertation vs Thesis: What's the difference? - Grad Coach - […] and thesis writing on a daily basis – everything from how to find a good research topic to which…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

What is Research Methodology? Definition, Types, and Examples

Research methodology 1,2 is a structured and scientific approach used to collect, analyze, and interpret quantitative or qualitative data to answer research questions or test hypotheses. A research methodology is like a plan for carrying out research and helps keep researchers on track by limiting the scope of the research. Several aspects must be considered before selecting an appropriate research methodology, such as research limitations and ethical concerns that may affect your research.

The research methodology section in a scientific paper describes the different methodological choices made, such as the data collection and analysis methods, and why these choices were selected. The reasons should explain why the methods chosen are the most appropriate to answer the research question. A good research methodology also helps ensure the reliability and validity of the research findings. There are three types of research methodology—quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method, which can be chosen based on the research objectives.

What is research methodology ?

A research methodology describes the techniques and procedures used to identify and analyze information regarding a specific research topic. It is a process by which researchers design their study so that they can achieve their objectives using the selected research instruments. It includes all the important aspects of research, including research design, data collection methods, data analysis methods, and the overall framework within which the research is conducted. While these points can help you understand what is research methodology, you also need to know why it is important to pick the right methodology.

Why is research methodology important?

Having a good research methodology in place has the following advantages: 3

• Helps other researchers who may want to replicate your research; the explanations will be of benefit to them.
• You can easily answer any questions about your research if they arise at a later stage.
• A research methodology provides a framework and guidelines for researchers to clearly define research questions, hypotheses, and objectives.
• It helps researchers identify the most appropriate research design, sampling technique, and data collection and analysis methods.
• A sound research methodology helps researchers ensure that their findings are valid and reliable and free from biases and errors.
• It also helps ensure that ethical guidelines are followed while conducting research.
• A good research methodology helps researchers in planning their research efficiently, by ensuring optimum usage of their time and resources.

Writing the methods section of a research paper? Let Paperpal help you achieve perfection

Types of research methodology.

There are three types of research methodology based on the type of research and the data required. 1

• Quantitative research methodology focuses on measuring and testing numerical data. This approach is good for reaching a large number of people in a short amount of time. This type of research helps in testing the causal relationships between variables, making predictions, and generalizing results to wider populations.
• Qualitative research methodology examines the opinions, behaviors, and experiences of people. It collects and analyzes words and textual data. This research methodology requires fewer participants but is still more time consuming because the time spent per participant is quite large. This method is used in exploratory research where the research problem being investigated is not clearly defined.
• Mixed-method research methodology uses the characteristics of both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies in the same study. This method allows researchers to validate their findings, verify if the results observed using both methods are complementary, and explain any unexpected results obtained from one method by using the other method.

What are the types of sampling designs in research methodology?

Sampling 4 is an important part of a research methodology and involves selecting a representative sample of the population to conduct the study, making statistical inferences about them, and estimating the characteristics of the whole population based on these inferences. There are two types of sampling designs in research methodology—probability and nonprobability.

• Probability sampling

In this type of sampling design, a sample is chosen from a larger population using some form of random selection, that is, every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. The different types of probability sampling are:

• Systematic —sample members are chosen at regular intervals. It requires selecting a starting point for the sample and sample size determination that can be repeated at regular intervals. This type of sampling method has a predefined range; hence, it is the least time consuming.
• Stratified —researchers divide the population into smaller groups that don’t overlap but represent the entire population. While sampling, these groups can be organized, and then a sample can be drawn from each group separately.
• Cluster —the population is divided into clusters based on demographic parameters like age, sex, location, etc.
• Convenience —selects participants who are most easily accessible to researchers due to geographical proximity, availability at a particular time, etc.
• Purposive —participants are selected at the researcher’s discretion. Researchers consider the purpose of the study and the understanding of the target audience.
• Snowball —already selected participants use their social networks to refer the researcher to other potential participants.
• Quota —while designing the study, the researchers decide how many people with which characteristics to include as participants. The characteristics help in choosing people most likely to provide insights into the subject.

What are data collection methods?

During research, data are collected using various methods depending on the research methodology being followed and the research methods being undertaken. Both qualitative and quantitative research have different data collection methods, as listed below.

Qualitative research 5

• One-on-one interviews: Helps the interviewers understand a respondent’s subjective opinion and experience pertaining to a specific topic or event
• Document study/literature review/record keeping: Researchers’ review of already existing written materials such as archives, annual reports, research articles, guidelines, policy documents, etc.
• Focus groups: Constructive discussions that usually include a small sample of about 6-10 people and a moderator, to understand the participants’ opinion on a given topic.
• Qualitative observation : Researchers collect data using their five senses (sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing).

Quantitative research 6

• Sampling: The most common type is probability sampling.
• Interviews: Commonly telephonic or done in-person.
• Observations: Structured observations are most commonly used in quantitative research. In this method, researchers make observations about specific behaviors of individuals in a structured setting.
• Document review: Reviewing existing research or documents to collect evidence for supporting the research.
• Surveys and questionnaires. Surveys can be administered both online and offline depending on the requirement and sample size.

Let Paperpal help you write the perfect research methods section. Start now!

What are data analysis methods.

The data collected using the various methods for qualitative and quantitative research need to be analyzed to generate meaningful conclusions. These data analysis methods 7 also differ between quantitative and qualitative research.

Quantitative research involves a deductive method for data analysis where hypotheses are developed at the beginning of the research and precise measurement is required. The methods include statistical analysis applications to analyze numerical data and are grouped into two categories—descriptive and inferential.

Descriptive analysis is used to describe the basic features of different types of data to present it in a way that ensures the patterns become meaningful. The different types of descriptive analysis methods are:

• Measures of frequency (count, percent, frequency)
• Measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode)
• Measures of dispersion or variation (range, variance, standard deviation)
• Measure of position (percentile ranks, quartile ranks)

Inferential analysis is used to make predictions about a larger population based on the analysis of the data collected from a smaller population. This analysis is used to study the relationships between different variables. Some commonly used inferential data analysis methods are:

• Correlation: To understand the relationship between two or more variables.
• Cross-tabulation: Analyze the relationship between multiple variables.
• Regression analysis: Study the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable.
• Frequency tables: To understand the frequency of data.
• Analysis of variance: To test the degree to which two or more variables differ in an experiment.

Qualitative research involves an inductive method for data analysis where hypotheses are developed after data collection. The methods include:

• Content analysis: For analyzing documented information from text and images by determining the presence of certain words or concepts in texts.
• Narrative analysis: For analyzing content obtained from sources such as interviews, field observations, and surveys. The stories and opinions shared by people are used to answer research questions.
• Discourse analysis: For analyzing interactions with people considering the social context, that is, the lifestyle and environment, under which the interaction occurs.
• Grounded theory: Involves hypothesis creation by data collection and analysis to explain why a phenomenon occurred.
• Thematic analysis: To identify important themes or patterns in data and use these to address an issue.

How to choose a research methodology?

Here are some important factors to consider when choosing a research methodology: 8

• Research objectives, aims, and questions —these would help structure the research design.
• Review existing literature to identify any gaps in knowledge.
• Check the statistical requirements —if data-driven or statistical results are needed then quantitative research is the best. If the research questions can be answered based on people’s opinions and perceptions, then qualitative research is most suitable.
• Sample size —sample size can often determine the feasibility of a research methodology. For a large sample, less effort- and time-intensive methods are appropriate.
• Constraints —constraints of time, geography, and resources can help define the appropriate methodology.

Got writer’s block? Kickstart your research paper writing with Paperpal now!

How to write a research methodology .

A research methodology should include the following components: 3,9

• Research design —should be selected based on the research question and the data required. Common research designs include experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, descriptive, and exploratory.
• Research method —this can be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method.
• Reason for selecting a specific methodology —explain why this methodology is the most suitable to answer your research problem.
• Research instruments —explain the research instruments you plan to use, mainly referring to the data collection methods such as interviews, surveys, etc. Here as well, a reason should be mentioned for selecting the particular instrument.
• Sampling —this involves selecting a representative subset of the population being studied.
• Data collection —involves gathering data using several data collection methods, such as surveys, interviews, etc.
• Data analysis —describe the data analysis methods you will use once you’ve collected the data.
• Research limitations —mention any limitations you foresee while conducting your research.
• Validity and reliability —validity helps identify the accuracy and truthfulness of the findings; reliability refers to the consistency and stability of the results over time and across different conditions.
• Ethical considerations —research should be conducted ethically. The considerations include obtaining consent from participants, maintaining confidentiality, and addressing conflicts of interest.

Streamline Your Research Paper Writing Process with Paperpal

The methods section is a critical part of the research papers, allowing researchers to use this to understand your findings and replicate your work when pursuing their own research. However, it is usually also the most difficult section to write. This is where Paperpal can help you overcome the writer’s block and create the first draft in minutes with Paperpal Copilot, its secure generative AI feature suite.  

With Paperpal you can get research advice, write and refine your work, rephrase and verify the writing, and ensure submission readiness, all in one place. Here’s how you can use Paperpal to develop the first draft of your methods section.  

• Generate an outline: Input some details about your research to instantly generate an outline for your methods section 
• Develop the section: Use the outline and suggested sentence templates to expand your ideas and develop the first draft.  
• P araph ras e and trim : Get clear, concise academic text with paraphrasing that conveys your work effectively and word reduction to fix redundancies. 
• Choose the right words: Enhance text by choosing contextual synonyms based on how the words have been used in previously published work.  
• Check and verify text : Make sure the generated text showcases your methods correctly, has all the right citations, and is original and authentic. .   

You can repeat this process to develop each section of your research manuscript, including the title, abstract and keywords. Ready to write your research papers faster, better, and without the stress? Sign up for Paperpal and start writing today!

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What are the key components of research methodology?

A1. A good research methodology has the following key components:

• Research design
• Data collection procedures
• Data analysis methods
• Ethical considerations

Q2. Why is ethical consideration important in research methodology?

A2. Ethical consideration is important in research methodology to ensure the readers of the reliability and validity of the study. Researchers must clearly mention the ethical norms and standards followed during the conduct of the research and also mention if the research has been cleared by any institutional board. The following 10 points are the important principles related to ethical considerations: 10

• Participants should not be subjected to harm.
• Respect for the dignity of participants should be prioritized.
• Full consent should be obtained from participants before the study.
• Participants’ privacy should be ensured.
• Confidentiality of the research data should be ensured.
• Anonymity of individuals and organizations participating in the research should be maintained.
• The aims and objectives of the research should not be exaggerated.
• Affiliations, sources of funding, and any possible conflicts of interest should be declared.
• Communication in relation to the research should be honest and transparent.
• Misleading information and biased representation of primary data findings should be avoided.

Q3. What is the difference between methodology and method?

A3. Research methodology is different from a research method, although both terms are often confused. Research methods are the tools used to gather data, while the research methodology provides a framework for how research is planned, conducted, and analyzed. The latter guides researchers in making decisions about the most appropriate methods for their research. Research methods refer to the specific techniques, procedures, and tools used by researchers to collect, analyze, and interpret data, for instance surveys, questionnaires, interviews, etc.

Research methodology is, thus, an integral part of a research study. It helps ensure that you stay on track to meet your research objectives and answer your research questions using the most appropriate data collection and analysis tools based on your research design.

Accelerate your research paper writing with Paperpal. Try for free now!

• Research methodologies. Pfeiffer Library website. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://library.tiffin.edu/researchmethodologies/whatareresearchmethodologies
• Types of research methodology. Eduvoice website. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://eduvoice.in/types-research-methodology/
• The basics of research methodology: A key to quality research. Voxco. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.voxco.com/blog/what-is-research-methodology/
• Sampling methods: Types with examples. QuestionPro website. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/types-of-sampling-for-social-research/
• What is qualitative research? Methods, types, approaches, examples. Researcher.Life blog. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://researcher.life/blog/article/what-is-qualitative-research-methods-types-examples/
• What is quantitative research? Definition, methods, types, and examples. Researcher.Life blog. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://researcher.life/blog/article/what-is-quantitative-research-types-and-examples/
• Data analysis in research: Types & methods. QuestionPro website. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/data-analysis-in-research/#Data_analysis_in_qualitative_research
• Factors to consider while choosing the right research methodology. PhD Monster website. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.phdmonster.com/factors-to-consider-while-choosing-the-right-research-methodology/
• What is research methodology? Research and writing guides. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://paperpile.com/g/what-is-research-methodology/
• Ethical considerations. Business research methodology website. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://research-methodology.net/research-methodology/ethical-considerations/

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Dangling Modifiers and How to Avoid Them in Your Writing 
• Webinar: How to Use Generative AI Tools Ethically in Your Academic Writing
• Research Outlines: How to Write An Introduction Section in Minutes with Paperpal Copilot
• How to Paraphrase Research Papers Effectively

Language and Grammar Rules for Academic Writing

Climatic vs. climactic: difference and examples, you may also like, how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements, how to structure an essay.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper

How to Write a Research Paper | A Beginner's Guide

A research paper is a piece of academic writing that provides analysis, interpretation, and argument based on in-depth independent research.

Research papers are similar to academic essays , but they are usually longer and more detailed assignments, designed to assess not only your writing skills but also your skills in scholarly research. Writing a research paper requires you to demonstrate a strong knowledge of your topic, engage with a variety of sources, and make an original contribution to the debate.

This step-by-step guide takes you through the entire writing process, from understanding your assignment to proofreading your final draft.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Understand the assignment, choose a research paper topic, conduct preliminary research, develop a thesis statement, create a research paper outline, write a first draft of the research paper, write the introduction, write a compelling body of text, write the conclusion, the second draft, the revision process, research paper checklist, free lecture slides.

Completing a research paper successfully means accomplishing the specific tasks set out for you. Before you start, make sure you thoroughly understanding the assignment task sheet:

• Read it carefully, looking for anything confusing you might need to clarify with your professor.
• Identify the assignment goal, deadline, length specifications, formatting, and submission method.
• Make a bulleted list of the key points, then go back and cross completed items off as you’re writing.

Carefully consider your timeframe and word limit: be realistic, and plan enough time to research, write, and edit.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

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

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

There are many ways to generate an idea for a research paper, from brainstorming with pen and paper to talking it through with a fellow student or professor.

You can try free writing, which involves taking a broad topic and writing continuously for two or three minutes to identify absolutely anything relevant that could be interesting.

You can also gain inspiration from other research. The discussion or recommendations sections of research papers often include ideas for other specific topics that require further examination.

Once you have a broad subject area, narrow it down to choose a topic that interests you, m eets the criteria of your assignment, and i s possible to research. Aim for ideas that are both original and specific:

• A paper following the chronology of World War II would not be original or specific enough.
• A paper on the experience of Danish citizens living close to the German border during World War II would be specific and could be original enough.

Note any discussions that seem important to the topic, and try to find an issue that you can focus your paper around. Use a variety of sources , including journals, books, and reliable websites, to ensure you do not miss anything glaring.

Do not only verify the ideas you have in mind, but look for sources that contradict your point of view.

• Is there anything people seem to overlook in the sources you research?
• Are there any heated debates you can address?
• Do you have a unique take on your topic?
• Have there been some recent developments that build on the extant research?

In this stage, you might find it helpful to formulate some research questions to help guide you. To write research questions, try to finish the following sentence: “I want to know how/what/why…”

A thesis statement is a statement of your central argument — it establishes the purpose and position of your paper. If you started with a research question, the thesis statement should answer it. It should also show what evidence and reasoning you’ll use to support that answer.

The thesis statement should be concise, contentious, and coherent. That means it should briefly summarize your argument in a sentence or two, make a claim that requires further evidence or analysis, and make a coherent point that relates to every part of the paper.

You will probably revise and refine the thesis statement as you do more research, but it can serve as a guide throughout the writing process. Every paragraph should aim to support and develop this central claim.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

A research paper outline is essentially a list of the key topics, arguments, and evidence you want to include, divided into sections with headings so that you know roughly what the paper will look like before you start writing.

A structure outline can help make the writing process much more efficient, so it’s worth dedicating some time to create one.

Your first draft won’t be perfect — you can polish later on. Your priorities at this stage are as follows:

• Maintaining forward momentum — write now, perfect later.
• Paying attention to clear organization and logical ordering of paragraphs and sentences, which will help when you come to the second draft.
• Expressing your ideas as clearly as possible, so you know what you were trying to say when you come back to the text.

You do not need to start by writing the introduction. Begin where it feels most natural for you — some prefer to finish the most difficult sections first, while others choose to start with the easiest part. If you created an outline, use it as a map while you work.

Do not delete large sections of text. If you begin to dislike something you have written or find it doesn’t quite fit, move it to a different document, but don’t lose it completely — you never know if it might come in useful later.

Paragraph structure

Paragraphs are the basic building blocks of research papers. Each one should focus on a single claim or idea that helps to establish the overall argument or purpose of the paper.

Example paragraph

George Orwell’s 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” has had an enduring impact on thought about the relationship between politics and language. This impact is particularly obvious in light of the various critical review articles that have recently referenced the essay. For example, consider Mark Falcoff’s 2009 article in The National Review Online, “The Perversion of Language; or, Orwell Revisited,” in which he analyzes several common words (“activist,” “civil-rights leader,” “diversity,” and more). Falcoff’s close analysis of the ambiguity built into political language intentionally mirrors Orwell’s own point-by-point analysis of the political language of his day. Even 63 years after its publication, Orwell’s essay is emulated by contemporary thinkers.

Citing sources

It’s also important to keep track of citations at this stage to avoid accidental plagiarism . Each time you use a source, make sure to take note of where the information came from.

You can use our free citation generators to automatically create citations and save your reference list as you go.

APA Citation Generator MLA Citation Generator

The research paper introduction should address three questions: What, why, and how? After finishing the introduction, the reader should know what the paper is about, why it is worth reading, and how you’ll build your arguments.

What? Be specific about the topic of the paper, introduce the background, and define key terms or concepts.

Why? This is the most important, but also the most difficult, part of the introduction. Try to provide brief answers to the following questions: What new material or insight are you offering? What important issues does your essay help define or answer?

How? To let the reader know what to expect from the rest of the paper, the introduction should include a “map” of what will be discussed, briefly presenting the key elements of the paper in chronological order.

The major struggle faced by most writers is how to organize the information presented in the paper, which is one reason an outline is so useful. However, remember that the outline is only a guide and, when writing, you can be flexible with the order in which the information and arguments are presented.

One way to stay on track is to use your thesis statement and topic sentences . Check:

• topic sentences against the thesis statement;
• topic sentences against each other, for similarities and logical ordering;
• and each sentence against the topic sentence of that paragraph.

Be aware of paragraphs that seem to cover the same things. If two paragraphs discuss something similar, they must approach that topic in different ways. Aim to create smooth transitions between sentences, paragraphs, and sections.

The research paper conclusion is designed to help your reader out of the paper’s argument, giving them a sense of finality.

Trace the course of the paper, emphasizing how it all comes together to prove your thesis statement. Give the paper a sense of finality by making sure the reader understands how you’ve settled the issues raised in the introduction.

You might also discuss the more general consequences of the argument, outline what the paper offers to future students of the topic, and suggest any questions the paper’s argument raises but cannot or does not try to answer.

You should not :

• Offer new arguments or essential information
• Take up any more space than necessary
• Begin with stock phrases that signal you are ending the paper (e.g. “In conclusion”)

There are four main considerations when it comes to the second draft.

• Check how your vision of the paper lines up with the first draft and, more importantly, that your paper still answers the assignment.
• Identify any assumptions that might require (more substantial) justification, keeping your reader’s perspective foremost in mind. Remove these points if you cannot substantiate them further.
• Be open to rearranging your ideas. Check whether any sections feel out of place and whether your ideas could be better organized.
• If you find that old ideas do not fit as well as you anticipated, you should cut them out or condense them. You might also find that new and well-suited ideas occurred to you during the writing of the first draft — now is the time to make them part of the paper.

The goal during the revision and proofreading process is to ensure you have completed all the necessary tasks and that the paper is as well-articulated as possible. You can speed up the proofreading process by using the AI proofreader .

Global concerns

• Confirm that your paper completes every task specified in your assignment sheet.
• Check for logical organization and flow of paragraphs.
• Check paragraphs against the introduction and thesis statement.

Fine-grained details

Check the content of each paragraph, making sure that:

• each sentence helps support the topic sentence.
• no unnecessary or irrelevant information is present.
• all technical terms your audience might not know are identified.

Next, think about sentence structure , grammatical errors, and formatting . Check that you have correctly used transition words and phrases to show the connections between your ideas. Look for typos, cut unnecessary words, and check for consistency in aspects such as heading formatting and spellings .

Finally, you need to make sure your paper is correctly formatted according to the rules of the citation style you are using. For example, you might need to include an MLA heading  or create an APA title page .

Scribbr’s professional editors can help with the revision process with our award-winning proofreading services.

Discover our paper editing service

Checklist: Research paper

I have followed all instructions in the assignment sheet.

My introduction presents my topic in an engaging way and provides necessary background information.

My introduction presents a clear, focused research problem and/or thesis statement .

My paper is logically organized using paragraphs and (if relevant) section headings .

Each paragraph is clearly focused on one central idea, expressed in a clear topic sentence .

Each paragraph is relevant to my research problem or thesis statement.

I have used appropriate transitions  to clarify the connections between sections, paragraphs, and sentences.

My conclusion provides a concise answer to the research question or emphasizes how the thesis has been supported.

My conclusion shows how my research has contributed to knowledge or understanding of my topic.

My conclusion does not present any new points or information essential to my argument.

I have provided an in-text citation every time I refer to ideas or information from a source.

I have included a reference list at the end of my paper, consistently formatted according to a specific citation style .

I have thoroughly revised my paper and addressed any feedback from my professor or supervisor.

I have followed all formatting guidelines (page numbers, headers, spacing, etc.).

You've written a great paper. Make sure it's perfect with the help of a Scribbr editor!

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked.

• Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide
• Writing a Research Paper Conclusion | Step-by-Step Guide
• Research Paper Format | APA, MLA, & Chicago Templates

More interesting articles

• Academic Paragraph Structure | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples
• Checklist: Writing a Great Research Paper
• How to Create a Structured Research Paper Outline | Example
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples
• How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips
• How to Write Topic Sentences | 4 Steps, Examples & Purpose
• Research Paper Appendix | Example & Templates
• Research Paper Damage Control | Managing a Broken Argument
• What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing

"I thought AI Proofreading was useless but.."

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

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
• BMC Med Res Methodol

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

Lawrence mbuagbaw.

1 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada

2 Biostatistics Unit/FSORC, 50 Charlton Avenue East, St Joseph’s Healthcare—Hamilton, 3rd Floor Martha Wing, Room H321, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 4A6 Canada

3 Centre for the Development of Best Practices in Health, Yaoundé, Cameroon

Daeria O. Lawson

Livia puljak.

4 Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

David B. Allison

5 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health – Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA

Lehana Thabane

6 Departments of Paediatrics and Anaesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada

7 Centre for Evaluation of Medicine, St. Joseph’s Healthcare-Hamilton, Hamilton, ON Canada

8 Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON Canada

Associated Data

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Methodological studies – studies that evaluate the design, analysis or reporting of other research-related reports – play an important role in health research. They help to highlight issues in the conduct of research with the aim of improving health research methodology, and ultimately reducing research waste.

We provide an overview of some of the key aspects of methodological studies such as what they are, and when, how and why they are done. We adopt a “frequently asked questions” format to facilitate reading this paper and provide multiple examples to help guide researchers interested in conducting methodological studies. Some of the topics addressed include: is it necessary to publish a study protocol? How to select relevant research reports and databases for a methodological study? What approaches to data extraction and statistical analysis should be considered when conducting a methodological study? What are potential threats to validity and is there a way to appraise the quality of methodological studies?

Appropriate reflection and application of basic principles of epidemiology and biostatistics are required in the design and analysis of methodological studies. This paper provides an introduction for further discussion about the conduct of methodological studies.

The field of meta-research (or research-on-research) has proliferated in recent years in response to issues with research quality and conduct [ 1 – 3 ]. As the name suggests, this field targets issues with research design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Various types of research reports are often examined as the unit of analysis in these studies (e.g. abstracts, full manuscripts, trial registry entries). Like many other novel fields of research, meta-research has seen a proliferation of use before the development of reporting guidance. For example, this was the case with randomized trials for which risk of bias tools and reporting guidelines were only developed much later – after many trials had been published and noted to have limitations [ 4 , 5 ]; and for systematic reviews as well [ 6 – 8 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, studies that report on research differ substantially in how they are named, conducted and reported [ 9 , 10 ]. This creates challenges in identifying, summarizing and comparing them. In this tutorial paper, we will use the term methodological study to refer to any study that reports on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary or secondary research-related reports (such as trial registry entries and conference abstracts).

In the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the use of terms related to methodological studies (based on records retrieved with a keyword search [in the title and abstract] for “methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study” in PubMed up to December 2019), suggesting that these studies may be appearing more frequently in the literature. See Fig.  1 .

Trends in the number studies that mention “methodological review” or “meta-

epidemiological study” in PubMed.

The methods used in many methodological studies have been borrowed from systematic and scoping reviews. This practice has influenced the direction of the field, with many methodological studies including searches of electronic databases, screening of records, duplicate data extraction and assessments of risk of bias in the included studies. However, the research questions posed in methodological studies do not always require the approaches listed above, and guidance is needed on when and how to apply these methods to a methodological study. Even though methodological studies can be conducted on qualitative or mixed methods research, this paper focuses on and draws examples exclusively from quantitative research.

The objectives of this paper are to provide some insights on how to conduct methodological studies so that there is greater consistency between the research questions posed, and the design, analysis and reporting of findings. We provide multiple examples to illustrate concepts and a proposed framework for categorizing methodological studies in quantitative research.

What is a methodological study?

Any study that describes or analyzes methods (design, conduct, analysis or reporting) in published (or unpublished) literature is a methodological study. Consequently, the scope of methodological studies is quite extensive and includes, but is not limited to, topics as diverse as: research question formulation [ 11 ]; adherence to reporting guidelines [ 12 – 14 ] and consistency in reporting [ 15 ]; approaches to study analysis [ 16 ]; investigating the credibility of analyses [ 17 ]; and studies that synthesize these methodological studies [ 18 ]. While the nomenclature of methodological studies is not uniform, the intents and purposes of these studies remain fairly consistent – to describe or analyze methods in primary or secondary studies. As such, methodological studies may also be classified as a subtype of observational studies.

Parallel to this are experimental studies that compare different methods. Even though they play an important role in informing optimal research methods, experimental methodological studies are beyond the scope of this paper. Examples of such studies include the randomized trials by Buscemi et al., comparing single data extraction to double data extraction [ 19 ], and Carrasco-Labra et al., comparing approaches to presenting findings in Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) summary of findings tables [ 20 ]. In these studies, the unit of analysis is the person or groups of individuals applying the methods. We also direct readers to the Studies Within a Trial (SWAT) and Studies Within a Review (SWAR) programme operated through the Hub for Trials Methodology Research, for further reading as a potential useful resource for these types of experimental studies [ 21 ]. Lastly, this paper is not meant to inform the conduct of research using computational simulation and mathematical modeling for which some guidance already exists [ 22 ], or studies on the development of methods using consensus-based approaches.

When should we conduct a methodological study?

Methodological studies occupy a unique niche in health research that allows them to inform methodological advances. Methodological studies should also be conducted as pre-cursors to reporting guideline development, as they provide an opportunity to understand current practices, and help to identify the need for guidance and gaps in methodological or reporting quality. For example, the development of the popular Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were preceded by methodological studies identifying poor reporting practices [ 23 , 24 ]. In these instances, after the reporting guidelines are published, methodological studies can also be used to monitor uptake of the guidelines.

These studies can also be conducted to inform the state of the art for design, analysis and reporting practices across different types of health research fields, with the aim of improving research practices, and preventing or reducing research waste. For example, Samaan et al. conducted a scoping review of adherence to different reporting guidelines in health care literature [ 18 ]. Methodological studies can also be used to determine the factors associated with reporting practices. For example, Abbade et al. investigated journal characteristics associated with the use of the Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (PICOT) format in framing research questions in trials of venous ulcer disease [ 11 ].

How often are methodological studies conducted?

There is no clear answer to this question. Based on a search of PubMed, the use of related terms (“methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study”) – and therefore, the number of methodological studies – is on the rise. However, many other terms are used to describe methodological studies. There are also many studies that explore design, conduct, analysis or reporting of research reports, but that do not use any specific terms to describe or label their study design in terms of “methodology”. This diversity in nomenclature makes a census of methodological studies elusive. Appropriate terminology and key words for methodological studies are needed to facilitate improved accessibility for end-users.

Why do we conduct methodological studies?

Methodological studies provide information on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary and secondary research and can be used to appraise quality, quantity, completeness, accuracy and consistency of health research. These issues can be explored in specific fields, journals, databases, geographical regions and time periods. For example, Areia et al. explored the quality of reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastroenterology [ 25 ]; Knol et al. investigated the reporting of p -values in baseline tables in randomized trial published in high impact journals [ 26 ]; Chen et al. describe adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement in Chinese Journals [ 27 ]; and Hopewell et al. describe the effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on reporting of abstracts over time [ 28 ]. Methodological studies provide useful information to researchers, clinicians, editors, publishers and users of health literature. As a result, these studies have been at the cornerstone of important methodological developments in the past two decades and have informed the development of many health research guidelines including the highly cited CONSORT statement [ 5 ].

Where can we find methodological studies?

Methodological studies can be found in most common biomedical bibliographic databases (e.g. Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science). However, the biggest caveat is that methodological studies are hard to identify in the literature due to the wide variety of names used and the lack of comprehensive databases dedicated to them. A handful can be found in the Cochrane Library as “Cochrane Methodology Reviews”, but these studies only cover methodological issues related to systematic reviews. Previous attempts to catalogue all empirical studies of methods used in reviews were abandoned 10 years ago [ 29 ]. In other databases, a variety of search terms may be applied with different levels of sensitivity and specificity.

Some frequently asked questions about methodological studies

In this section, we have outlined responses to questions that might help inform the conduct of methodological studies.

Q: How should I select research reports for my methodological study?

A: Selection of research reports for a methodological study depends on the research question and eligibility criteria. Once a clear research question is set and the nature of literature one desires to review is known, one can then begin the selection process. Selection may begin with a broad search, especially if the eligibility criteria are not apparent. For example, a methodological study of Cochrane Reviews of HIV would not require a complex search as all eligible studies can easily be retrieved from the Cochrane Library after checking a few boxes [ 30 ]. On the other hand, a methodological study of subgroup analyses in trials of gastrointestinal oncology would require a search to find such trials, and further screening to identify trials that conducted a subgroup analysis [ 31 ].

The strategies used for identifying participants in observational studies can apply here. One may use a systematic search to identify all eligible studies. If the number of eligible studies is unmanageable, a random sample of articles can be expected to provide comparable results if it is sufficiently large [ 32 ]. For example, Wilson et al. used a random sample of trials from the Cochrane Stroke Group’s Trial Register to investigate completeness of reporting [ 33 ]. It is possible that a simple random sample would lead to underrepresentation of units (i.e. research reports) that are smaller in number. This is relevant if the investigators wish to compare multiple groups but have too few units in one group. In this case a stratified sample would help to create equal groups. For example, in a methodological study comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, Kahale et al. drew random samples from both groups [ 34 ]. Alternatively, systematic or purposeful sampling strategies can be used and we encourage researchers to justify their selected approaches based on the study objective.

Q: How many databases should I search?

A: The number of databases one should search would depend on the approach to sampling, which can include targeting the entire “population” of interest or a sample of that population. If you are interested in including the entire target population for your research question, or drawing a random or systematic sample from it, then a comprehensive and exhaustive search for relevant articles is required. In this case, we recommend using systematic approaches for searching electronic databases (i.e. at least 2 databases with a replicable and time stamped search strategy). The results of your search will constitute a sampling frame from which eligible studies can be drawn.

Alternatively, if your approach to sampling is purposeful, then we recommend targeting the database(s) or data sources (e.g. journals, registries) that include the information you need. For example, if you are conducting a methodological study of high impact journals in plastic surgery and they are all indexed in PubMed, you likely do not need to search any other databases. You may also have a comprehensive list of all journals of interest and can approach your search using the journal names in your database search (or by accessing the journal archives directly from the journal’s website). Even though one could also search journals’ web pages directly, using a database such as PubMed has multiple advantages, such as the use of filters, so the search can be narrowed down to a certain period, or study types of interest. Furthermore, individual journals’ web sites may have different search functionalities, which do not necessarily yield a consistent output.

Q: Should I publish a protocol for my methodological study?

A: A protocol is a description of intended research methods. Currently, only protocols for clinical trials require registration [ 35 ]. Protocols for systematic reviews are encouraged but no formal recommendation exists. The scientific community welcomes the publication of protocols because they help protect against selective outcome reporting, the use of post hoc methodologies to embellish results, and to help avoid duplication of efforts [ 36 ]. While the latter two risks exist in methodological research, the negative consequences may be substantially less than for clinical outcomes. In a sample of 31 methodological studies, 7 (22.6%) referenced a published protocol [ 9 ]. In the Cochrane Library, there are 15 protocols for methodological reviews (21 July 2020). This suggests that publishing protocols for methodological studies is not uncommon.

Authors can consider publishing their study protocol in a scholarly journal as a manuscript. Advantages of such publication include obtaining peer-review feedback about the planned study, and easy retrieval by searching databases such as PubMed. The disadvantages in trying to publish protocols includes delays associated with manuscript handling and peer review, as well as costs, as few journals publish study protocols, and those journals mostly charge article-processing fees [ 37 ]. Authors who would like to make their protocol publicly available without publishing it in scholarly journals, could deposit their study protocols in publicly available repositories, such as the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ ).

Q: How to appraise the quality of a methodological study?

A: To date, there is no published tool for appraising the risk of bias in a methodological study, but in principle, a methodological study could be considered as a type of observational study. Therefore, during conduct or appraisal, care should be taken to avoid the biases common in observational studies [ 38 ]. These biases include selection bias, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of exposure or outcome. In other words, to generate a representative sample, a comprehensive reproducible search may be necessary to build a sampling frame. Additionally, random sampling may be necessary to ensure that all the included research reports have the same probability of being selected, and the screening and selection processes should be transparent and reproducible. To ensure that the groups compared are similar in all characteristics, matching, random sampling or stratified sampling can be used. Statistical adjustments for between-group differences can also be applied at the analysis stage. Finally, duplicate data extraction can reduce errors in assessment of exposures or outcomes.

Q: Should I justify a sample size?

A: In all instances where one is not using the target population (i.e. the group to which inferences from the research report are directed) [ 39 ], a sample size justification is good practice. The sample size justification may take the form of a description of what is expected to be achieved with the number of articles selected, or a formal sample size estimation that outlines the number of articles required to answer the research question with a certain precision and power. Sample size justifications in methodological studies are reasonable in the following instances:

• Comparing two groups
• Determining a proportion, mean or another quantifier
• Determining factors associated with an outcome using regression-based analyses

For example, El Dib et al. computed a sample size requirement for a methodological study of diagnostic strategies in randomized trials, based on a confidence interval approach [ 40 ].

Q: What should I call my study?

A: Other terms which have been used to describe/label methodological studies include “ methodological review ”, “methodological survey” , “meta-epidemiological study” , “systematic review” , “systematic survey”, “meta-research”, “research-on-research” and many others. We recommend that the study nomenclature be clear, unambiguous, informative and allow for appropriate indexing. Methodological study nomenclature that should be avoided includes “ systematic review” – as this will likely be confused with a systematic review of a clinical question. “ Systematic survey” may also lead to confusion about whether the survey was systematic (i.e. using a preplanned methodology) or a survey using “ systematic” sampling (i.e. a sampling approach using specific intervals to determine who is selected) [ 32 ]. Any of the above meanings of the words “ systematic” may be true for methodological studies and could be potentially misleading. “ Meta-epidemiological study” is ideal for indexing, but not very informative as it describes an entire field. The term “ review ” may point towards an appraisal or “review” of the design, conduct, analysis or reporting (or methodological components) of the targeted research reports, yet it has also been used to describe narrative reviews [ 41 , 42 ]. The term “ survey ” is also in line with the approaches used in many methodological studies [ 9 ], and would be indicative of the sampling procedures of this study design. However, in the absence of guidelines on nomenclature, the term “ methodological study ” is broad enough to capture most of the scenarios of such studies.

Q: Should I account for clustering in my methodological study?

A: Data from methodological studies are often clustered. For example, articles coming from a specific source may have different reporting standards (e.g. the Cochrane Library). Articles within the same journal may be similar due to editorial practices and policies, reporting requirements and endorsement of guidelines. There is emerging evidence that these are real concerns that should be accounted for in analyses [ 43 ]. Some cluster variables are described in the section: “ What variables are relevant to methodological studies?”

A variety of modelling approaches can be used to account for correlated data, including the use of marginal, fixed or mixed effects regression models with appropriate computation of standard errors [ 44 ]. For example, Kosa et al. used generalized estimation equations to account for correlation of articles within journals [ 15 ]. Not accounting for clustering could lead to incorrect p -values, unduly narrow confidence intervals, and biased estimates [ 45 ].

Q: Should I extract data in duplicate?

A: Yes. Duplicate data extraction takes more time but results in less errors [ 19 ]. Data extraction errors in turn affect the effect estimate [ 46 ], and therefore should be mitigated. Duplicate data extraction should be considered in the absence of other approaches to minimize extraction errors. However, much like systematic reviews, this area will likely see rapid new advances with machine learning and natural language processing technologies to support researchers with screening and data extraction [ 47 , 48 ]. However, experience plays an important role in the quality of extracted data and inexperienced extractors should be paired with experienced extractors [ 46 , 49 ].

Q: Should I assess the risk of bias of research reports included in my methodological study?

A : Risk of bias is most useful in determining the certainty that can be placed in the effect measure from a study. In methodological studies, risk of bias may not serve the purpose of determining the trustworthiness of results, as effect measures are often not the primary goal of methodological studies. Determining risk of bias in methodological studies is likely a practice borrowed from systematic review methodology, but whose intrinsic value is not obvious in methodological studies. When it is part of the research question, investigators often focus on one aspect of risk of bias. For example, Speich investigated how blinding was reported in surgical trials [ 50 ], and Abraha et al., investigated the application of intention-to-treat analyses in systematic reviews and trials [ 51 ].

Q: What variables are relevant to methodological studies?

A: There is empirical evidence that certain variables may inform the findings in a methodological study. We outline some of these and provide a brief overview below:

• Country: Countries and regions differ in their research cultures, and the resources available to conduct research. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there may be differences in methodological features across countries. Methodological studies have reported loco-regional differences in reporting quality [ 52 , 53 ]. This may also be related to challenges non-English speakers face in publishing papers in English.
• Authors’ expertise: The inclusion of authors with expertise in research methodology, biostatistics, and scientific writing is likely to influence the end-product. Oltean et al. found that among randomized trials in orthopaedic surgery, the use of analyses that accounted for clustering was more likely when specialists (e.g. statistician, epidemiologist or clinical trials methodologist) were included on the study team [ 54 ]. Fleming et al. found that including methodologists in the review team was associated with appropriate use of reporting guidelines [ 55 ].
• Source of funding and conflicts of interest: Some studies have found that funded studies report better [ 56 , 57 ], while others do not [ 53 , 58 ]. The presence of funding would indicate the availability of resources deployed to ensure optimal design, conduct, analysis and reporting. However, the source of funding may introduce conflicts of interest and warrant assessment. For example, Kaiser et al. investigated the effect of industry funding on obesity or nutrition randomized trials and found that reporting quality was similar [ 59 ]. Thomas et al. looked at reporting quality of long-term weight loss trials and found that industry funded studies were better [ 60 ]. Kan et al. examined the association between industry funding and “positive trials” (trials reporting a significant intervention effect) and found that industry funding was highly predictive of a positive trial [ 61 ]. This finding is similar to that of a recent Cochrane Methodology Review by Hansen et al. [ 62 ]
• Journal characteristics: Certain journals’ characteristics may influence the study design, analysis or reporting. Characteristics such as journal endorsement of guidelines [ 63 , 64 ], and Journal Impact Factor (JIF) have been shown to be associated with reporting [ 63 , 65 – 67 ].
• Study size (sample size/number of sites): Some studies have shown that reporting is better in larger studies [ 53 , 56 , 58 ].
• Year of publication: It is reasonable to assume that design, conduct, analysis and reporting of research will change over time. Many studies have demonstrated improvements in reporting over time or after the publication of reporting guidelines [ 68 , 69 ].
• Type of intervention: In a methodological study of reporting quality of weight loss intervention studies, Thabane et al. found that trials of pharmacologic interventions were reported better than trials of non-pharmacologic interventions [ 70 ].
• Interactions between variables: Complex interactions between the previously listed variables are possible. High income countries with more resources may be more likely to conduct larger studies and incorporate a variety of experts. Authors in certain countries may prefer certain journals, and journal endorsement of guidelines and editorial policies may change over time.

Q: Should I focus only on high impact journals?

A: Investigators may choose to investigate only high impact journals because they are more likely to influence practice and policy, or because they assume that methodological standards would be higher. However, the JIF may severely limit the scope of articles included and may skew the sample towards articles with positive findings. The generalizability and applicability of findings from a handful of journals must be examined carefully, especially since the JIF varies over time. Even among journals that are all “high impact”, variations exist in methodological standards.

Q: Can I conduct a methodological study of qualitative research?

A: Yes. Even though a lot of methodological research has been conducted in the quantitative research field, methodological studies of qualitative studies are feasible. Certain databases that catalogue qualitative research including the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) have defined subject headings that are specific to methodological research (e.g. “research methodology”). Alternatively, one could also conduct a qualitative methodological review; that is, use qualitative approaches to synthesize methodological issues in qualitative studies.

Q: What reporting guidelines should I use for my methodological study?

A: There is no guideline that covers the entire scope of methodological studies. One adaptation of the PRISMA guidelines has been published, which works well for studies that aim to use the entire target population of research reports [ 71 ]. However, it is not widely used (40 citations in 2 years as of 09 December 2019), and methodological studies that are designed as cross-sectional or before-after studies require a more fit-for purpose guideline. A more encompassing reporting guideline for a broad range of methodological studies is currently under development [ 72 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, the requirements for scientific reporting should be respected, and authors of methodological studies should focus on transparency and reproducibility.

Q: What are the potential threats to validity and how can I avoid them?

A: Methodological studies may be compromised by a lack of internal or external validity. The main threats to internal validity in methodological studies are selection and confounding bias. Investigators must ensure that the methods used to select articles does not make them differ systematically from the set of articles to which they would like to make inferences. For example, attempting to make extrapolations to all journals after analyzing high-impact journals would be misleading.

Many factors (confounders) may distort the association between the exposure and outcome if the included research reports differ with respect to these factors [ 73 ]. For example, when examining the association between source of funding and completeness of reporting, it may be necessary to account for journals that endorse the guidelines. Confounding bias can be addressed by restriction, matching and statistical adjustment [ 73 ]. Restriction appears to be the method of choice for many investigators who choose to include only high impact journals or articles in a specific field. For example, Knol et al. examined the reporting of p -values in baseline tables of high impact journals [ 26 ]. Matching is also sometimes used. In the methodological study of non-randomized interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair, Parker et al. matched prospective studies with retrospective studies and compared reporting standards [ 74 ]. Some other methodological studies use statistical adjustments. For example, Zhang et al. used regression techniques to determine the factors associated with missing participant data in trials [ 16 ].

With regard to external validity, researchers interested in conducting methodological studies must consider how generalizable or applicable their findings are. This should tie in closely with the research question and should be explicit. For example. Findings from methodological studies on trials published in high impact cardiology journals cannot be assumed to be applicable to trials in other fields. However, investigators must ensure that their sample truly represents the target sample either by a) conducting a comprehensive and exhaustive search, or b) using an appropriate and justified, randomly selected sample of research reports.

Even applicability to high impact journals may vary based on the investigators’ definition, and over time. For example, for high impact journals in the field of general medicine, Bouwmeester et al. included the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and PLoS Medicine ( n  = 6) [ 75 ]. In contrast, the high impact journals selected in the methodological study by Schiller et al. were BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM ( n  = 4) [ 76 ]. Another methodological study by Kosa et al. included AIM, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and NEJM ( n  = 5). In the methodological study by Thabut et al., journals with a JIF greater than 5 were considered to be high impact. Riado Minguez et al. used first quartile journals in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for a specific year to determine “high impact” [ 77 ]. Ultimately, the definition of high impact will be based on the number of journals the investigators are willing to include, the year of impact and the JIF cut-off [ 78 ]. We acknowledge that the term “generalizability” may apply differently for methodological studies, especially when in many instances it is possible to include the entire target population in the sample studied.

Finally, methodological studies are not exempt from information bias which may stem from discrepancies in the included research reports [ 79 ], errors in data extraction, or inappropriate interpretation of the information extracted. Likewise, publication bias may also be a concern in methodological studies, but such concepts have not yet been explored.

A proposed framework

In order to inform discussions about methodological studies, the development of guidance for what should be reported, we have outlined some key features of methodological studies that can be used to classify them. For each of the categories outlined below, we provide an example. In our experience, the choice of approach to completing a methodological study can be informed by asking the following four questions:

• What is the aim?

A methodological study may be focused on exploring sources of bias in primary or secondary studies (meta-bias), or how bias is analyzed. We have taken care to distinguish bias (i.e. systematic deviations from the truth irrespective of the source) from reporting quality or completeness (i.e. not adhering to a specific reporting guideline or norm). An example of where this distinction would be important is in the case of a randomized trial with no blinding. This study (depending on the nature of the intervention) would be at risk of performance bias. However, if the authors report that their study was not blinded, they would have reported adequately. In fact, some methodological studies attempt to capture both “quality of conduct” and “quality of reporting”, such as Richie et al., who reported on the risk of bias in randomized trials of pharmacy practice interventions [ 80 ]. Babic et al. investigated how risk of bias was used to inform sensitivity analyses in Cochrane reviews [ 81 ]. Further, biases related to choice of outcomes can also be explored. For example, Tan et al investigated differences in treatment effect size based on the outcome reported [ 82 ].

Methodological studies may report quality of reporting against a reporting checklist (i.e. adherence to guidelines) or against expected norms. For example, Croituro et al. report on the quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals based on their adherence to the PRISMA statement [ 83 ], and Khan et al. described the quality of reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials published in high impact cardiovascular journals based on the CONSORT extension for harms [ 84 ]. Other methodological studies investigate reporting of certain features of interest that may not be part of formally published checklists or guidelines. For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described how often the implications for research are elaborated using the Evidence, Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (EPICOT) format [ 30 ].

Sometimes investigators may be interested in how consistent reports of the same research are, as it is expected that there should be consistency between: conference abstracts and published manuscripts; manuscript abstracts and manuscript main text; and trial registration and published manuscript. For example, Rosmarakis et al. investigated consistency between conference abstracts and full text manuscripts [ 85 ].

In addition to identifying issues with reporting in primary and secondary studies, authors of methodological studies may be interested in determining the factors that are associated with certain reporting practices. Many methodological studies incorporate this, albeit as a secondary outcome. For example, Farrokhyar et al. investigated the factors associated with reporting quality in randomized trials of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery [ 53 ].

Methodological studies may also be used to describe methods or compare methods, and the factors associated with methods. Muller et al. described the methods used for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies [ 86 ].

Some methodological studies synthesize results from other methodological studies. For example, Li et al. conducted a scoping review of methodological reviews that investigated consistency between full text and abstracts in primary biomedical research [ 87 ].

Some methodological studies may investigate the use of names and terms in health research. For example, Martinic et al. investigated the definitions of systematic reviews used in overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs), meta-epidemiological studies and epidemiology textbooks [ 88 ].

In addition to the previously mentioned experimental methodological studies, there may exist other types of methodological studies not captured here.

• 2. What is the design?

Most methodological studies are purely descriptive and report their findings as counts (percent) and means (standard deviation) or medians (interquartile range). For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described the reporting of research recommendations in Cochrane HIV systematic reviews [ 30 ]. Gohari et al. described the quality of reporting of randomized trials in diabetes in Iran [ 12 ].

Some methodological studies are analytical wherein “analytical studies identify and quantify associations, test hypotheses, identify causes and determine whether an association exists between variables, such as between an exposure and a disease.” [ 89 ] In the case of methodological studies all these investigations are possible. For example, Kosa et al. investigated the association between agreement in primary outcome from trial registry to published manuscript and study covariates. They found that larger and more recent studies were more likely to have agreement [ 15 ]. Tricco et al. compared the conclusion statements from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews with a meta-analysis of the primary outcome and found that non-Cochrane reviews were more likely to report positive findings. These results are a test of the null hypothesis that the proportions of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews that report positive results are equal [ 90 ].

• 3. What is the sampling strategy?

Methodological reviews with narrow research questions may be able to include the entire target population. For example, in the methodological study of Cochrane HIV systematic reviews, Mbuagbaw et al. included all of the available studies ( n  = 103) [ 30 ].

Many methodological studies use random samples of the target population [ 33 , 91 , 92 ]. Alternatively, purposeful sampling may be used, limiting the sample to a subset of research-related reports published within a certain time period, or in journals with a certain ranking or on a topic. Systematic sampling can also be used when random sampling may be challenging to implement.

• 4. What is the unit of analysis?

Many methodological studies use a research report (e.g. full manuscript of study, abstract portion of the study) as the unit of analysis, and inferences can be made at the study-level. However, both published and unpublished research-related reports can be studied. These may include articles, conference abstracts, registry entries etc.

Some methodological studies report on items which may occur more than once per article. For example, Paquette et al. report on subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews of atrial fibrillation in which 17 systematic reviews planned 56 subgroup analyses [ 93 ].

This framework is outlined in Fig.  2 .

A proposed framework for methodological studies

Conclusions

Methodological studies have examined different aspects of reporting such as quality, completeness, consistency and adherence to reporting guidelines. As such, many of the methodological study examples cited in this tutorial are related to reporting. However, as an evolving field, the scope of research questions that can be addressed by methodological studies is expected to increase.

In this paper we have outlined the scope and purpose of methodological studies, along with examples of instances in which various approaches have been used. In the absence of formal guidance on the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of methodological studies, we have provided some advice to help make methodological studies consistent. This advice is grounded in good contemporary scientific practice. Generally, the research question should tie in with the sampling approach and planned analysis. We have also highlighted the variables that may inform findings from methodological studies. Lastly, we have provided suggestions for ways in which authors can categorize their methodological studies to inform their design and analysis.

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations.

Authors’ contributions

LM conceived the idea and drafted the outline and paper. DOL and LT commented on the idea and draft outline. LM, LP and DOL performed literature searches and data extraction. All authors (LM, DOL, LT, LP, DBA) reviewed several draft versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

This work did not receive any dedicated funding.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

DOL, DBA, LM, LP and LT are involved in the development of a reporting guideline for methodological studies.

Publisher’s Note

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

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

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

It should include:

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

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

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

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

Option 2: Start with your “why”

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

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

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

Quantitative methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualitative methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mixed methods

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

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

Specific methods might include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

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

2. Cite relevant sources

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

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

3. Write for your audience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 12 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Write Research Methodology

Last Updated: May 27, 2024 Approved

This article was co-authored by Alexander Ruiz, M.Ed. and by wikiHow staff writer, Jennifer Mueller, JD . Alexander Ruiz is an Educational Consultant and the Educational Director of Link Educational Institute, a tutoring business based in Claremont, California that provides customizable educational plans, subject and test prep tutoring, and college application consulting. With over a decade and a half of experience in the education industry, Alexander coaches students to increase their self-awareness and emotional intelligence while achieving skills and the goal of achieving skills and higher education. He holds a BA in Psychology from Florida International University and an MA in Education from Georgia Southern University. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. In this case, several readers have written to tell us that this article was helpful to them, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 527,378 times.

The research methodology section of any academic research paper gives you the opportunity to convince your readers that your research is useful and will contribute to your field of study. An effective research methodology is grounded in your overall approach – whether qualitative or quantitative – and adequately describes the methods you used. Justify why you chose those methods over others, then explain how those methods will provide answers to your research questions. [1] X Research source

Describing Your Methods

• In your restatement, include any underlying assumptions that you're making or conditions that you're taking for granted. These assumptions will also inform the research methods you've chosen.
• Generally, state the variables you'll test and the other conditions you're controlling or assuming are equal.

• If you want to research and document measurable social trends, or evaluate the impact of a particular policy on various variables, use a quantitative approach focused on data collection and statistical analysis.
• If you want to evaluate people's views or understanding of a particular issue, choose a more qualitative approach.
• You can also combine the two. For example, you might look primarily at a measurable social trend, but also interview people and get their opinions on how that trend is affecting their lives.

• For example, if you conducted a survey, you would describe the questions included in the survey, where and how the survey was conducted (such as in person, online, over the phone), how many surveys were distributed, and how long your respondents had to complete the survey.
• Include enough detail that your study can be replicated by others in your field, even if they may not get the same results you did. [4] X Research source

• Qualitative research methods typically require more detailed explanation than quantitative methods.
• Basic investigative procedures don't need to be explained in detail. Generally, you can assume that your readers have a general understanding of common research methods that social scientists use, such as surveys or focus groups.

• For example, suppose you conducted a survey and used a couple of other research papers to help construct the questions on your survey. You would mention those as contributing sources.

Justifying Your Choice of Methods

• Describe study participants specifically, and list any inclusion or exclusion criteria you used when forming your group of participants.
• Justify the size of your sample, if applicable, and describe how this affects whether your study can be generalized to larger populations. For example, if you conducted a survey of 30 percent of the student population of a university, you could potentially apply those results to the student body as a whole, but maybe not to students at other universities.

• Reading other research papers is a good way to identify potential problems that commonly arise with various methods. State whether you actually encountered any of these common problems during your research.

• If you encountered any problems as you collected data, explain clearly the steps you took to minimize the effect that problem would have on your results.

• In some cases, this may be as simple as stating that while there were numerous studies using one method, there weren't any using your method, which caused a gap in understanding of the issue.
• For example, there may be multiple papers providing quantitative analysis of a particular social trend. However, none of these papers looked closely at how this trend was affecting the lives of people.

Connecting Your Methods to Your Research Goals

• Depending on your research questions, you may be mixing quantitative and qualitative analysis – just as you could potentially use both approaches. For example, you might do a statistical analysis, and then interpret those statistics through a particular theoretical lens.

• For example, suppose you're researching the effect of college education on family farms in rural America. While you could do interviews of college-educated people who grew up on a family farm, that would not give you a picture of the overall effect. A quantitative approach and statistical analysis would give you a bigger picture.

• If in answering your research questions, your findings have raised other questions that may require further research, state these briefly.
• You can also include here any limitations to your methods, or questions that weren't answered through your research.

• Generalization is more typically used in quantitative research. If you have a well-designed sample, you can statistically apply your results to the larger population your sample belongs to.

Template to Write Research Methodology

Community Q&A

• Organize your methodology section chronologically, starting with how you prepared to conduct your research methods, how you gathered data, and how you analyzed that data. [13] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Write your research methodology section in past tense, unless you're submitting the methodology section before the research described has been carried out. [14] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Discuss your plans in detail with your advisor or supervisor before committing to a particular methodology. They can help identify possible flaws in your study. [15] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ http://expertjournals.com/how-to-write-a-research-methodology-for-your-academic-article/
• ↑ http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/methodology
• ↑ https://www.skillsyouneed.com/learn/dissertation-methodology.html
• ↑ https://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4245/05Chap%204_Research%20methodology%20and%20design.pdf
• ↑ https://elc.polyu.edu.hk/FYP/html/method.htm

About This Article

To write a research methodology, start with a section that outlines the problems or questions you'll be studying, including your hypotheses or whatever it is you're setting out to prove. Then, briefly explain why you chose to use either a qualitative or quantitative approach for your study. Next, go over when and where you conducted your research and what parameters you used to ensure you were objective. Finally, cite any sources you used to decide on the methodology for your research. To learn how to justify your choice of methods in your research methodology, scroll down! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prof. Dr. Ahmed Askar

Apr 18, 2020

Did this article help you?

M. Mahmood Shah Khan

Mar 17, 2020

Shimola Makondo

Jul 20, 2019

Zain Sharif Mohammed Alnadhery

Jan 7, 2019

Lundi Dukashe

Feb 17, 2020

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

Organic Chemistry Frontiers  

About Organic Chemistry Frontiers

High quality research in synthetic methodologies, catalysis, functional organic molecules, organic synthesis and more. Editor-in-chief: Shengming Ma Impact factor: 4.6 CiteScore: 7.8 Time to first decision (peer reviewed only): 23 days

Find an article

Find issues by year (2014 - present), related journals.

• Materials Chemistry Frontiers (2017-Present)
• Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers (2014-Present)

Journal information

• About this Journal
• Editorial Board
• Subscription Information
• Frontiers Journals
• Follow   |    |  

Advertisements

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Archaeology in space: The Sampling Quadrangle Assemblages Research Experiment (SQuARE) on the International Space Station. Report 1: Squares 03 and 05

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Department of Art, Chapman University, Orange, CA, United States of America, Space Engineering Research Center, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, CA, United States of America

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of History, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

Roles Software, Writing – original draft

Roles Investigation, Writing – original draft

Affiliation Archaeology Research Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America

• Justin St. P. Walsh, 
• Shawn Graham, 
• Alice C. Gorman, 
• Chantal Brousseau, 
• Salma Abdullah

• Published: August 7, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229
• Reader Comments

Between January and March 2022, crew aboard the International Space Station (ISS) performed the first archaeological fieldwork in space, the Sampling Quadrangle Assemblages Research Experiment (SQuARE). The experiment aimed to: (1) develop a new understanding of how humans adapt to life in an environmental context for which we are not evolutionarily adapted, using evidence from the observation of material culture; (2) identify disjunctions between planned and actual usage of facilities on a space station; (3) develop and test techniques that enable archaeological research at a distance; and (4) demonstrate the relevance of social science methods and perspectives for improving life in space. In this article, we describe our methodology, which involves a creative re-imagining of a long-standing sampling practice for the characterization of a site, the shovel test pit. The ISS crew marked out six sample locations (“squares”) around the ISS and documented them through daily photography over a 60-day period. Here we present the results from two of the six squares: an equipment maintenance area, and an area near exercise equipment and the latrine. Using the photographs and an innovative webtool, we identified 5,438 instances of items, labeling them by type and function. We then performed chronological analyses to determine how the documented areas were actually used. Our results show differences between intended and actual use, with storage the most common function of the maintenance area, and personal hygiene activities most common in an undesignated area near locations for exercise and waste.

Citation: Walsh JSP, Graham S, Gorman AC, Brousseau C, Abdullah S (2024) Archaeology in space: The Sampling Quadrangle Assemblages Research Experiment (SQuARE) on the International Space Station. Report 1: Squares 03 and 05. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0304229. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229

Editor: Peter F. Biehl, University of California Santa Cruz, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Received: March 9, 2024; Accepted: May 7, 2024; Published: August 7, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Walsh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: JW was the recipient of funding from Chapman University’s Office of Research and Sponsored Programs to support the activities of Axiom Space as implementation partner for the research presented in this article. There are no associated grant numbers for this financial support. Axiom Space served in the role of a contractor hired by Chapman University for the purpose of overseeing logistics relating to our research. In-kind support in the form of ISS crew time and access to the space station’s facilities, also awarded to JW from the ISS National Laboratory, resulted from an unsolicited proposal, and therefore there is no opportunity title or number associated with our work. No salary was received by any of the investigators as a result of the grant support. No additional external funding was received for this study.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The International Space Station Archaeological Project (ISSAP) aims to fill a gap in social science investigation into the human experience of long-duration spaceflight [ 1 – 3 ]. As the largest, most intensively inhabited space station to date, with over 270 visitors from 23 countries during more than 23 years of continuous habitation, the International Space Station (ISS) is the ideal example of a new kind of spacefaring community—“a microsociety in a miniworld” [ 4 ]. While it is possible to interview crew members about their experiences, the value of an approach focused on material culture is that it allows identification of longer-term patterns of behaviors and associations that interlocutors are unable or even unwilling to articulate. In this respect, we are inspired by previous examples of contemporary archaeology such as the Tucson Garbage Project and the Undocumented Migration Project [ 5 – 7 ]. We also follow previous discussions of material culture in space contexts that highlight the social and cultural features of space technology [ 8 , 9 ].

Our primary goal is to identify how humans adapt to life in a new environment for which our species has not evolved, one characterized by isolation, confinement, and especially microgravity. Microgravity introduces opportunities, such as the ability to move and work in 360 degrees, and to carry out experiments impossible in full Earth gravity, but also limitations, as unrestrained objects float away. The most routine activities carried out on Earth become the focus of intense planning and technological intervention in microgravity. By extension, our project also seeks to develop archaeological techniques that permit the study of other habitats in remote, extreme, or dangerous environments [ 10 , 11 ]. Since it is too costly and difficult to visit our archaeological site in person, we have to creatively re-imagine traditional archaeological methods to answer key questions. To date, our team has studied crew-created visual displays [ 12 , 13 ], meanings and processes associated with items returned to Earth [ 14 ], distribution of different population groups around the various modules [ 15 ], and the development of machine learning (ML) computational techniques to extract data about people and places, all from historic photographs of life on the ISS [ 16 ].

From January to March 2022, we developed a new dataset through the first archaeological work conducted off-Earth. We documented material culture in six locations around the ISS habitat, using daily photography taken by the crew which we then annotated and studied as evidence for changes in archaeological assemblages of material culture over time. This was the first time such data had been captured in a way that allowed statistical analysis. Here, we present the data and results from Squares 03 and 05, the first two sample locations to be completed.

Materials and methods

Square concept and planning.

Gorman proposed the concept behind the investigation, deriving it from one of the most traditional terrestrial archaeological techniques, the shovel test pit. This method is used to understand the overall characteristics of a site quickly through sampling. A site is mapped with a grid of one-meter squares. Some of the squares are selected for initial excavation to understand the likely spatial and chronological distribution of features across the entire site. In effect, the technique is a way to sample a known percentage of the entire site systematically. In the ISS application of this method, we documented a notional stratigraphy through daily photography, rather than excavation.

Historic photography is a key dataset for the International Space Station Archaeological Project. Tens of thousands of images have been made available to us, either through publication [ 17 ], or through an arrangement with the ISS Research Integration Office, which supplied previously unpublished images from the first eight years of the station’s habitation. These photographs are informative about the relationships between people, places, and objects over time in the ISS. However, they were taken randomly (from an archaeological perspective) and released only according to NASA’s priorities and rules. Most significantly, they were not made with the purpose of answering archaeological questions. By contrast, the photographs taken during the present investigation were systematic, representative of a defined proportion of the habitat’s area, and targeted towards capturing archaeology’s primary evidence: material culture. We were interested in how objects move around individual spaces and the station, what these movements revealed about crew adherence to terrestrial planning, and the creative use of material culture to make the laboratory-like interior of the ISS more habitable.

Access to the field site was gained through approval of a proposal submitted to the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (also known as the ISS National Laboratory [ISS NL]). Upon acceptance, Axiom Space was assigned as the Implementation Partner for carriage of the experiment according to standard procedure. No other permits were required for this work.

Experiment design

Since our work envisioned one-meter sample squares, and recognizing the use of acronyms as a persistent element of spacefaring culture, we named our payload the Sampling Quadrangle Assemblages Research Experiment (SQuARE). Permission from the ISS NL to conduct SQuARE was contingent on using equipment that was already on board the space station. SQuARE required only five items: a camera, a wide-angle lens, adhesive tape (for marking the boundaries of the sample locations), a ruler (for scale), and a color calibration card (for post-processing of the images). All of these were already present on the ISS.

Walsh performed tests on the walls of a terrestrial art gallery to assess the feasibility of creating perfect one-meter squares in microgravity. He worked on a vertical surface, using the Pythagorean theorem to determine where the corners should be located. The only additional items used for these tests were two metric measuring tapes and a pencil for marking the wall (these were also already on the ISS). While it was possible to make a square this way, it also became clear that at least two people were needed to manage holding the tape measures in position while marking the points for the corners. This was not possible in the ISS context.

Walsh and Gorman identified seven locations for the placement of squares. Five of these were in the US Orbital Segment (USOS, consisting of American, European, and Japanese modules) and two in the Russian Orbital Segment. Unfortunately, tense relations between the US and Russian governments meant we could only document areas in the USOS. The five locations were (with their SQuARE designations):

• 01—an experimental rack on the forward wall, starboard end, of the Japanese Experiment Module
• 02—an experimental rack on the forward wall, port end, of the European laboratory module Columbus
• 03—the starboard Maintenance Work Area (workstation) in the US Node 2 module
• 04—the wall area “above” (according to typical crew body orientation) the galley table in the US Node 1 module
• 05—the aft wall, center location, of the US Node 3 module

Our square selection encompassed different modules and activities, including work and leisure. We also asked the crew to select a sixth sample location based on their understanding of the experiment and what they thought would be interesting to document. They chose a workstation on the port wall of the US laboratory module, at the aft end, which they described in a debriefing following their return to Earth in June 2022 as “our central command post, like our shared office situation in the lab.” Results from the four squares not included here will appear in future publications.

Walsh worked with NASA staff to determine payload procedures, including precise locations for the placement of the tape that would mark the square boundaries. The squares could not obstruct other facilities or experiments, so (unlike in terrestrial excavations, where string is typically used to demarcate trench boundaries) only the corners of each square were marked, not the entire perimeter. We used Kapton tape due to its bright yellow-orange color, which aided visibility for the crew taking photographs and for us when cropping the images. In practice, due to space constraints, the procedures that could actually be performed by crew in the ISS context, and the need to avoid interfering with other ongoing experiments, none of the locations actually measured one square meter or had precise 90° corners like a trench on Earth.

On January 14, 2022, NASA astronaut Kayla Barron set up the sample locations, marking the beginning of archaeological work in space ( S1 Movie ). For 30 days, starting on January 21, a crew member took photos of the sample locations at approximately the same time each day; the process was repeated at a random time each day for a second 30-day period to eliminate biases. Photography ended on March 21, 2022. The crew were instructed not to move any items prior to taking the photographs. Walsh led image management, including color and barrel distortion correction, fixing the alignment of each image, and cropping them to the boundaries of the taped corners.

Data processing—Item tagging, statistics, visualizations

We refer to each day’s photo as a “context” by analogy with chronologically-linked assemblages of artifacts and installations at terrestrial archaeological sites ( S1 and S2 Datasets). As previously noted, each context represented a moment roughly 24 hours distant from the previous one, showing evidence of changes in that time. ISS mission planners attempted to schedule the activity at the same time in the first month, but there were inevitable changes due to contingencies. Remarkably, the average time between contexts in Phase 1 was an almost-perfect 24h 0m 13s. Most of the Phase 1 photos were taken between 1200 and 1300 GMT (the time zone in which life on the ISS is organized). In Phase 2, the times were much more variable, but the average time between contexts during this period was still 23h 31m 45s. The earliest Phase 2 photo was taken at 0815 GMT, and the latest at 2101. We did not identify any meaningful differences between results from the two phases.

Since the “test pits” were formed of images rather than soil matrices, we needed a tool to capture information about the identity, nature, and location of every object. An open-source image annotator platform [ 18 ] mostly suited our needs. Brousseau rebuilt the platform to work within the constraints of our access to the imagery (turning it into a desktop tool with secure access to our private server), to permit a greater range of metadata to be added to each item or be imported, to autosave, and to export the resulting annotations. The tool also had to respect privacy and security limitations required by NASA.

The platform Brousseau developed and iterated was rechristened “Rocket-Anno” ( S1 File ). For each context photograph, the user draws an outline around every object, creating a polygon; each polygon is assigned a unique ID and the user provides the relevant descriptive information, using a controlled vocabulary developed for ISS material culture by Walsh and Gorman. Walsh and Abdullah used Rocket-Anno to tag the items in each context for Squares 03 and 05. Once all the objects were outlined for every context’s photograph, the tool exported a JSON file with all of the metadata for both the images themselves and all of the annotations, including the coordinate points for every polygon ( S3 Dataset ). We then developed Python code using Jupyter “notebooks” (an interactive development environment) that ingests the JSON file and generates dataframes for various facets of the data. Graham created a “core” notebook that exports summary statistics, calculates Brainerd-Robinson coefficients of similarity, and visualizes the changing use of the square over time by indicating use-areas based on artifact types and subtypes ( S2 File ). Walsh and Abdullah also wrote detailed square notes with context-by-context discussions and interpretations of features and patterns.

We asked NASA for access to the ISS Crew Planner, a computer system that shows each astronaut’s tasks in five-minute increments, to aid with our interpretation of contexts, but were denied. As a proxy, we use another, less detailed source: the ISS Daily Summary Reports (DSRs), published on a semi-regular basis by NASA on its website [ 19 ]. Any activities mentioned in the DSRs often must be connected with a context by inference. Therefore, our conclusions are likely less precise than if we had seen the Crew Planner, but they also more clearly represent the result of simply observing and interpreting the material culture record.

The crew during our sample period formed ISS Expedition 66 (October 2021-March 2022). They were responsible for the movement of objects in the sample squares as they carried out their daily tasks. The group consisted of two Russians affiliated with Roscosmos (the Russian space agency, 26%), one German belonging to the European Space Agency (ESA, 14%), and four Americans employed by NASA (57%). There were six men (86%) and one woman (14%), approximately equivalent to the historic proportions in the ISS population (84% and 16%, respectively). The Russian crew had their sleeping quarters at the aft end of the station, in the Zvezda module. The ESA astronaut slept in the European Columbus laboratory module. The four NASA crew slept in the US Node 2 module (see below). These arrangements emphasize the national character of discrete spaces around the ISS, also evident in our previous study of population distributions [ 15 ]. Both of the sample areas in this study were located in US modules.

Square 03 was placed in the starboard Maintenance Work Area (MWA, Fig 1 ), one of a pair of workstations located opposite one another in the center of the Node 2 module, with four crew berths towards the aft and a series of five ports for the docking of visiting crew/cargo vehicles and two modules on the forward end ( Fig 2 ). Node 2 (sometimes called “Harmony”) is a connector that links the US, Japanese, and European lab modules. According to prevailing design standards when the workstation was developed, an MWA “shall serve as the primary location for servicing and repair of maximum sized replacement unit/system components” [ 20 ]. Historic images published by NASA showing its use suggested that its primary function was maintenance of equipment and also scientific work that did not require a specific facility such as a centrifuge or furnace.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

An open crew berth is visible at right. The yellow dotted line indicates the boundaries of the sample area. Credit: NASA/ISSAP.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.g001

Credit: Tor Finseth, by permission, modified by Justin Walsh.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.g002

Square 03 measured 90.3 cm (top) x 87.8 (left) x 89.4 (bottom) x 87.6 (right), for an area of approximately 0.79 m 2 . Its primary feature was a blue metal panel with 40 square loop-type Velcro patches arranged in four rows of ten. During daily photography, many items were attached to the Velcro patches (or held by a clip or in a resealable bag which had its own hook-type Velcro). Above and below the blue panel were additional Velcro patches placed directly on the white plastic wall surface. These patches were white, in different sizes and shapes and irregularly arranged, indicating that they had been placed on the wall in response to different needs. Some were dirty, indicating long use. The patches below the blue panel were rarely used during the sample period, but the patches above were used frequently to hold packages of wet wipes, as well as resealable bags with electrostatic dispersion kits and other items. Outside the sample area, the primary features were a crew berth to the right, and a blue metal table attached to the wall below. This table, the primary component of the MWA, “provides a rigid surface on which to perform maintenance tasks,” according to NASA [ 21 ]. It is modular and can be oriented in several configurations, from flat against the wall to horizontal ( i . e ., perpendicular to the wall). A laptop to the left of the square occasionally showed information about work happening in the area.

In the 60 context photos of Square 03, we recorded 3,608 instances of items, an average of 60.1 (median = 60.5) per context. The lowest count was 24 in context 2 (where most of the wall was hidden from view behind an opaque storage bag), and the highest was 75 in both contexts 20 and 21. For comparison between squares, we can also calculate the item densities per m 2 . The average count was 76.1/m 2 (minimum = 30, maximum = 95). The count per context ( Fig 3(A)) began much lower than average in the first three contexts because of a portable glovebag and a stowage bag that obscured much of the sample square. It rose to an above-average level which was sustained (with the exception of contexts 11 and 12, which involved the appearance of another portable glovebag) until about context 43, when the count dipped again and the area seemed to show less use. Contexts 42–59 showed below-average numbers, as much as 20% lower than previously.

(a) Count of artifacts in Square 03 over time. (b) Proportions of artifacts by function in Square 03. Credit: Rao Hamza Ali.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.g003

74 types of items appeared at least once here, belonging to six categories: equipment (41%), office supplies (31%), electronic (17%), stowage (9%), media (1%), and food (<1%). To better understand the significance of various items in the archaeological record, we assigned them to functional categories ( Table 1 , Fig 3(B)) . 35% of artifacts were restraints, or items used for holding other things in place; 12% for tools; 9% for containers; 9% for writing items; 6% for audiovisual items; 6% for experimental items; 4% for lights; 4% for safety items; 4% for body maintenance; 4% for power items; 3% for computing items; 1% for labels; and less than 1% drinks. We could not identify a function for two percent of the items.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.t001

One of the project goals is understanding cultural adaptations to the microgravity environment. We placed special attention on “gravity surrogates,” pieces of (often simple) technology that are used in space to replicate the terrestrial experience of things staying where they are placed. Gravity surrogates include restraints and containers. It is quite noticeable that gravity surrogates comprise close to half of all items (44%) in Square 03, while the tools category, which might have been expected to be most prominent in an area designated for maintenance, is less than one-third as large (12%). Adding other groups associated with work, such as “experiment” and “light,” only brings the total to 22%.

Square 05 (Figs 2 and 4 ) was placed in a central location on the aft wall of the multipurpose Node 3 (“Tranquility”) module. This module does not include any specific science facilities. Instead, there are two large pieces of exercise equipment, the TVIS (Treadmill with Vibration Isolation Stabilization System, on the forward wall at the starboard end), and the ARED (Advanced Resistive Exercise Device, on the overhead wall at the port end). Use of the machines forms a significant part of crew activities, as they are required to exercise for two hours each day to counteract loss of muscle mass and bone density, and enable readjustment to terrestrial gravity on their return. The Waste and Hygiene Compartment (WHC), which includes the USOS latrine, is also here, on the forward wall in the center of the module, opposite Square 05. Finally, three modules are docked at Node 3’s port end. Most notable is the Cupola, a kind of miniature module on the nadir side with a panoramic window looking at Earth. This is the most popular leisure space for the crew, who often describe the hours they spend there. The Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) is docked on the forward side, storing equipment, food, and trash. In previous expeditions, some crew described installing a curtain in the PMM to create a private space for changing clothes and performing body maintenance activities such as cleaning oneself [ 22 , 23 ], but it was unclear whether that continued to be its function during the expedition we observed. One crew member during our sample period posted a video on Instagram showing the PMM interior and their efforts to re-stow equipment in a bag [ 24 ]. The last space attached to Node 3 is an experimental inflatable module docked on the aft side, called the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM), which is used for storage of equipment.

The yellow dotted line indicates the boundaries of the sample area. The ARED machine is at the far upper right, on the overhead wall. The TVIS treadmill is outside this image to the left, on the forward wall. The WHC is directly behind the photographer. Credit: NASA/ISSAP.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.g004

Square 05 was on a mostly featureless wall, with a vertical handrail in the middle. Handrails are metal bars located throughout the ISS that are used by the crew to hold themselves in place or provide a point from which to propel oneself to another location. NASA’s most recent design standards acknowledge that “[t]hey also serve as convenient locations for temporary mounting, affixing, or restraint of loose equipment and as attachment points for equipment” [ 25 ]. The handrail in Square 05 was used as an impromptu object restraint when a resealable bag filled with other bags was squeezed between the handrail and the wall.

The Brine Processing Assembly (BPA), a white plastic box which separates water from other components of urine for treatment and re-introduction to the station’s drinkable water supply [ 26 ], was fixed to the wall outside the square boundaries at lower left. A bungee cord was attached to both sides of the box; the one on the right was connected at its other end to the handrail attachment bracket. Numerous items were attached to or wedged into this bungee cord during the survey, bringing “gravity” into being. A red plastic duct ran through the square from top center into the BPA. This duct led from the latrine via the overhead wall. About halfway through the survey period, in context 32, the duct was wrapped in Kapton tape. According to the DSR for that day, “the crew used duct tape [ sic ] to make a seal around the BPA exhaust to prevent odor permeation in the cabin” [ 27 ], revealing an aspect of the crew’s experience of this area that is captured only indirectly in the context photograph. Permanently attached to the wall were approximately 20 loop-type Velcro patches in many shapes and sizes, placed in a seemingly random pattern that likely indicates that they were put there at different times and for different reasons.

Other common items in Square 05 were a mirror, a laptop computer, and an experimental item belonging to the German space agency DLR called the Touch Array Assembly [ 28 ]. The laptop moved just three times, and only by a few centimeters each time, during the sample period. The Touch Array was a black frame enclosing three metal surfaces which were being tested for their bacterial resistance; members of the crew touched the surfaces at various moments during the sample period. Finally, and most prominent due to its size, frequency of appearance, and use (judged by its movement between context photos) was an unidentified crew member’s toiletry kit.

By contrast with Square 03, 05 was the most irregular sample location, roughly twice as wide as it was tall. Its dimensions were 111 cm (top) x 61.9 (left) x 111.4 (bottom) x 64.6 (right), for an area of approximately 0.7 m 2 , about 89% of Square 03. We identified 1,830 instances of items in the 60 contexts, an average of 30.5 (median = 32) per context. The minimum was 18 items in context 5, and the maximum was 39 in contexts 24, 51, and 52. The average item density was 43.6/m 2 (minimum = 26, maximum = 56), 57% of Square 03.

The number of items trended upward throughout the sample period ( Fig 5(A)) . The largest spike occurred in context 6 with the appearance of the toiletry kit, which stored (and revealed) a number of related items. The kit can also be linked to one of the largest dips in item count, seen from contexts 52 to 53, when it was closed (but remained in the square). Other major changes can often be attributed to the addition and removal of bungee cords, which had other items such as carabiners and brackets attached. For example, the dip seen in context 25 correlates with the removal of a bungee cord with four carabiners.

(a) Count of artifacts and average count in Square 05 over time. (b) Proportions of artifacts by function in Square 05. Credit: Rao Hamza Ali.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.g005

41 different item types were found in Square 05, about 55% as many as in Square 03. These belonged to five different categories: equipment (63%), electronic (17%), stowage (10%), office supplies (5%), and food (2%). The distribution of function proportions was quite different in this sample location ( Table 2 and Fig 5(B)) . Even though restraints were still most prominent, making up 32% of all items, body maintenance was almost as high (30%), indicating how strongly this area was associated with the activity of cleaning and caring for oneself. Computing (8%, represented by the laptop, which seems not to have been used), power (8%, from various cables), container (7%, resealable bags and Cargo Transfer Bags), and hygiene (6%, primarily the BPA duct) were the next most common items. Experiment was the function of 4% of the items, mostly the Touch Array, which appeared in every context, followed by drink (2%) and life support (1%). Safety, audiovisual, food, and light each made up less than 1% of the functional categories.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.t002

Tracking changes over time is critical to understanding the activity happening in each area. We now explore how the assemblages change by calculating the Brainerd-Robinson Coefficient of Similarity [ 29 , 30 ] as operationalized by Peeples [ 31 , 32 ]. This metric is used in archaeology for comparing all pairs of the contexts by the proportions of categorical artifact data, here functional type. Applying the coefficient to the SQuARE contexts enables identification of time periods for distinct activities using artifact function and frequency alone, independent of documentary or oral evidence.

Multiple phases of activities took place in the square. Moments of connected activity are visible as red clusters in contexts 0–2, 11–12, 28–32, and 41 ( Fig 6(A)) . Combining this visualization with close observation of the photos themselves, we argue that there are actually eight distinct chronological periods.

• Contexts 0–2: Period 1 (S1 Fig in S3 File ) is a three-day period of work involving a portable glovebag (contexts 0–1) and a large blue stowage bag (context 2). It is difficult to describe trends in functional types because the glovebag and stowage bag obstruct the view of many objects. Items which appear at the top of the sample area, such as audiovisual and body maintenance items, are overemphasized in the data as a result. It appears that some kind of science is happening here, perhaps medical sample collection due to the presence of several small resealable bags visible in the glovebag. The work appears particularly intense in context 1, with the positioning of the video camera and light to point into the glovebag. These items indicate observation and oversight of crew activities by ground control. A white cargo transfer bag for storage and the stowage bag for holding packing materials in the context 2 photo likely relate to the packing of a Cargo Dragon vehicle that was docked to Node 2. The Dragon departed from the ISS for Earth, full of scientific samples, equipment, and crew personal items, a little more than three hours after the context 2 photo was taken [ 33 ].
• Contexts 3–10: Period 2 (S2 Fig in S3 File ) was a “stable” eight-day period in the sample, when little activity is apparent, few objects were moved or transferred in or out the square, and the primary function of the area seems to be storage rather than work. In context 6, a large Post-It notepad appeared in the center of the metal panel with a phone number written on it. This number belonged to another astronaut, presumably indicating that someone on the ISS had been told to call that colleague on the ground (for reasons of privacy, and in accordance with NASA rules for disseminating imagery, we have blurred the number in the relevant images). In context 8, the same notepad sheet had new writing appear on it, this time reading “COL A1 L1,” the location of an experimental rack in the European lab module.
• Contexts 11–12: Period 3 (S3 Fig in S3 File ) involves a second appearance of a portable glovebag (a different one from that used in contexts 0–1, according to its serial number), this time for a known activity, a concrete hardening experiment belonging to the European Space Agency [ 34 , 35 ]. This two-day phase indicates how the MWA space can be shared with non-US agencies when required. It also demonstrates the utility of this flexible area for work beyond biology/medicine, such as material science. Oversight of the crew’s activities by ground staff is evident from the positioning of the video camera and LED light pointing into the glovebag.
• Contexts 13–27: Period 4 (S4 Fig in S3 File ) is another stable fifteen-day period, similar to Period 2. Many items continued to be stored on the aluminum panel. The LED light’s presence is a trace of the activity in Period 3 that persists throughout this phase. Only in context 25 can a movement of the lamp potentially be connected to an activity relating to one of the stored items on the wall: at least one nitrile glove was removed from a resealable bag behind the lamp. In general, the primary identifiable activity during Period 4 is storage.
• Contexts 28–32: Period 5 (S5 Fig in S3 File ), by contrast, represents a short period of five days of relatively high and diverse activity. In context 28, a Microsoft Hololens augmented reality headset appeared. According to the DSR for the previous day, a training activity called Sidekick was carried out using the headset [ 36 ]. The following day, a Saturday, showed no change in the quantity or type of objects, but many were moved around and grouped by function—adhesive tape rolls were placed together, tools were moved from Velcro patches into pouches or straightened, and writing implements were placed in a vertical orientation when previously they were tilted. Context 29 represents a cleaning and re-organization of the sample area, which is a common activity for the crew on Saturdays [ 37 ]. Finally, in context 32, an optical coherence tomography scanner—a large piece of equipment for medical research involving crew members’ eyes—appeared [ 38 ]. This device was used previously during the sample period, but on the same day as the ESA concrete experiment, so that earlier work seems to have happened elsewhere [ 39 ].
• Contexts 33–40: Period 6 (S6 Fig in S3 File ) is the third stable period, in which almost no changes are visible over eight days. The only sign of activity is a digital timer which was started six hours before the context 39 image was made and continued to run at least through context 42.
• Context 41: Period 7 (S7 Fig in S3 File ) is a single context in which medical sample collection may have occurred. Resealable bags (some holding others) appeared in the center of the image and at lower right. One of the bags at lower right had a printed label reading “Reservoir Containers.” We were not able to discern which type of reservoir containers the label refers to, although the DSR for the day mentions “[Human Research Facility] Generic Saliva Collection,” without stating the location for this work [ 40 ]. Evidence from photos of other squares shows that labeled bags could be re-used for other purposes, so our interpretation of medical activity for this context is not conclusive.
• Contexts 42–60: Period 8 (S8 Fig in S3 File ) is the last and longest period of stability and low activity—eighteen days in which no specific activity other than the storage of items can be detected. The most notable change is the appearance for the first time of a foil water pouch in the central part of the blue panel.

Visualization of Brainerd-Robinson similarity, compared context-by-context by item function, for (a) Square 03 and (b) Square 05. The more alike a pair of contexts is, the higher the coefficient value, with a context compared against itself where a value of 200 equals perfect similarity. The resulting matrix of coefficients is visualized on a scale from blue to red where blue is lowest and red is highest similarity. The dark red diagonal line indicates complete similarity, where each context is compared to itself. Dark blue represents a complete difference. Credit: Shawn Graham.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.g006

In the standards used at the time of installation, “stowage space” was the sixth design requirement listed for the MWA after accessibility; equipment size capability; scratch-resistant surfaces; capabilities for electrical, mechanical, vacuum, and fluid support during maintenance; and the accommodation of diagnostic equipment [ 20 ]. Only capabilities for fabrication were listed lower than stowage. Yet 50 of the 60 contexts (83%) fell within stable periods where little or no activity is identifiable in Square 03. According to the sample results, therefore, this area seems to exist not for “maintenance,” but primarily for the storage and arrangement of items. The most recent update of the design standards does not mention the MWA, but states, “Stowage location of tool kits should be optimized for accessibility to workstations and/or maintenance workbenches” [ 25 ]. Our observation confirms the importance of this suggestion.

The MWA was also a flexible location for certain science work, like the concrete study or crew health monitoring. Actual maintenance of equipment was hardly in evidence in the sample (possibly contexts 25, 39, and 44), and may not even have happened at all in this location. Some training did happen here, such as review of procedures for the Electromagnetic Levitator camera (instructions for changing settings on a high-speed camera appeared on the laptop screen; the day’s DSR shows that this camera is part of the Electromagnetic Levitator facility, located in the Columbus module [ 41 ]. The training required the use of the Hololens system (context 28 DSR, cited above).

Although many item types were represented in Square 03, it became clear during data capture how many things were basically static, unmoving and therefore unused, especially certain tools, writing implements, and body maintenance items. The MWA was seen as an appropriate place to store these items. It may be the case that their presence here also indicates that their function was seen as an appropriate one for this space, but the function(s) may not be carried out—or perhaps not in this location. Actualization of object function was only visible to us when the state of the item changed—it appeared, it moved, it changed orientation, it disappeared, or, in the case of artifacts that were grouped in collections rather than found as singletons, its shape changed or it became visibly smaller/lesser. We therefore have the opportunity to explore not only actuality of object use, but also potentiality of use or function, and the meaning of that quality for archaeological interpretation [ 42 , 43 ]. This possibility is particularly intriguing in light of the archaeological turn towards recognizing the agency of objects to impact human activity [ 44 , 45 ]. We will explore these implications in a future publication.

We performed the same chronological analysis for Square 05. Fig 6(B) represents the analysis for both item types and for item functions. We identified three major phases of activity, corresponding to contexts 0–5, 6–52, and 53–59 (S9-S11 Figs in S3 File ). The primary characteristics of these phases relate to an early period of unclear associations (0–5) marked by the presence of rolls of adhesive tape and a few body maintenance items (toothpaste and toothbrush, wet wipes); the appearance of a toiletry kit on the right side of the sample area, fully open with clear views of many of the items contained within (6–52); and finally, the closure of the toiletry kit so that its contents can no longer be seen (53–59). We interpret the phases as follows:

• Contexts 0–5: In Period 1 (six days, S9 Fig in S3 File ), while items such as a mirror, dental floss picks, wet wipes, and a toothbrush held in the end of a toothpaste tube were visible, the presence of various other kinds of items confounds easy interpretation. Two rolls of duct tape were stored on the handrail in the center of the sample area, and the Touch Array and laptop appeared in the center. Little movement can be identified, apart from a blue nitrile glove that appeared in context 1 and moved left across the area until it was wedged into the bungee cord for contexts 3 and 4. The tape rolls were removed prior to context 5. A collection of resealable bags was wedged behind the handrail in context 3, remaining there until context 9. Overall, this appears to be a period characterized by eclectic associations, showing an area without a clear designated function.
• Contexts 6–52: Period 2 (S10 Fig in S3 File ) is clearly the most significant one for this location due to its duration (47 days). It was dominated by the number of body maintenance items located in and around the toiletry kit, especially a white hand towel (on which a brown stain was visible from context 11, allowing us to confirm that the same towel was present until context 46). A second towel appeared alongside the toiletry kit in context 47, and the first one was fixed at the same time to the handrail, where it remained through the end of the sample period. A third towel appeared in context 52, attached to the handrail together with the first one by a bungee cord, continuing to the end of the sample period. Individual body maintenance items moved frequently from one context to the next, showing the importance of this type of activity for this part of Node 3. For reasons that are unclear, the mirror shifted orientation from vertical to diagonal in context 22, and then was put back in a vertical orientation in context 31 (a Monday, a day which is not traditionally associated with cleaning and organization). Collections of resealable bags appeared at various times, including a large one labeled “KYNAR BAG OF ZIPLOCKS” in green marker at the upper left part of the sample area beginning of context 12 (Kynar is a non-flammable plastic material that NASA prefers for resealable bags to the generic commercial off-the-shelf variety because it is non-flammable; however, its resistance to heat makes it less desirable for creating custom sizes, so bags made from traditional but flammable low-density polyethylene still dominate on the ISS [ 14 ]). The Kynar bag contained varying numbers of bags within it over time; occasionally, it appeared to be empty. The Touch Array changed orientation on seven of 47 days in period 2, or 15% of the time (12% of all days in the survey), showing activity associated with scientific research in this area. In context 49, a life-support item, the Airborne Particulate Monitor (APM) was installed [ 46 ]. This device, which measures “real-time particulate data” to assess hazards to crew health [ 47 ], persisted through the end of the sample period.
• Contexts 53–59: Period 3 (S11 Fig in S3 File ) appears as a seven-day phase marked by low activity. Visually, the most notable feature is the closure of the toiletry kit, which led to much lower counts of body maintenance items. Hardly any of the items on the wall moved at all during this period.

While body maintenance in the form of cleaning and caring for oneself could be an expected function for an area with exercise and excretion facilities, it is worth noting that the ISS provides, at most, minimal accommodation for this activity. A description of the WHC stated, “To provide privacy…an enclosure was added to the front of the rack. This enclosure, referred to as the Cabin, is approximately the size of a typical bathroom stall and provides room for system consumables and hygiene item stowage. Space is available to also support limited hygiene functions such as hand and body washing” [ 48 ]. A diagram of the WHC in the same publication shows the Cabin without a scale but suggests that it measures roughly 2 m (h) x .75 (w) x .75 (d), a volume of approximately 1.125 m 3 . NASA’s current design standards state that the body volume of a 95th percentile male astronaut is 0.99 m 3 [ 20 ], meaning that a person of that size would take up 88% of the space of the Cabin, leaving little room for performing cleaning functions—especially if the Cabin is used as apparently intended, to also hold “system consumables and hygiene item[s]” that would further diminish the usable volume. This situation explains why crews try to adapt other spaces, such as storage areas like the PMM, for these activities instead. According to the crew debriefing statement, only one of them used the WHC for body maintenance purposes; it is not clear whether the toiletry kit belonged to that individual. But the appearance of the toiletry kit in Square 05—outside of the WHC, in a public space where others frequently pass by—may have been a response to the limitations of the WHC Cabin. It suggests a need for designers to re-evaluate affordances for body maintenance practices and storage for related items.

Although Square 03 and 05 were different sizes and shapes, comparing the density of items by function shows evidence of their usage ( Table 3 ). The typical context in Square 03 had twice as many restraints and containers, but less than one-quarter as many body maintenance items as Square 05. 03 also had many tools, lights, audiovisual equipment, and writing implements, while there were none of any of these types in 05. 05 had life support and hygiene items which were missing from 03. It appears that flexibility and multifunctionality were key elements for 03, while in 05 there was emphasis on one primary function (albeit an improvised one, designated by the crew rather than architects or ground control), cleaning and caring for one’s body, with a secondary function of housing static equipment for crew hygiene and life support.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.t003

As this is the first time such an analysis has been performed, it is not yet possible to say how typical or unusual these squares are regarding the types of activities taking place; but they provide a baseline for eventual comparison with the other four squares and future work on ISS or other space habitats.

Some general characteristics are revealed by archaeological analysis of a space station’s material culture. First, even in a small, enclosed site, occupied by only a few people over a relatively short sample period, we can observe divergent patterns for different locations and activity phases. Second, while distinct functions are apparent for these two squares, they are not the functions that we expected prior to this research. As a result, our work fulfills the promise of the archaeological approach to understanding life in a space station by revealing new, previously unrecognized phenomena relating to life and work on the ISS. There is now systematically recorded archaeological data for a space habitat.

Squares 03 and 05 served quite different purposes. The reasons for this fact are their respective affordances and their locations relative to activity areas designated for science and exercise. Their national associations, especially the manifestation of the control wielded by NASA over its modules, also played a role in the use of certain materials, the placement of facilities, and the organization of work. How each area was used was also the result of an interplay between the original plans developed by mission planners and habitat designers (or the lack of such plans), the utility of the equipment and architecture in each location, and the contingent needs of the crew as they lived in the station. This interplay became visible in the station’s material culture, as certain areas were associated with particular behaviors, over time and through tradition—over the long duration across many crews (Node 2, location of Square 03, docked with the ISS in 2007, and Node 3, location of Square 05, docked in 2010), and during the specific period of this survey, from January to March 2022. During the crew debriefing, one astronaut said, “We were a pretty organized crew who was also pretty much on the same page about how to do things…. As time went on…we organized the lab and kind of got on the same page about where we put things and how we’re going to do things.” This statement shows how functional associations can become linked to different areas of the ISS through usage and mutual agreement. At the same time, the station is not frozen in time. Different people have divergent ideas about how and where to do things. It seems from the appearance of just one Russian item—a packet of generic wipes ( salfetky sukhiye ) stored in the toiletry kit throughout the sample period—that the people who used these spaces and carried out their functions did not typically include the ISS’s Russian crew. Enabling greater flexibility to define how spaces can be used could have a significant impact on improving crew autonomy over their lives, such as how and where to work. It could also lead to opening of all spaces within a habitat to the entire crew, which seems likely to improve general well-being.

An apparent disjunction between planned and actual usage appeared in Square 03. It is intended for maintenance as well as other kinds of work. But much of the time, there was nobody working here—a fact that is not captured by historic photos of the area, precisely because nothing is happening. The space has instead become the equivalent of a pegboard mounted on a wall in a home garage or shed, convenient for storage for all kinds of items—not necessarily items being used there—because it has an enormous number of attachment points. Storage has become its primary function. Designers of future workstations in space should consider that they might need to optimize for functions other than work, because most of the time, there might not be any work happening there. They could optimize for quick storage, considering whether to impose a system of organization, or allow users to organize as they want.

We expected from previous (though unsystematic) observation of historic photos and other research, that resealable plastic bags (combined with Velcro patches on the bags and walls) would be the primary means for creating gravity surrogates to control items in microgravity. They only comprise 7% of all items in Square 03 (256 instances). There are more than twice as many clips (572—more than 9 per context) in the sample. There were 193 instances of adhesive tape rolls, and more than 100 cable ties, but these were latent (not holding anything), representing potentiality of restraint rather than actualization. The squares showed different approaches to managing “gravity.” While Square 03 had a pre-existing structured array of Velcro patches, Square 05 showed a more expedient strategy with Velcro added in response to particular activities. Different needs require different affordances; creating “gravity” is a more nuanced endeavor than it initially appears. More work remains to be done to optimize gravity surrogates for future space habitats, because this is evidently one of the most critical adaptations that crews have to make in microgravity (44% of all items in Square 03, 39% in 05).

Square 05 is an empty space, seemingly just one side of a passageway for people going to use the lifting machine or the latrine, to look out of the Cupola, or get something out of deep storage in one of the ISS’s closets. In our survey, this square was a storage place for toiletries, resealable bags, and a computer that never (or almost never) gets used. It was associated with computing and hygiene simply by virtue of its location, rather than due to any particular facilities it possessed. It has no affordances for storage. There are no cabinets or drawers, as would be appropriate for organizing and holding crew personal items. A crew member decided that this was an appropriate place to leave their toiletry kit for almost two months. Whether this choice was appreciated or resented by fellow crew members cannot be discerned based on our evidence, but it seems to have been tolerated, given its long duration. The location of the other four USOS crew members’ toiletry kits during the sample period is unknown. A question raised by our observations is: how might a function be more clearly defined by designers for this area, perhaps by providing lockers for individual crew members to store their toiletries and towels? This would have a benefit not only for reducing clutter, but also for reducing exposure of toiletry kits and the items stored in them to flying sweat from the exercise equipment or other waste particles from the latrine. A larger compartment providing privacy for body maintenance and a greater range of motion would also be desirable.

As the first systematic collection of archaeological data from a space site outside Earth, this analysis of two areas on the ISS as part of the SQuARE payload has shown that novel insights into material culture use can be obtained, such as the use of wall areas as storage or staging posts between activities, the accretion of objects associated with different functions, and the complexity of using material replacements for gravity. These results enable better space station design and raise new questions that will be addressed through analysis of the remaining four squares.

Supporting information

S1 movie. nasa astronaut kayla barron installs the first square for the sampling quadrangle assemblages research experiment in the japanese experiment module (also known as kibo) on the international space station, january 14, 2022..

She places Kapton tape to mark the square’s upper right corner. Credit: NASA.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.s001

S1 Dataset.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.s002

S2 Dataset.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.s003

S3 Dataset. The image annotations are represented according to sample square in json formatted text files.

The data is available in the ‘SQuARE-notebooks’ repository on Github.com in the ‘data’ subfolder at https://github.com/issarchaeologicalproject/SQuARE-notebooks/tree/main ; archived version of the repository is at Zenodo, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10654812 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.s004

S1 File. The ‘Rocket-Anno’ image annotation software is available on Github at https://github.com/issarchaeologicalproject/MRE-RocketAnno .

The archived version of the repository is at Zenodo, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10648399 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.s005

S2 File. The computational notebooks that process the data json files to reshape the data suitable for basic statistics as well as the computation of the Brainerd-Robinson coefficients of similarity are in the.ipynb notebook format.

The code is available in the ‘SQuARE-notebooks’ repository on Github.com in the ‘notebooks’ subfolder at https://github.com/issarchaeologicalproject/SQuARE-notebooks/tree/main ; archived version of the repository is at Zenodo, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10654812 . The software can be run online in the Google Colab environment ( https://colab.research.google.com ) or any system running Jupyter Notebooks ( https://jupyter.org/ ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.s006

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304229.s007

Acknowledgments

We thank Chapman University’s Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, and especially Dr. Thomas Piechota and Dr. Janeen Hill, for funding the Implementation Partner costs associated with the SQuARE payload. Chapman’s Leatherby Libraries’ Supporting Open Access Research and Scholarship (SOARS) program funded the article processing fee for this publication. Ken Savin and Ken Shields at the ISS National Laboratory gave major support by agreeing to sponsor SQuARE and providing access to ISS NL’s allocation of crew time. David Zuniga and Kryn Ambs at Axiom Space were key collaborators in managing payload logistics. NASA staff and contractors were critical to the experiment’s success, especially Kristen Fortson, Jay Weber, Crissy Canerday, Sierra Wolbert, and Jade Conway. We also gratefully acknowledge the help and resources provided by Dr. Erik Linstead, director of the Machine Learning and Affiliated Technology Lab at Chapman University. Aidan St. P. Walsh corrected the color and lens barrel distortion in all of the SQuARE imagery. Rao Hamza Ali produced charts using accessible color combinations for Figs 3 and 5 . And finally, of course, we are extremely appreciative of the efforts of the five USOS members of the Expedition 66 crew on the ISS—Kayla Barron, Raja Chari, Thomas Marshburn, Matthias Maurer, and Mark Vande Hei—who were the first archaeologists in space.

• 1. Buchli V. Extraterrestrial methods: Towards an ethnography of the ISS. In: Carroll T, Walford A, Walton S, editors. Lineages and advancements in material culture studies: Perspectives from UCL anthropology. London: Routledge; 2021, pp. 17–32.
• 2. Gorman A, Walsh J. Archaeology in a vacuum: obstacles to and solutions for developing a real space archaeology. In: Barnard H, editor. Archaeology outside the box: investigations at the edge of the discipline. Los Angeles, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press; 2023. pp. 131–123.
• 3. Walsh J. Adapting to space: The International Space Station Archaeological Project. In: Salazar Sutil JF, Gorman A, editors. Routledge handbook of social studies of outer space. London, Routledge; 2023. pp. 400–412. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003280507-37
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 6. Rathje W, Murphy C. Rubbish! The archaeology of garbage Tucson: University of Arizona Press; 2001.
• 7. De León J. The land of open graves: living and dying on the migrant trail. Berkeley, University of California Press; 2015.
• 8. Garrison Darrin A, O’Leary B, editors. Handbook of space engineering, archaeology, and heritage. Boca Raton, CRC Press; 2009.
• 9. Capelotti PJ. The human archaeology of space: Lunar, planetary, and interstellar relics of exploration. Jefferson, NC, McFarland Press; 2010.
• 11. Gorman A. Space and time through material culture: An account of space archaeology. In: Salazar Sutil JF, Gorman A, editors. Routledge handbook of social studies of outer space. London, Routledge; 2023. pp. 44–56. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003280507-5
• 17. NASA. NASA Johnson. 2008 Aug [cited May 12 2024]. In: Flickr [Internet]. San Francisco. Available from https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/
• 19. NASA. ISS Daily Status Reports. 2012 Mar 1 [Cited May 12 2024]. Available from: https://blogs.nasa.gov/stationreport/
• 20. NASA. Man-systems integration. STD-3000 Vol. 1. Houston, NASA Johnson; 1995, pp. 9–15, 78
• 21. NASA. Maintenance Work Area | Glenn Research Center. 2020 Mar 6 [cited May 12 2024]. Available from: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/iss-research/mwa/
• 22. Cristoforetti S. Diario di un’apprendista astronauta. Milan, Le Polene; 2018. pp. 379.
• 23. Kelly S. Endurance: A year in space, a lifetime of discovery. New York, Knopf; 2017. pp. 175, 285–86.
• 24. Barron K. Instagram post, 2022 Feb 12 [cited 2024 May 12]. Available from: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZ4pW9HJ2Wg/?igsh=ZDE1MWVjZGVmZQ==
• 25. NASA. NASA space flight human-system standard. STD-3001 Volume 1: Human integration design handbook. Rev. 1 Houston, NASA Johnson; 2014. pp. 814, 829–833.
• 27. Keeter B. ISS daily summary report– 2/21/2022. 2022 Feb 21 [cited May 12 2024]. In: NASA ISS On-Orbit Status Report blog [Internet]. Houston. Available from: https://blogs.nasa.gov/stationreport/2022/02/page/6/
• 28. DLR. Fingerprint research to combat harmful bacteria. 2022 Jan 18 [cited May 12 2024]. Available from: https://www.dlr.de/en/latest/news/2022/01/20220118_fingerprint-research-to-combat-harmful-bacteria
• 31. Peeples MA. R script for calculating the Brainerd-Robinson coefficient of similarity and assessing sampling error. 2011 [cited May 12 2024]. Available from: http://www.mattpeeples.net/br.html .
• 33. Garcia M. Cargo Dragon Splashes Down Ending SpaceX CRS-24 Mission. 2022 Jan 24 [cited May 12 2024]. NASA Space Station blog [Internet]. Available from: https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2022/01/24/cargo-dragon-splashes-down-ending-spacex-crs-24-mission/
• 34. ESA. Concrete Hardening | Cosmic Kiss 360°. 2022 Mar 5 [cited May 12 2024]. Available from: https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2022/05/Concrete_Hardening_Cosmic_Kiss_360
• 35. Keeter B. ISS daily summary report– 2/01/2022. 2022 Feb 1 [cited May 12 2024]. In: NASA ISS On-Orbit Status Report blog [Internet]. Houston. Available from: https://blogs.nasa.gov/stationreport/2022/02/page/19/
• 36. Keeter B. ISS daily summary report– 2/17/2022. 2022 Feb 17 [cited May 12 2024]. In: NASA ISS On-Orbit Status Report blog [Internet]. Houston. Available from: https://blogs.nasa.gov/stationreport/2022/02/page/8/
• 37. T. Pultarova, How Do You Clean a Space Station? Astronaut Thomas Pesquet Shares Orbital Spring Cleaning Tips, Space.com, May 6, 2021. Online at https://www.space.com/space-station-cleaning-tips-astronaut-thomas-pesquet
• 38. Keeter B. ISS daily summary report– 2/22/2022. 2022 Feb 22 [cited May 12 2024]. In: NASA ISS On-Orbit Status Report blog [Internet]. Houston. Available from: https://blogs.nasa.gov/stationreport/2022/02/page/5/
• 39. Keeter B. ISS daily summary report– 2/02/2022. 2022 Feb 2 [cited May 12 2024]. NASA ISS On-Orbit Status Report blog [Internet]. Houston. Online at https://blogs.nasa.gov/stationreport/2022/02/page/18/
• 40. Keeter B. ISS daily summary report– 3/03/2022. 2022 Mar 3 [cited May 12 2024]. In: NASA ISS On-Orbit Status Report blog [Internet]. Houston. Available from: https://blogs.nasa.gov/stationreport/2022/03/page/21/
• 41. Keeter B. ISS daily summary report– 2/08/2022. 2022 Feb 8 [cited May 12 2024]. NASA ISS On-Orbit Status Report blog [Internet]. Houston. Available from: https://blogs.nasa.gov/stationreport/2022/02/page/15/
• 42. Aristotle of Stageira. Metaphysics, Volume I: Books 1–9, Tredennick H, translator. Loeb Classical Library 271. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; 1933. pp. 429–473.
• 44. Hodder I. Entangled: An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Hoboken. NJ, Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.
• 45. Malafouris L., How Things Shape the Mind: A Theory of Material Engagement (MIT Press, 2016).
• 46. Keeter B. ISS daily summary report– 3/11/2022. 2022 Mar 11 [cited May 12 2024]. NASA ISS On-Orbit Status Report blog [Internet]. Houston. Available from: https://blogs.nasa.gov/stationreport/2022/03/page/15/

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A review of computer vision-based crack detection methods in civil infrastructure: progress and challenges.

1. Introduction

2. crack detection combining traditional image processing methods and deep learning, 2.1. crack detection based on image edge detection and deep learning, 2.2. crack detection based on threshold segmentation and deep learning, 2.3. crack detection based on morphological operations and deep learning, 3. crack detection based on multimodal data fusion, 3.1. multi-sensor fusion, 3.2. multi-source data fusion, 4. crack detection based on image semantic understanding, 4.1. crack detection based on classification networks, 4.2. crack detection based on object detection networks, 4.3. crack detection based on segmentation networks.

5. Datasets

6. evaluation index, 7. discussion, 8. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Azimi, M.; Eslamlou, A.D.; Pekcan, G. Data-driven structural health monitoring and damage detection through deep learning: State-of-the-art review. Sensors 2020 , 20 , 2778. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Han, X.; Zhao, Z. Structural surface crack detection method based on computer vision technology. J. Build. Struct. 2018 , 39 , 418–427. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruachottikul, P.; Cooharojananone, N.; Phanomchoeng, G.; Chavarnakul, T.; Kovitanggoon, K.; Trakulwaranont, D. Deep learning-based visual defect-inspection system for reinforced concrete bridge substructure: A case of thailand’s department of highways. J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 2021 , 11 , 949–965. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gehri, N.; Mata-Falcón, J.; Kaufmann, W. Automated crack detection and measurement based on digital image correlation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020 , 256 , 119383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohan, A.; Poobal, S. Crack detection using image processing: A critical review and analysis. Alex. Eng. J. 2018 , 57 , 787–798. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Fan, J.; Nie, J.; Kong, S.; Qi, Y. Review and prospect of digital-image-based crack detection of structure surface. China Civ. Eng. J. 2021 , 54 , 79–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsieh, Y.-A.; Tsai, Y.J. Machine learning for crack detection: Review and model performance comparison. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2020 , 34 , 04020038. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Y.; Bao, Y.; Chen, J.; Zuo, W.; Li, H. Surface fatigue crack identification in steel box girder of bridges by a deep fusion convolutional neural network based on consumer-grade camera images. Struct. Health Monit. 2019 , 18 , 653–674. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, W.; Deng, L.; Shao, X. Fatigue design of steel bridges considering the effect of dynamic vehicle loading and overloaded trucks. J. Bridge Eng. 2016 , 21 , 04016048. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, K.; Zhou, S.; Zhang, Y.; Wei, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y.; Qin, X. Simplified evaluation of shear stiffness degradation of diagonally cracked reinforced concrete beams. Materials 2023 , 16 , 4752. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Canny, J. A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1986 , PAMI-8 , 679–698. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Otsu, N. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. Automatica 1975 , 11 , 23–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sohn, H.G.; Lim, Y.M.; Yun, K.H.; Kim, G.H. Monitoring crack changes in concrete structures. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2005 , 20 , 52–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, P.; Qiao, H.; Feng, Q.; Xue, C. Internal corrosion cracks evolution in reinforced magnesium oxychloride cement concrete. Adv. Cem. Res. 2023 , 36 , 15–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Loutridis, S.; Douka, E.; Trochidis, A. Crack identification in double-cracked beams using wavelet analysis. J. Sound Vib. 2004 , 277 , 1025–1039. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fan, C.L. Detection of multidamage to reinforced concrete using support vector machine-based clustering from digital images. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2021 , 28 , e2841. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kyal, C.; Reza, M.; Varu, B.; Shreya, S. Image-based concrete crack detection using random forest and convolution neural network. In Computational Intelligence in Pattern Recognition: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Pattern Recognition (CIPR 2021), Held at the Institute of Engineering and Management, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, on 24–25 April 2021 ; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 471–481. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jia, H.; Lin, J.; Liu, J. Bridge seismic damage assessment model applying artificial neural networks and the random forest algorithm. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020 , 2020 , 6548682. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Park, M.J.; Kim, J.; Jeong, S.; Jang, A.; Bae, J.; Ju, Y.K. Machine learning-based concrete crack depth prediction using thermal images taken under daylight conditions. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 2151. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• LeCun, Y.; Bengio, Y.; Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 2015 , 521 , 436–444. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Z.; Cao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, W. Computer vision-based concrete crack detection using u-net fully convolutional networks. Autom. Constr. 2019 , 104 , 129–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, G.; Ma, B.; He, S.; Ren, X.; Liu, Q. Automatic tunnel crack detection based on u-net and a convolutional neural network with alternately updated clique. Sensors 2020 , 20 , 717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chaiyasarn, K.; Buatik, A.; Mohamad, H.; Zhou, M.; Kongsilp, S.; Poovarodom, N. Integrated pixel-level cnn-fcn crack detection via photogrammetric 3d texture mapping of concrete structures. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 140 , 104388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, S.; Zhao, X.; Zhou, G. Automatic pixel-level multiple damage detection of concrete structure using fully convolutional network. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2019 , 34 , 616–634. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, X.; Zhang, S.; Li, X.; Li, G.; Li, X. Lightweight bridge crack detection method based on segnet and bottleneck depth-separable convolution with residuals. IEEE Access 2021 , 9 , 161649–161668. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Azouz, Z.; Honarvar Shakibaei Asli, B.; Khan, M. Evolution of crack analysis in structures using image processing technique: A review. Electronics 2023 , 12 , 3862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hamishebahar, Y.; Guan, H.; So, S.; Jo, J. A comprehensive review of deep learning-based crack detection approaches. Appl. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 1374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meng, S.; Gao, Z.; Zhou, Y.; He, B.; Djerrad, A. Real-time automatic crack detection method based on drone. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2023 , 38 , 849–872. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Humpe, A. Bridge inspection with an off-the-shelf 360 camera drone. Drones 2020 , 4 , 67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Truong-Hong, L.; Lindenbergh, R. Automatically extracting surfaces of reinforced concrete bridges from terrestrial laser scanning point clouds. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 135 , 104127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cusson, D.; Rossi, C.; Ozkan, I.F. Early warning system for the detection of unexpected bridge displacements from radar satellite data. J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 2021 , 11 , 189–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bonaldo, G.; Caprino, A.; Lorenzoni, F.; da Porto, F. Monitoring displacements and damage detection through satellite MT-INSAR techniques: A new methodology and application to a case study in rome (Italy). Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 1177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, Z.; Zhong, Y.; Wang, J.; Ma, A.; Zhang, L. Building damage assessment for rapid disaster response with a deep object-based semantic change detection framework: From natural disasters to man-made disasters. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021 , 265 , 112636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, X.; Zhang, X.; Ren, M.; Zhou, B.; Sun, M.; Feng, Z.; Chen, B.; Zhi, X. A multiscale enhanced pavement crack segmentation network coupling spectral and spatial information of UAV hyperspectral imagery. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2024 , 128 , 103772. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, F.; Liu, J.; Wang, L. Deep learning and infrared thermography for asphalt pavement crack severity classification. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 140 , 104383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, S.; Han, Y.; Xu, L. Recognition of road cracks based on multi-scale retinex fused with wavelet transform. Array 2022 , 15 , 100193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, H.; Qian, Z.; Tan, Y.; Xie, Y.; Li, M. Investigation of pavement crack detection based on deep learning method using weakly supervised instance segmentation framework. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022 , 358 , 129117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dorafshan, S.; Thomas, R.J.; Maguire, M. Comparison of deep convolutional neural networks and edge detectors for image-based crack detection in concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018 , 186 , 1031–1045. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Munawar, H.S.; Hammad, A.W.; Haddad, A.; Soares, C.A.P.; Waller, S.T. Image-based crack detection methods: A review. Infrastructures 2021 , 6 , 115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, D.; Li, X.; Hu, F.; Mathiopoulos, P.T.; Di, S.; Sui, M.; Peethambaran, J. Edpnet: An encoding–decoding network with pyramidal representation for semantic image segmentation. Sensors 2023 , 23 , 3205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mo, S.; Shi, Y.; Yuan, Q.; Li, M. A survey of deep learning road extraction algorithms using high-resolution remote sensing images. Sensors 2024 , 24 , 1708. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, D.; Li, J.; Di, S.; Peethambaran, J.; Xiang, G.; Wan, L.; Li, X. Critical points extraction from building façades by analyzing gradient structure tensor. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 3146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Yeoh, J.K.; Chua, D.K. Deep learning-based enhancement of motion blurred UAV concrete crack images. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2020 , 34 , 04020028. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flah, M.; Nunez, I.; Ben Chaabene, W.; Nehdi, M.L. Machine learning algorithms in civil structural health monitoring: A systematic review. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2021 , 28 , 2621–2643. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, G.; Li, X.; Zhou, J.; Liu, D.; Ren, W. Pixel-level bridge crack detection using a deep fusion about recurrent residual convolution and context encoder network. Measurement 2021 , 176 , 109171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, R.; Chuah, J.H.; Talip, M.S.A.; Mokhtar, N.; Shoaib, M.A. Structural crack detection using deep convolutional neural networks. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 133 , 103989. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, H.; Li, Y.; Dang, L.M.; Lee, S.; Moon, H. Pixel-level tunnel crack segmentation using a weakly supervised annotation approach. Comput. Ind. 2021 , 133 , 103545. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, J.; Song, J. Weakly supervised network based intelligent identification of cracks in asphalt concrete bridge deck. Alex. Eng. J. 2020 , 59 , 1307–1317. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Y.; Bao, T.; Xu, B.; Shu, X.; Zhou, Y.; Du, Y.; Wang, R.; Zhang, K. A deep residual neural network framework with transfer learning for concrete dams patch-level crack classification and weakly-supervised localization. Measurement 2022 , 188 , 110641. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, Q.; Shi, W.; Chen, J.; Lin, W. Deep convolution neural network-based transfer learning method for civil infrastructure crack detection. Autom. Constr. 2020 , 116 , 103199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dais, D.; Bal, I.E.; Smyrou, E.; Sarhosis, V. Automatic crack classification and segmentation on masonry surfaces using convolutional neural networks and transfer learning. Autom. Constr. 2021 , 125 , 103606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdellatif, M.; Peel, H.; Cohn, A.G.; Fuentes, R. Combining block-based and pixel-based approaches to improve crack detection and localisation. Autom. Constr. 2021 , 122 , 103492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dan, D.; Dan, Q. Automatic recognition of surface cracks in bridges based on 2D-APES and mobile machine vision. Measurement 2021 , 168 , 108429. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weng, X.; Huang, Y.; Wang, W. Segment-based pavement crack quantification. Autom. Constr. 2019 , 105 , 102819. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kao, S.-P.; Chang, Y.-C.; Wang, F.-L. Combining the YOLOv4 deep learning model with UAV imagery processing technology in the extraction and quantization of cracks in bridges. Sensors 2023 , 23 , 2572. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, X.; Xu, X.; He, X.; Wei, X.; Yang, H. Intelligent crack detection method based on GM-ResNet. Sensors 2023 , 23 , 8369. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Choi, Y.; Park, H.W.; Mi, Y.; Song, S. Crack detection and analysis of concrete structures based on neural network and clustering. Sensors 2024 , 24 , 1725. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Guo, J.-M.; Markoni, H.; Lee, J.-D. BARNet: Boundary aware refinement network for crack detection. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2021 , 23 , 7343–7358. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, J.; Lin, H.; Wei, X.; Wang, Y. Adaptive canny and semantic segmentation networks based on feature fusion for road crack detection. IEEE Access 2023 , 11 , 51740–51753. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ranyal, E.; Sadhu, A.; Jain, K. Enhancing pavement health assessment: An attention-based approach for accurate crack detection, measurement, and mapping. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024 , 247 , 123314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, K.; Chen, B.M. Industrial UAV-based unsupervised domain adaptive crack recognitions: From database towards real-site infrastructural inspections. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2022 , 70 , 9410–9420. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, W.; Hu, W.; Wang, W.; Xu, X.; Wang, M.; Shi, Y.; Qiu, S.; Tutumluer, E. Automated crack severity level detection and classification for ballastless track slab using deep convolutional neural network. Autom. Constr. 2021 , 124 , 103484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Z.; Zhang, X.; Chen, W.; Liu, J.; Xu, T.; Wang, Z. Muraldiff: Diffusion for ancient murals restoration on large-scale pre-training. IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. Intell. 2024 , 8 , 2169–2181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bradley, D.; Roth, G. Adaptive thresholding using the integral image. J. Graph. Tools 2007 , 12 , 13–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sezgin, M.; Sankur, B.l. Survey over image thresholding techniques and quantitative performance evaluation. J. Electron. Imaging 2004 , 13 , 146–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kapur, J.N.; Sahoo, P.K.; Wong, A.K. A new method for gray-level picture thresholding using the entropy of the histogram. Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process. 1985 , 29 , 273–285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pal, N.R.; Pal, S.K. A review on image segmentation techniques. Pattern Recognit. 1993 , 26 , 1277–1294. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flah, M.; Suleiman, A.R.; Nehdi, M.L. Classification and quantification of cracks in concrete structures using deep learning image-based techniques. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020 , 114 , 103781. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mazni, M.; Husain, A.R.; Shapiai, M.I.; Ibrahim, I.S.; Anggara, D.W.; Zulkifli, R. An investigation into real-time surface crack classification and measurement for structural health monitoring using transfer learning convolutional neural networks and otsu method. Alex. Eng. J. 2024 , 92 , 310–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, Z.; Xu, W. Deep learning and image preprocessing-based crack repair trace and secondary crack classification detection method for concrete bridges. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2024 , 20 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, T.; Li, H.; Qian, Z.; Niu, C.; Huang, R. Research on weakly supervised pavement crack segmentation based on defect location by generative adversarial network and target re-optimization. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024 , 411 , 134668. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Su, H.; Wang, X.; Han, T.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, P. Research on a U-Net bridge crack identification and feature-calculation methods based on a CBAM attention mechanism. Buildings 2022 , 12 , 1561. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kang, D.; Benipal, S.S.; Gopal, D.L.; Cha, Y.-J. Hybrid pixel-level concrete crack segmentation and quantification across complex backgrounds using deep learning. Autom. Constr. 2020 , 118 , 103291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lei, Q.; Zhong, J.; Wang, C. Joint optimization of crack segmentation with an adaptive dynamic threshold module. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2024 , 25 , 6902–6916. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lei, Q.; Zhong, J.; Wang, C.; Xia, Y.; Zhou, Y. Dynamic thresholding for accurate crack segmentation using multi-objective optimization. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Turin, Italy, 18 September 2023 ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 389–404. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vincent, L.; Soille, P. Watersheds in digital spaces: An efficient algorithm based on immersion simulations. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1991 , 13 , 583–598. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, H.; Zhao, S.; Zhang, D.; Chen, J. Deep learning-based instance segmentation of cracks from shield tunnel lining images. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2022 , 18 , 183–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fan, Z.; Lin, H.; Li, C.; Su, J.; Bruno, S.; Loprencipe, G. Use of parallel resnet for high-performance pavement crack detection and measurement. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 1825. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kong, S.Y.; Fan, J.S.; Liu, Y.F.; Wei, X.C.; Ma, X.W. Automated crack assessment and quantitative growth monitoring. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2021 , 36 , 656–674. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dang, L.M.; Wang, H.; Li, Y.; Park, Y.; Oh, C.; Nguyen, T.N.; Moon, H. Automatic tunnel lining crack evaluation and measurement using deep learning. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2022 , 124 , 104472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Andrushia, A.D.; Anand, N.; Lubloy, E. Deep learning based thermal crack detection on structural concrete exposed to elevated temperature. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2021 , 24 , 1896–1909. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dang, L.M.; Wang, H.; Li, Y.; Nguyen, L.Q.; Nguyen, T.N.; Song, H.-K.; Moon, H. Deep learning-based masonry crack segmentation and real-life crack length measurement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022 , 359 , 129438. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nguyen, A.; Gharehbaghi, V.; Le, N.T.; Sterling, L.; Chaudhry, U.I.; Crawford, S. ASR crack identification in bridges using deep learning and texture analysis. Structures 2023 , 50 , 494–507. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, C.; Li, L.; Yan, J.; Zhang, Z.; Pan, H.; Catbas, F.N. Pixel-level fatigue crack segmentation in large-scale images of steel structures using an encoder–decoder network. Sensors 2021 , 21 , 4135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jian, L.; Chengshun, L.; Guanhong, L.; Zhiyuan, Z.; Bo, H.; Feng, G.; Quanyi, X. Lightweight defect detection equipment for road tunnels. IEEE Sens. J. 2023 , 24 , 5107–5121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang, H.; Qiu, D.; Ding, K.-L.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X.; Liu, T.; Wan, S. Automatic pavement crack detection in multisource fusion images using similarity and difference features. IEEE Sens. J. 2023 , 24 , 5449–5465. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alamdari, A.G.; Ebrahimkhanlou, A. A multi-scale robotic approach for precise crack measurement in concrete structures. Autom. Constr. 2024 , 158 , 105215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, H.; Kollosche, M.; Laflamme, S.; Clarke, D.R. Multifunctional soft stretchable strain sensor for complementary optical and electrical sensing of fatigue cracks. Smart Mater. Struct. 2023 , 32 , 045010. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dang, D.-Z.; Wang, Y.-W.; Ni, Y.-Q. Nonlinear autoregression-based non-destructive evaluation approach for railway tracks using an ultrasonic fiber bragg grating array. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024 , 411 , 134728. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan, M.; Tan, X.; Mahjoubi, S.; Bao, Y. Strain transfer effect on measurements with distributed fiber optic sensors. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 139 , 104262. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shukla, H.; Piratla, K. Leakage detection in water pipelines using supervised classification of acceleration signals. Autom. Constr. 2020 , 117 , 103256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, X.; Zhang, X.; Li, J.; Ren, M.; Zhou, B. A new method for automated monitoring of road pavement aging conditions based on recurrent neural network. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2022 , 23 , 24510–24523. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, S.; He, X.; Xue, B.; Wu, T.; Ren, K.; Zhao, T. Segment-anything embedding for pixel-level road damage extraction using high-resolution satellite images. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2024 , 131 , 103985. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Park, S.E.; Eem, S.-H.; Jeon, H. Concrete crack detection and quantification using deep learning and structured light. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020 , 252 , 119096. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan, Y.; Mao, Z.; Wu, J.; Padir, T.; Hajjar, J.F. Towards automated detection and quantification of concrete cracks using integrated images and lidar data from unmanned aerial vehicles. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2021 , 28 , e2757. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, Q.; Wang, S.; Chen, X.; Jiang, W.; Li, R.; Gu, X. Pavement crack detection based on point cloud data and data fusion. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 2023 , 381 , 20220165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kim, H.; Lee, S.; Ahn, E.; Shin, M.; Sim, S.-H. Crack identification method for concrete structures considering angle of view using RGB-D camera-based sensor fusion. Struct. Health Monit. 2021 , 20 , 500–512. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, J.; Lu, W.; Lou, J. Automatic concrete defect detection and reconstruction by aligning aerial images onto semantic-rich building information model. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2023 , 38 , 1079–1098. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pozzer, S.; Rezazadeh Azar, E.; Dalla Rosa, F.; Chamberlain Pravia, Z.M. Semantic segmentation of defects in infrared thermographic images of highly damaged concrete structures. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2021 , 35 , 04020131. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaur, R.; Singh, S. A comprehensive review of object detection with deep learning. Digit. Signal Process. 2023 , 132 , 103812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, V.K.; Mir, R.N. A comprehensive and systematic look up into deep learning based object detection techniques: A review. Comput. Sci. Rev. 2020 , 38 , 100301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, L.; Yang, F.; Zhang, Y.D.; Zhu, Y.J. Road crack detection using deep convolutional neural network. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Phoenix, AZ, USA, 25–28 September 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 3708–3712. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang, C.; Chen, J.; Li, Z.; Huang, Y. Structural crack detection and recognition based on deep learning. Appl. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 2868. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rajadurai, R.-S.; Kang, S.-T. Automated vision-based crack detection on concrete surfaces using deep learning. Appl. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 5229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, B.; Yuvaraj, N.; Sri Preethaa, K.; Arun Pandian, R. Surface crack detection using deep learning with shallow CNN architecture for enhanced computation. Neural Comput. Appl. 2021 , 33 , 9289–9305. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Brien, D.; Osborne, J.A.; Perez-Duenas, E.; Cunningham, R.; Li, Z. Automated crack classification for the CERN underground tunnel infrastructure using deep learning. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2023 , 131 , 104668. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, K.; Reichard, G.; Xu, X.; Akanmu, A. Automated crack segmentation in close-range building façade inspection images using deep learning techniques. J. Build. Eng. 2021 , 43 , 102913. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, Z.; Wang, J.; Cui, B.; Wang, D.; Wang, X. Patch-based weakly supervised semantic segmentation network for crack detection. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020 , 258 , 120291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buatik, A.; Thansirichaisree, P.; Kalpiyapun, P.; Khademi, N.; Pasityothin, I.; Poovarodom, N. Mosaic crack mapping of footings by convolutional neural networks. Sci. Rep. 2024 , 14 , 7851. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L. Detection of pavement cracks by deep learning models of transformer and UNet. arXiv 2023 , arXiv:2304.12596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Huda, Z.; Peng, B.; Algburi, R.N.A.; Al-antari, M.A.; Rabea, A.-J.; Zhai, D. A hybrid deep learning pavement crack semantic segmentation. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2023 , 122 , 106142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shamsabadi, E.A.; Xu, C.; Rao, A.S.; Nguyen, T.; Ngo, T.; Dias-da-Costa, D. Vision transformer-based autonomous crack detection on asphalt and concrete surfaces. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 140 , 104316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, S.; Tang, W.; Huang, G.; Huangfu, L.; Yang, D. Weakly supervised patch label inference networks for efficient pavement distress detection and recognition in the wild. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2023 , 24 , 5216–5228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, G.; Huang, S.; Huangfu, L.; Yang, D. Weakly supervised patch label inference network with image pyramid for pavement diseases recognition in the wild. In Proceedings of the ICASSP 2021—2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Toronto, ON, Canada, 6–11 June 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 7978–7982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo, J.-M.; Markoni, H. Efficient and adaptable patch-based crack detection. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2022 , 23 , 21885–21896. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• König, J.; Jenkins, M.D.; Mannion, M.; Barrie, P.; Morison, G. Weakly-supervised surface crack segmentation by generating pseudo-labels using localization with a classifier and thresholding. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2022 , 23 , 24083–24094. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Huda, Z.; Peng, B.; Algburi, R.N.A.; Al-antari, M.A.; Rabea, A.-J.; Al-maqtari, O.; Zhai, D. Asymmetric dual-decoder-U-Net for pavement crack semantic segmentation. Autom. Constr. 2023 , 156 , 105138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wen, T.; Lang, H.; Ding, S.; Lu, J.J.; Xing, Y. PCDNet: Seed operation-based deep learning model for pavement crack detection on 3d asphalt surface. J. Transp. Eng. Part B Pavements 2022 , 148 , 04022023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mishra, A.; Gangisetti, G.; Eftekhar Azam, Y.; Khazanchi, D. Weakly supervised crack segmentation using crack attention networks on concrete structures. Struct. Health Monit. 2024 , 23 , 14759217241228150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kompanets, A.; Pai, G.; Duits, R.; Leonetti, D.; Snijder, B. Deep learning for segmentation of cracks in high-resolution images of steel bridges. arXiv 2024 , arXiv:2403.17725. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, Y.; Yeoh, J.K. Robust pixel-wise concrete crack segmentation and properties retrieval using image patches. Autom. Constr. 2021 , 123 , 103535. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Girshick, R.; Donahue, J.; Darrell, T.; Malik, J. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Columbus, OH, USA, 23–28 June 2014; pp. 580–587. [ Google Scholar ]
• Girshick, R. Fast R-CNN. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Santiago, Chile, 7–13 December 2015; pp. 1440–1448. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ren, S.; He, K.; Girshick, R.; Sun, J. Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 7–12 December 2015; Volume 28. [ Google Scholar ]
• He, K.; Gkioxari, G.; Dollár, P.; Girshick, R. Mask R-CNN. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Venice, Italy, 22–29 October 2017; pp. 2961–2969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Redmon, J.; Divvala, S.; Girshick, R.; Farhadi, A. You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 27–30 June 2016; pp. 779–788. [ Google Scholar ]
• Redmon, J.; Farhadi, A. YOLO9000: Better, faster, stronger. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Honolulu, HI, USA, 21–26 July 2017; pp. 7263–7271. [ Google Scholar ]
• Redmon, J.; Farhadi, A. Yolov3: An incremental improvement. arXiv 2018 , arXiv:1804.02767. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bochkovskiy, A.; Wang, C.-Y.; Liao, H.-Y.M. Yolov4: Optimal speed and accuracy of object detection. arXiv 2020 , arXiv:2004.10934. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, C.-Y.; Bochkovskiy, A.; Liao, H.-Y.M. Yolov7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 18–22 June 2023; pp. 7464–7475. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, W.; Anguelov, D.; Erhan, D.; Szegedy, C.; Reed, S.; Fu, C.-Y.; Berg, A.C. SSD: Single shot multibox detector. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 11–14 October 2016; Part I 14. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 21–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin, T.-Y.; Goyal, P.; Girshick, R.; He, K.; Dollár, P. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Venice, Italy, 22–29 October 2017; pp. 2980–2988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu, Y.; Li, D.; Xie, Q.; Wu, Q.; Wang, J. Automatic defect detection and segmentation of tunnel surface using modified mask R-CNN. Measurement 2021 , 178 , 109316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, W.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Shao, Y.; Shu, J. Automatic pixel-level crack detection and evaluation of concrete structures using deep learning. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2022 , 29 , e2981. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, R.; Yu, J.; Li, F.; Yang, R.; Wang, Y.; Peng, Z. Automatic bridge crack detection using unmanned aerial vehicle and faster R-CNN. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023 , 362 , 129659. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tran, T.S.; Nguyen, S.D.; Lee, H.J.; Tran, V.P. Advanced crack detection and segmentation on bridge decks using deep learning. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023 , 400 , 132839. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Qian, S.; Tan, C. Automated bridge crack detection method based on lightweight vision models. Complex Intell. Syst. 2023 , 9 , 1639–1652. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ren, R.; Liu, F.; Shi, P.; Wang, H.; Huang, Y. Preprocessing of crack recognition: Automatic crack-location method based on deep learning. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2023 , 35 , 04022452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Z.; Yeoh, J.K.; Gu, X.; Dong, Q.; Chen, Y.; Wu, W.; Wang, L.; Wang, D. Automatic pixel-level detection of vertical cracks in asphalt pavement based on gpr investigation and improved mask R-CNN. Autom. Constr. 2023 , 146 , 104689. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Z.; Zhu, H.; Huang, M. A deep learning-based fine crack segmentation network on full-scale steel bridge images with complicated backgrounds. IEEE Access 2021 , 9 , 114989–114997. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alipour, M.; Harris, D.K.; Miller, G.R. Robust pixel-level crack detection using deep fully convolutional neural networks. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2019 , 33 , 04019040. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, S.; Pan, Y.; Chen, M.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, X. FCN-SFW: Steel structure crack segmentation using a fully convolutional network and structured forests. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 214358–214373. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hang, J.; Wu, Y.; Li, Y.; Lai, T.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y. A deep learning semantic segmentation network with attention mechanism for concrete crack detection. Struct. Health Monit. 2023 , 22 , 3006–3026. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, Y.; Yang, Y.; Yao, G.; Wei, F.; Wong, M. Autonomous crack and bughole detection for concrete surface image based on deep learning. IEEE Access 2021 , 9 , 85709–85720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Z.; Leng, Z.; Zhang, Z. A weakly-supervised transformer-based hybrid network with multi-attention for pavement crack detection. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024 , 411 , 134134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, T.; Cai, Z.; Zhao, X.; Chen, C.; Liang, X.; Zou, T.; Wang, P. Pavement crack detection and recognition using the architecture of segNet. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2020 , 18 , 100144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bai, S.; Ma, M.; Yang, L.; Liu, Y. Pixel-wise crack defect segmentation with dual-encoder fusion network. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024 , 426 , 136179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, W.; Su, C. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation network for surface crack detection. Autom. Constr. 2021 , 128 , 103786. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tabernik, D.; Šela, S.; Skvarč, J.; Skočaj, D. Segmentation-based deep-learning approach for surface-defect detection. J. Intell. Manuf. 2020 , 31 , 759–776. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• König, J.; Jenkins, M.D.; Mannion, M.; Barrie, P.; Morison, G. Optimized deep encoder-decoder methods for crack segmentation. Digit. Signal Process. 2021 , 108 , 102907. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, C.; Liu, H.; An, X.; Gong, Z.; Deng, F. Swincrack: Pavement crack detection using convolutional swin-transformer network. Digit. Signal Process. 2024 , 145 , 104297. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lan, Z.-X.; Dong, X.-M. Minicrack: A simple but efficient convolutional neural network for pixel-level narrow crack detection. Comput. Ind. 2022 , 141 , 103698. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salton, G. Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval ; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins, M.D.; Carr, T.A.; Iglesias, M.I.; Buggy, T.; Morison, G. A deep convolutional neural network for semantic pixel-wise segmentation of road and pavement surface cracks. In Proceedings of the 2018 26th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), Rome, Italy, 3–7 September 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA; pp. 2120–2124. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsai, Y.-C.; Chatterjee, A. Comprehensive, quantitative crack detection algorithm performance evaluation system. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2017 , 31 , 04017047. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, H.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, T. A study on evaluation standard for automatic crack detection regard the random fractal. arXiv 2020 , arXiv:2007.12082. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Yuan, Q.; Shi, Y.; Li, M. A Review of Computer Vision-Based Crack Detection Methods in Civil Infrastructure: Progress and Challenges. Remote Sens. 2024 , 16 , 2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16162910

Yuan Q, Shi Y, Li M. A Review of Computer Vision-Based Crack Detection Methods in Civil Infrastructure: Progress and Challenges. Remote Sensing . 2024; 16(16):2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16162910

Yuan, Qi, Yufeng Shi, and Mingyue Li. 2024. "A Review of Computer Vision-Based Crack Detection Methods in Civil Infrastructure: Progress and Challenges" Remote Sensing 16, no. 16: 2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16162910

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Grab your spot at the free arXiv Accessibility Forum

Help | Advanced Search

Statistics > Methodology

Title: hypothesis testing for general network models.

Abstract: The network data has attracted considerable attention in modern statistics. In research on complex network data, one key issue is finding its underlying connection structure given a network sample. The methods that have been proposed in literature usually assume that the underlying structure is a known model. In practice, however, the true model is usually unknown, and network learning procedures based on these methods may suffer from model misspecification. To handle this issue, based on the random matrix theory, we first give a spectral property of the normalized adjacency matrix under a mild condition. Further, we establish a general goodness-of-fit test procedure for the unweight and undirected network. We prove that the null distribution of the proposed statistic converges in distribution to the standard normal distribution. Theoretically, this testing procedure is suitable for nearly all popular network models, such as stochastic block models, and latent space models. Further, we apply the proposed method to the degree-corrected mixed membership model and give a sequential estimator of the number of communities. Both simulation studies and real-world data examples indicate that the proposed method works well.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 07 August 2024

Highest ocean heat in four centuries places Great Barrier Reef in danger

• Benjamin J. Henley   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3940-1963 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Helen V. McGregor   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4031-2282 1 , 2 ,
• Andrew D. King   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9006-5745 4 , 5 ,
• Ove Hoegh-Guldberg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7510-6713 6 ,
• Ariella K. Arzey 1 , 2 ,
• David J. Karoly 4 ,
• Janice M. Lough 7 ,
• Thomas M. DeCarlo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3269-1320 8 , 9 &
• Braddock K. Linsley   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2085-0662 10  

Nature volume  632 ,  pages 320–326 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

1 Citations

2914 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate change
• Environmental impact
• Palaeoclimate

Mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia between 2016 and 2024 was driven by high sea surface temperatures (SST) 1 . The likelihood of temperature-induced bleaching is a key determinant for the future threat status of the GBR 2 , but the long-term context of recent temperatures in the region is unclear. Here we show that the January–March Coral Sea heat extremes in 2024, 2017 and 2020 (in order of descending mean SST anomalies) were the warmest in 400 years, exceeding the 95th-percentile uncertainty limit of our reconstructed pre-1900 maximum. The 2016, 2004 and 2022 events were the next warmest, exceeding the 90th-percentile limit. Climate model analysis confirms that human influence on the climate system is responsible for the rapid warming in recent decades. This attribution, together with the recent ocean temperature extremes, post-1900 warming trend and observed mass coral bleaching, shows that the existential threat to the GBR ecosystem from anthropogenic climate change is now realized. Without urgent intervention, the iconic GBR is at risk of experiencing temperatures conducive to near-annual coral bleaching 3 , with negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems services. A continuation on the current trajectory would further threaten the ecological function 4 and outstanding universal value 5 of one of Earth’s greatest natural wonders.

Similar content being viewed by others

Mesophotic coral bleaching associated with changes in thermocline depth

Atypical weather patterns cause coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia during the 2021–2022 La Niña

Internal tides can provide thermal refugia that will buffer some coral reefs from future global warming

Like many coral reefs globally, the World Heritage-listed GBR in Australia is under threat 4 , 6 . Mass coral bleaching, declining calcification rates 5 , 7 , outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish ( Acanthaster spp.) 8 , severe tropical cyclones 9 and overfishing 10 have placed compounding detrimental pressures on the reef ecosystem. Coral bleaching typically occurs when heat stress triggers the breakdown of the symbiosis between corals and their symbiotic dinoflagellates 11 . Although coral bleaching can occur locally as a result of low salinity, cold waters or pollution, regional and global mass bleaching events, in which the majority of corals in one or more regions bleach at once, are strongly associated with increasing SST linked to global warming 2 .

The first modern observations of mass coral bleaching on the GBR occurred in the 1980s, but these events were less widespread and generally less severe 3 than the bleaching events in the twenty-first century 4 . Stress bands in coral skeletal cores have provided potential evidence for pre-1980s bleaching in the GBR and Coral Sea, such as during the 1877–78 El Niño 12 . However, stress bands are evident in relatively few cores before 1980 (ref. 12 ),  suggesting that severe mass bleaching did not occur in the 1800s and most of the 1900s.

As the oceans have warmed, however, mass coral bleaching events have become increasingly lethal to corals 4 . Coral bleaching on the GBR 1 in 1998 coincided with a strong eastern-Pacific El Niño, and in 2002 with a weak El Niño. El Niño events can induce lower cloud cover and increased solar irradiance over the GBR 13 , increasing the risk of thermal stress and mass bleaching events 14 . In 2004, water temperatures were anomalously warm, and although bleaching occurred in the Coral Sea 15 , it was not widespread in the GBR, probably because there was reduced upwelling and an associated reduced influence of nutrients on symbiotic dinoflagellate expulsion 16 .

However, in the nine January–March periods from 2016 to 2024 (inclusive) there were five mass coral bleaching events on the GBR. Each was associated with high SSTs and affected large sections of the reef. GBR mass bleaching occurred in both 2016 and 2017, influenced by the presence of an El Niño event in 2016, and led to the death of at least 50% of shallow-water (depths of 5–10 m) reef-building corals 4 . Major bleaching events occurred again in quick succession in 2020 and 2022, with the accumulated heat stress for large sections of the GBR reaching levels conducive to widespread bleaching but lower levels of coral mortality 1 . The bleaching event in 2022 occurred, unusually, during a La Niña event, which is typically associated with cooler summer SSTs, higher than average rainfall and higher cloud cover on the GBR 1 . At the time of writing, researchers are assessing the impacts of the 2024 mass bleaching event.

The frequency of recent mass coral bleaching and mortality on the GBR is cause for concern. In 2021, the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) drafted 17 a decision to inscribe the GBR on the List of World Heritage in Danger, stating that the reef is “facing ascertained danger”, citing recent mass coral bleaching events and insufficient progress by the State Party (Australia) in countering climate change, improving water quality and land management issues. The committee’s adopted decisions 18 have not included inscription of the ‘in danger’ status, but the draft inscription highlights the seriousness of the recent mass coral bleaching events. Authorities in Australia 5 have noted that climate change and coral bleaching have deteriorated the integrity of the outstanding universal value of the GBR, a defining feature of its World Heritage status.

Although rapidly rising SSTs are attributed to human activities with virtual certainty 19 , understanding the multi-century SST history of the GBR is critical to understanding the influence of SST on mass coral bleaching and mortality in recent decades. Putting aside a problematic attempt to do this 20 , which was discredited 21 , 22 , knowledge of the long-term context for GBR SSTs comes primarily from two multi-century reconstructions based on the geochemistry of coral cores collected from the inner shelf 23 and outer shelf 24 (Flinders Reef) in the central GBR. These reconstructions showed that SSTs in the early 2000s were not unusually high relative to levels in the past three centuries, with five-year mean SSTs (and salinities) estimated to be higher in the 1700s than in the 1900s. However, these records were limited by their relatively coarse five-year sampling resolution and their most recent data point being from the early 2000s. After these studies were published, SSTs in the GBR have continued to rise. Updated analysis of coral data from Flinders Reef provides valuable improved temporal resolution 25 , but interpretations of these records remain limited spatially.

Here, we investigate the recent high SST events in the GBR region in the context of the past four centuries. We combine a network of 22 coral Sr/Ca and δ 18 O palaeothermometer series (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 ) located in and near to the Coral Sea region to infer spatial mean SST anomalies (SSTAs) for January–March, the months when maximum SST and thermal bleaching are most likely to occur in the Coral Sea 16 , 26 , each year from 1618 to 1995 ( Methods and Supplementary Information ). Anthropogenic climate change began and proceeded entirely within the multi-century lives of some of these massive coral colonies, offering a continuous multi-century record covering the industrial era. We use this 1618–1995 reconstruction and the available 1900–2024 instrumental data to contextualize the modern trend and rank four centuries of January–March SSTAs with greater precision than was previously possible. We then assess the degree of human influence on ocean temperatures in the region using climate model simulations run both with and without anthropogenic forcing.

The instrumental period (1900–present)

Mass coral bleaching on the GBR in 2016, 2017, 2020, 2022 and 2024 during January–March coincided with widespread warm SSTAs in the surrounding seas 1 , including the Coral Sea (Fig. 1a–e , using ERSSTv5 data 27 ). The Coral Sea and GBR have experienced a strong warming trend since 1900 (Fig. 1f ). January–March SSTAs averaged over the GBR are strongly correlated ( ρ  = 0.84, P   ≪  0.01) with those in the broader Coral Sea (Fig. 1f ), including when the long-term warming trend is removed from both time series ( ρ  = 0.69, P  < 0.01; Supplementary Fig. 4 ). Based on the strength of this correlation, we associate high January–March area-averaged Coral Sea SSTAs with increased thermal bleaching risk in the GBR.

a – e , SSTAs (using ERSSTv5 data) for January–March in the Australasian region relative to the 1961–90 average for the five recent GBR mass coral bleaching years: 2016, 2017, 2020, 2022 and 2024. The black box shows the Coral Sea region (4° S–26° S, 142° E–174° E). f , Coral Sea and GBR mean SSTAs for 1900–2024 in January–March relative to the 1961–90 average. The black vertical lines indicate the five recent GBR mass coral bleaching years.

Record temperatures were set in 2016 and 2017 in the Coral Sea, and in 2020 they peaked fractionally below the record high of 2017. The January–March of 2022 was another warm event, the fifth warmest on record at the time. Recent data (ERSSTv5) indicate that 2024 set a new record by a margin of more than 0.19 °C above the previous record for the region. The January–March mean SSTs averaged over the five mass bleaching years during the period 2016–2024 are 0.77 °C higher than the 1961–90 January–March averages in both the Coral Sea and the GBR. The multidecadal warming trend, extreme years and association between GBR and Coral Sea SSTs are similar for the HadISST 28 gridded SST dataset, with some notable differences in the 1900–40 period (Supplementary Fig. 3 ). Furthermore, analysis of modern temperature-sensitive Sr/Ca series from GBR corals for 1900–2017 provides coherent independent evidence of statistically significant multi-decadal warming trends in January–March SSTs in the central and southern GBR (Supplementary Information section  4.2 ).

A multi-century context (1618–present)

Reconstructing Coral Sea January–March SSTs from 1618 to 1995 extends the century-long instrumental record back in time by an additional three centuries (Fig. 2a and Methods ). The reconstruction (calibrated to ERSSTv5) shows that multi-decadal SST variability was a persistent feature in the past. At the centennial timescale, there is relative stability before 1900, with the exception that cooler temperatures prevailed in the 1600s. Warming during the industrial era has been evident since the early 1900s (Fig. 2a ). There is a warming trend for January–March of 0.09 °C per decade for 1900–2024 and 0.12 °C per decade for 1960–2024 (Fig. 1f ) using ERSSTv5 data. Calibrating our reconstruction to HadISST1.1 yields similar results, with some differences in the degree of pre-1900 variability at both multi-decadal and centennial timescales (Supplementary Information section  5.2.6 ).

a , Reconstructed and observed mean January–March SSTAs in the Coral Sea for 1618–2024 relative to 1961–90. Dark blue, highest skill (maximum coefficient of efficiency) reconstruction with the full proxy network; light blue, 5th–95th-percentile reconstruction uncertainty; black, observed (ERSSTv5) data. Red crosses indicate the five recent mass bleaching events. Dashed lines indicate the best estimate (highest skill, red) and 95th-percentile (pink) uncertainty bound for the maximum pre-1900 January–March SSTA. b , Central GBR SSTA for the inner shelf 23 in thick orange and outer shelf 25 (Flinders Reef) in thin orange lines; these series are aligned here (see Methods ) with modern observations of mean GBR SSTAs for January–March relative to 1961–90. Observed data are shown at annual (grey line) and five-year (black line with open circles, plotted at the centre of each five-year period and temporally aligned with the five-year coral series 23 ) resolution. Dashed lines indicate best-estimate pre-1900 January–March maxima for refs. 23 (red) and 25 (pink). Orange shading indicates 5th–95th-percentile uncertainty bounds. Red crosses indicate the five recent mass bleaching events. c , Evaluation metrics for the Coral Sea reconstruction (Supplementary Information section  3.1 ); RE, reduction of error; CE, coefficient of efficiency; Rsq-cal, R-squared in the calibration period; Rsq-ver, R-squared in the verification (evaluation) period. d , Coral data locations relative to source data region (orange box) and Coral Sea region (red box). Coral proxy metadata are given in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 .

Our best-estimate (highest skill; Methods ) annual-resolution Coral Sea reconstruction (Fig. 2a ), using the full coral network calibrated to the ERSSTv5 instrumental data, indicates that the January–March mean SSTAs in 2016, 2017, 2020, 2022 and 2024 were, respectively, 1.50 °C, 1.54 °C, 1.53 °C, 1.46 °C and 1.73 °C above the 1618–1899 (hereafter ‘pre-1900’) reconstructed average. Using the same best-estimate reconstruction, Coral Sea January–March SSTs during these GBR mass bleaching years were five of the six warmest years the region has experienced in the past 400 years (Fig. 2a ).

By comparing the recent warm events to the reconstruction’s uncertainty range ( Methods ), we quantify, using likelihood terminology consistent with recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 19 , that the recent heat extremes in 2017, 2020 and 2024 are ‘extremely likely’ (>95th percentile; Fig. 2a ) to be higher than any January–March in the period 1618–1899. Furthermore, the heat extremes in 2016 and 2022 are (at least) ‘very likely’ (>90th percentile) to be above the pre-1900 maximum. We perform a series of tests that verify that our findings are not simply an artefact of the nature of the coral network itself (Supplementary Information section 5.2 ). In a network perturbation test, we generate 22 subsets of the reconstruction by adding proxy records incrementally in order from the highest to the lowest correlation with the target (Supplementary Information section  5.2.5 ). We confirm that 2017, 2020 and 2024 were ‘extremely likely’ (>95th percentile) to have been warmer than any year pre-1900 (using ERSSTv5 data) for all of these proxy subsets. Furthermore, in 20 of the 22 subsets, 2016 was also ‘extremely likely’ (>95th percentile), rather than ‘very likely’, to be warmer (2022 was ‘extremely likely’ in 14 of the 22 subsets). All our additional tests, including a reconstruction with only Sr/Ca coral data (thereby omitting the possibility of any non-temperature signal in δ 18 O coral on the reconstruction), achieve high reconstruction skill and confirm the extraordinary nature of recent extreme temperatures in the multi-century context (Supplementary Information section  5.2 ). Analyses using HadISST1.1 generally show lower correlations with the coral data and reconstructions with slightly warmer regional SSTs before 1900, along with more-muted centennial and multi-decadal variability in the pre-instrumental period. Nevertheless, the HadISST1.1-calibrated reconstructions show that the recent thermal extremes are well above the best estimate (highest skill) of the pre-1900 maximum of reconstructed January–March SSTAs (Supplementary Fig. 42 ). Furthermore, lower SSTAs (in the HadISST1.1 data) relative to the previous three centuries (as in our reconstructions calibrated to HadISST1.1), coupled with the recently observed mass coral bleaching events, could indicate that long-lived corals have a greater sensitivity to warming than is currently recognized.

Reconstructed regional GBR SSTAs based on a five-year-resolution, multi-century coral δ 18 O record from the central inshore GBR 23 (Fig. 2b ) show similarly strong warming since 1900 but more multi-decadal-to-centennial variability than the Coral Sea reconstruction. Recent five-year mean January–March GBR SSTAs narrowly exceed the best estimate of the maximum pre-1900 five-year mean since the early 1600s (Fig. 2b ). The averages for the five-year periods centred on 2018 and 2022 exceed the pre-1900 maximum by 0.11 °C and 0.06 °C, respectively. Results are similar using the five-year-resolution Flinders Reef (central outer shelf) 24 record (Supplementary Fig. 24 ), although its interpretation is limited by the lack of uncertainty estimates available for that record. Our Coral Sea reconstruction incorporates an updated (annual resolution) record from Flinders Reef 25 , which indicates similar centennial trends (thin orange line in Fig. 2b ) and shows that the recent high January–March SSTA events have approached the estimated local pre-1900 maximum SSTA. Although contiguous multi-century cores from within the GBR are limited in their spatial extent, twentieth-century warming is evident in these records.

The extraordinary nature of the recent Coral Sea January–March SSTs in the context of the past 400 years is further illustrated by comparing the ranked temperature anomalies (Fig. 3 ) for the combined reconstructed and instrumental period from 1618–2024, incorporating reconstruction uncertainty ( Methods ). The mass coral bleaching years of 2016, 2017, 2020, 2022 and 2024, and the heat event of 2004, stand out as the warmest events across the whole 407-year record. The warmest three years (2024, 2017 and 2020) exceed the upper uncertainty bound (95th percentile) of the warmest reconstructed January–March in the pre-1900 period (pink (upper) dashed line in Fig. 3 ); 2016, 2004 and 2022 exceed the 90th percentile bound (red (lower) dashed line in Fig. 3 ). The warming trend is clear in the association between the ascending rank of the temperature anomalies and the year (shown as the colour of the filled circles in Fig. 3 ). Despite high interannual variability, 78 of the warmest 100 January–March periods between 1618 and 2024 occurred after 1900, and the 23 warmest all occur after 1900. The warmest 20 January–March periods all occur after 1950, coinciding with accelerated global warming.

Ranked January–March SSTAs for 1618–2024 relative to 1961–90 (coloured circles) from the best-estimate (highest skill, full coral network) reconstruction (1618–1899) and instrumental (ERSSTv5) data (1900–2024). The year is indicated by the colour of the filled circles. The 5th–95th-percentile uncertainty bounds of the pre-1900 reconstructed SSTAs are shown by small grey dots. The year labels indicate the warmest six years on record, five of which were mass coral bleaching years on the GBR. The pink (upper) dashed line indicates the 95th-percentile uncertainty bound of the maximum pre-1900 reconstructed SSTA; the red (lower) dashed line indicates the 90th-percentile limit.

Assessing anthropogenic influence

Using climate model simulations from the most recent (sixth) phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 29 (CMIP6), we assess the human influence on January–March SSTAs in the Coral Sea. The model simulations are from two experiments in the Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP) 30 . The first set of simulations represents historical climate conditions, including both the natural and human influences on the climate system over the 1850–2014 period (‘historical’; red in Fig. 4 ). The second experiment is a counterfactual climate that spans the same period and uses the same models but includes only natural influences on the climate, omitting all human influences (‘historical-natural’; blue in Fig. 4 ). The historical experiment includes anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, stratospheric ozone changes and anthropogenic land-use changes; the historical-natural experiment does not. Variations in natural climate forcings, such as from volcanic eruptions and solar variability, are incorporated in both experiments. We include models that have a transient climate response (the global mean surface-temperature anomaly at the time of a doubling of atmospheric CO 2 concentration) in the range 1.4–2.2 °C, which is deemed ‘likely’ by the science community 31 ( Methods and Supplementary Information ).

Climate-model simulations of Coral Sea January–March SSTAs relative to the 1850–1900 average for the period 1850–2014, for models within the ‘likely’ range for their transient climate response 31 . The blue line (median) and light blue shading (5th–95th-percentile limits) are from the ‘historical-natural’ climate model simulations (no anthropogenic climate forcing); the red line and light red shading are from the ‘historical’ simulations (anthropogenic influences on the climate included) using the same set of climate models. The climate-model-derived time of emergence of anthropogenic climate change, shown by the grey and black vertical lines (1976 and 1997), is when the ratio of the climate change signal to the standard deviation of noise/variability 32 across model ensemble members first rises above 1 and 2, respectively. All models are represented equally in the model ensemble.

It is only with the incorporation of anthropogenic influences on the climate that the model simulations capture the modern-era warming of the Coral Sea January–March SSTA (Fig. 4 ). The median of the historical simulations has statistically significant warming trends of 0.05 °C, 0.10 °C and 0.15 °C per decade for the periods from 1900, 1950 and 1970 to 2014, respectively; the equivalent historical-natural trends are smaller in magnitude than ±0.01 °C per decade. To further explore the centennial-scale trends, we use a bootstrap ensemble ( Methods ) of the two sets of 165-year simulations from 1850–2014. We found that 100% of the historical bootstrap ensemble has statistically significant positive trends ( Methods ) for 1900–2014, but this value is 0% for the historical-natural ensemble. The observed (ERSSTv5) mean SSTA for 2016–2024 of 0.60 °C relative to 1961–90 is warmer than any nine-year sequence in the 7,095 simulated years in the historical-natural experiments from models with transient climate responses in the ‘likely’ range 31 .

We also use the simulations to estimate the time of emergence of the anthropogenic influence on January–March Coral Sea SSTAs above the natural background variability. The anthropogenic warming signal 32 increases from near zero in 1900 to around 0.5 standard deviations of the variability (‘noise’) in 1960. The climate change signal-to-noise ratio then increases rapidly from 1960 to 2014, exceeding 1.0 in 1976, 2.0 in 1997 and around 2.8 by 2014, the end of these simulations (Fig. 4 , Methods and Supplementary Fig. 50 ). Anthropogenic impacts on the climate are virtually certain to be the primary driver of this long-term warming in the Coral Sea.

Previously, our knowledge of the SST history of the GBR and the Coral Sea region has been highly dependent on instrumental observations, with the exception of the five-year-resolution multi-century coral Sr/Ca and U/Ca SST reconstructions from the two point locations in the central GBR 23 , 24 , an update at one of these locations 25 , seasonal resolution ‘floating’ (in time) chronologies from the GBR in the Holocene 33 , 34 and point SST estimates further back in time 35 . Thus, the context of recent warming trends in the Coral Sea and GBR and their relation to natural variability on decadal to centennial timescales is largely unknown without reconstructions such as the one we developed here.

Our coral proxy network is located mostly beyond the GBR, in the Coral Sea, and some series are located outside the Coral Sea region (Fig. 2d ). The selection of the Coral Sea as a study region allowed for a larger sample of contributing coral proxy data than exists for the GBR. However, coral bleaching on the GBR can be influenced by factors other than large-scale SST, including local oceanic and atmospheric dynamics that can modulate the occurrence and severity of thermal bleaching and mortality events 13 . Nonetheless, warming of seasonal SSTs over the larger Coral Sea region is likely to prime the background state and increase the likelihood of smaller spatio-temporal-scale heat anomalies. Furthermore, where we use only the five-year resolution series directly from the GBR to reconstruct GBR SSTAs, we draw similar conclusions about the long-term trajectory of SSTAs as for our full coral network (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Fig. 24 ). Furthermore, short modern coral series from within the GBR, analysed in this study, document a multi-decadal warming signal that is coherent with instrumental data (Supplementary Figs. 29 and 30 ). Nonetheless, additional high-resolution, multi-century, temperature-sensitive coral geochemical series from within the GBR would help unravel the local and remote ocean–atmosphere contributions to past bleaching events and reduce uncertainties.

The focus on the larger Coral Sea study region also takes advantage of the global modelling efforts of CMIP6. The large number of ensemble members available for CMIP6 means that greater climate model diversity, and therefore greater certainty in our attribution analysis, is possible compared with most single model analyses. There is also a methodological benefit in having high replication of the same experiments run with multiple climate models. However, coarse-resolution global-scale models do not accurately simulate smaller-scale processes, such as inshore currents and mesoscale eddies in the Coral Sea or the Gulf of Carpentaria, which probably affect local surface temperatures and variations in nutrient upwelling in the GBR 36 , 37 . Upwelling on the GBR is linked to the strength of the East Australian Current 16 , the southward branch of the South Pacific subtropical gyre. The CMIP-scale models we use do capture these gyre dynamics. The models show that the East Australian Current is expected to increase in strength as the climate continues to warm through this century 38 , and this may lead to more nutrient inputs that can exacerbate coral sensitivity to rising heat stress 39 , 40 . As well as focusing our model analysis on the larger Coral Sea region, we use a three-month time step. In doing so, we minimize the impact of model spatio-temporal resolution on our inferences about the role of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions on the SST conditions that give rise to GBR mass bleaching.

Remaining uncertainties

We present analyses and interpretations that are as robust as possible given currently available data and methods. However, several sources of remaining uncertainty mean that future reconstructions of past Coral Sea and GBR SSTs could differ from those presented here. Although bias corrections are applied to observational SST datasets such as ERSST and HadISST, these datasets probably retain biases, especially for the period during and before 1945 (ref. 41 ), and these may not be fully accounted for in the uncertainty estimates 42 . Because our reconstructions are calibrated directly to these datasets, future observational-bias corrections are likely to improve proxy-based reconstructions.

Reconstructions of SST that use coral δ 18 O records may be susceptible to the influence of changes in the coral δ 18 O–SST relationship on time periods longer than the instrumental training period, along with non-SST changes in the δ 18 O of seawater, which can covary with salinity. As such, new coral records of temperature-sensitive trace-element ratios such as Sr/Ca, Li/Mg or U/Ca may prove influential in future efforts to distinguish between changes in past temperature and hydroclimate. Owing to the limited availability of multi-century coral data from within the GBR itself, the reconstructed low-frequency variability of GBR SSTs in recent centuries is likely to change as more temperature proxy data become available. It is also likely that new sub-annual resolution records would aid in removing potential signal damping or bias from our use of some annual-resolution records to reconstruct seasonal SSTAs.

Ecological consequences

With global warming of 0.8–1.1 °C above pre-industrial levels 19 there has been a marked increase in mass coral bleaching globally 43 . Even limiting global warming to the Paris Agreement’s ambitious 1.5 °C level would be likely to lead to the loss of 70–90% of corals that are on reefs today 44 . If all current international mitigation commitments are implemented, global mean surface temperature is still estimated to increase in the coming decades, with estimates varying between 1.9 °C (ref. 45 ) and 3.2 °C (ref. 46 ) above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century. Global warming above 2 °C would have disastrous consequences for coral ecosystems 19 , 44 and the hundreds of millions of people who currently depend on them.

Coral reefs of the future, if they can persist, are likely to have a different community structure to those in the recent past, probably one with much less diversity in coral species 4 . This is because mass bleaching events have a differential impact on different coral species. For example, fast-growing branching and tabulate corals are affected more than slower-growing massive species because they have different thermal tolerance 4 . The simplification of reef structures will have adverse impacts on the many thousands of species that rely on the complex three-dimensional structure of reefs 4 . Therefore, even with an ambitious long-term international mitigation goal, the ecological function 4 of the GBR is likely to deteriorate further 5 before it stabilizes.

Coral adaptation and acclimatization may be the only realistic prospect for the conservation of some parts of the GBR this century. However, although adaptation opportunities may be plausible to some extent 47 , they are no panacea because evolutionary changes to fundamental variables such as temperature take decades, if not centuries, to occur, especially in long-lived species such as reef-building corals 48 . There is currently no clear evidence of the real-time evolution of thermally tolerant corals 48 . Most rapid changes depend on a history of exposure to key genetic types and extremes, and there are limitations to genetic adaptation that prevent species-level adaptation to environments outside of their ecological and evolutionary history 19 . Model projections also indicate that rates of coral adaptation are too slow to keep pace with global warming 49 . In a rapidly warming world, the temperature conditions that give rise to mass coral bleaching events are likely to soon become commonplace. So, although we may see some resilience of coral to future marine heat events through acclimatization, thermal refugia are likely to be overwhelmed 50 . Global warming of more than 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels will probably be catastrophic for coral reefs 44 .

Our new multi-century reconstruction illustrates the exceptional nature of ocean surface warming in the Coral Sea today and the resulting existential risk for the reef-building corals that are the backbone of the GBR. The reconstruction shows that SSTs were relatively cool and stable for hundreds of years, and that recent January–March ocean surface heat in the Coral Sea is unprecedented in at least the past 400 years. The coral colonies and reefs that have lived through the past several centuries, and that yielded the valuable Sr/Ca and δ 18 O data on which our reconstruction is based, are themselves under serious threat. Our analysis of climate-model simulations confirms that human influence is the driver of recent January–March Coral Sea surface warming. Together, the evidence presented in our study indicates that the GBR is in danger. Given this, it is conceivable that UNESCO may in the future reconsider its determination that the iconic GBR is not in danger. In the absence of rapid, coordinated and ambitious global action to combat climate change, we will likely be witness to the demise of one of Earth’s great natural wonders.

Instrumental observations

The Coral Sea and GBR area-averaged monthly SSTAs relative to 1961–90 for January–March are obtained from version 5 of the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset (ERSSTv5) 27 . We compare our results using ERSSTv5 with those generated using the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature dataset (HadISST1.1) 28 . We use only post-1900 instrumental SST observations here. Although gridded datasets have some coverage before 1900, ship-derived temperature data in the region for that period are too sparse to be reliable for calibrating our reconstruction (Supplementary Information section  1.2 ). The regional mean for the GBR is computed using the seven grid-cell locations used by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (Supplementary Information section  1.1 ). We define the Coral Sea region as the ocean areas inside 4° S–26° S, 142° E–174° E.

Coral-derived temperature proxy data

We use a network of 22 published and publicly available sub-annual and annual resolution temperature-sensitive coral geochemical series (proxies; Fig. 2d , Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 , and Supplementary Fig. 5a–v ) from the western tropical Pacific in our source data region (4° N–27° S, 134° E–184° E) that cover at least the period from 1900 to 1995. Of these 22 series, 16 are δ 18 O, which are in per mil (‰) notation relative to Vienna PeeDee Belemnite (VPDB) 51 ; the remaining six are Sr/Ca series. The coral data are used as predictors in the reconstruction of January–March mean SSTAs in the Coral Sea region. We apply the inverse Rosenblatt transformation 52 , 53 to the coral data to ensure that our reconstruction predictors are normally distributed. Sub-annually resolved series are converted to the annual time step by averaging across the November–April window. This maximizes the detection of the summer peak values, allowing for some inaccuracy in sub-annual dating and the timing of coral skeleton deposition 54 , 55 . A small fraction (less than 0.8%) of missing data is infilled using the regularized expectation maximization (RegEM) algorithm 56 (Supplementary Information section  2.3 ), after which the proxy series are standardized such that each has a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one over their common 1900–1995 period.

Reconstruction method

To produce our Coral Sea reconstruction, we use nested principal component regression 57 (PCR), in which the principal components of the network of 22 coral proxies are used as regressors against the target-region January–March SSTA relative to the 1961–90 average. We perform the reconstructions separately for each nest of proxies, where a nest is a set of proxies that cover the same time period. The longest nest dates back to 1618, when at least two series are available. The nests allow for the use of all coral proxies over the full time period of their coverage. The 96-year portion of the instrumental period (1900–1995) that overlaps with the reconstruction period is used for calibration and evaluation (or equivalently, verification) against observations. We reconstruct regional SSTAs from the principal components of the coral network of δ 18 O and Sr/Ca data, rather than their local SST calibrations, to minimize the number of computational steps and to aid in representing the full reconstruction uncertainty.

Principal component analysis (PCA) is used to reduce the dimensionality of the proxy matrix, as follows. Let P ( t , r ) denote the palaeoclimate-data matrix during the time period t  = 1,..., n at an annual time step for proxy series r  = 1,..., p . PCA is undertaken on this matrix during the calibration period, P cal . We obtain the principal component coefficients matrix P coeff ( r , e ) for principal components e  = 1,..., n PC and principal component scores P score ( t , e ), which are representations of the input matrix P cal in the principal component space. P score is truncated to include n PC,use principal components to form \({P}_{{\rm{score}}}^{{\prime} }\) such that the variance of the proxy network explained by the n PC,use principal components is greater than \({\sigma }_{{\rm{expl}}}^{2}\) (which we set to 95%). Reconstruction tests in which \({\sigma }_{{\rm{expl}}}^{2}\) is varied from 70% to 95% show that our results are not strongly sensitive to this choice, and tests based on lag-one autoregressive noise for \({\sigma }_{{\rm{expl}}}^{2}\) from 50% to 99% further support this choice (Supplementary Information section  3.2 ). These principal components are used as predictors against which the Coral Sea January–March instrumental SSTAs are regressed. We regress the standardized SSTA target data during the calibration period, I cal , against the retained principal components of the predictor data, \({P}_{{\rm{score}}}^{{\prime} }\) :

Thus, we obtain n PC,use estimates of the regression coefficients γ e with gaussian error term ε t  ~  N (0, \({\sigma }_{N}^{2}\) ). The principal components are extended back into the pre-instrumental period by multiplying the entire proxy matrix P ( t , p ) with the truncated principal component coefficient matrix \({P}_{{\rm{coeff}}}^{{\prime} }\) ( t , e ) to obtain \({Q}_{{\rm{coeff}}}^{{\prime} }\) :

The reconstruction proceeds with the fitted regression coefficients γ e and extended coefficient matrix \({Q}_{{\rm{coeff}}}^{{\prime} }\) to obtain a reconstruction time series R m ( t ) for a given nest of proxy series

The standardized reconstruction R m ( t ) is then calibrated to the instrumental data such that the standard deviation and mean of the reconstruction and target during the calibration interval are equal. As well as obtaining reconstructions for each nest of available proxies, we compute stitched reconstructions S c ( t ) for each calibration period c , which include at each time step the reconstructed data for the proxy nest with maximum coefficient of efficiency 58 , 59 (Supplementary Information section  3.1 ). This procedure is performed for contiguous calibration intervals between 60 and 80 years duration between 1900 and 1995, with interval width and location increments of two years, reserving the remaining data in the overlapping period for independent evaluation, and for all proxy nests. The reconstruction error is modelled with a lag-one autoregressive process fitted to the residuals. We evaluate the capacity of our reconstruction method to achieve spurious skill from overfitting by performing a test in which we replace the coral data with synthetic noise (Supplementary Information section  3.2i ). We find that reconstructions based on synthetic noise achieve extremely low or zero skill and as more noise principal components are included in the regression, the evaluation metrics indicate declining skill. Our reconstruction and evaluation methods therefore guard against the potential for spurious skill.

Pseudo-proxy reconstructions

Our reconstruction method is further evaluated by using a pseudo-proxy modelling approach based on the Community Earth System Model (CESM) Last Millennium Experiment (LME) 60 , for which there are 13 full-forcing ensemble members covering the period 850–2005. We use the pseudo-proxy reconstructions to evaluate our reconstruction method and coral network in a fully coupled climate-model environment. We form pseudo-proxies by extracting from each LME ensemble member the SST and sea surface salinity (SSS) from the 1.5° × 1.5° grid cell located nearest to our coral data. We then apply proxy system models in the form of linear regression models, basing δ 18 O on both SST and SSS, and Sr/Ca on SST only (Supplementary Information section  3.3 ). We set the spatial and temporal availability of the pseudo-coral network to match that of the coral network. We then apply our PCR reconstruction and evaluation procedure to the pseudo-proxy network, taking advantage of the availability of the modelled Coral Sea SSTA data across the multi-century period of 1618–2005, which allows for the evaluation of the pseudo-proxy reconstruction over this entire time period. We first test our method using a ‘perfect proxy’ approach (with no proxy measurement error) before superimposing synthetic noise on the pseudo-proxy time series, evaluating our methodology at two separate levels of measurement error, quantified by signal-to-noise ratios of 1.0 and 4.0. The evaluation metrics for these tests indicate that our coral network and reconstruction method obtain skilful reconstructions of Coral Sea SSTAs in the climate-model environment (Supplementary Figs. 17b , 18 , 20b , 21 , 22b and 23 ).

Comparison with independent coral datasets

We use two multi-century five-year-resolution coral series from the central GBR 23 , 24 (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Fig. 24 ) and a network of sub-annual and annual resolution modern coral series (dated from 1900 onwards but not covering the full 1900–1995 period) from 44 sites in the GBR (Supplementary Information section  4.2 ) for independent evaluation of coral-derived evidence for warming in the region. We estimate five-year GBR SSTAs (Fig. 2b ) by aligning the post-1900 mean and variance of the proxy and instrumental (ERSSTv5) data.

Reconstruction sensitivity to non-SST influences

Of the 22 available coral series, 16 are records of δ 18 O, a widely used measure of the ratio of the stable isotopes 18 O and 16 O. In the tropical Pacific Ocean, δ 18 O is significantly correlated with SST 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 . Coral δ 18 O is also sensitive to the δ 18 O of seawater 65 , which can reflect advection of different water masses and/or changes in freshwater input, such as from riverine sources or precipitation, which in turn co-vary with SSS. Thus, it is generally considered that the main non-SST contributions to coral δ 18 O are processes that co-vary with SSS 62 , 66 . Our methodology minimizes the influence of non-temperature impacts on the reconstruction by exploiting the contrast in spatial heterogeneity between SST and SSS in January–March (Supplementary Information section  5.1 ). SSS is spatially inhomogeneous in the tropical Pacific 66 , 67 , leading to low coherence in SSS signals across our coral network. By contrast, the strong and coherent SST signal across our coral network locations and the Coral Sea region leads to principal components that are strongly representative of SST variations. This produces a skilful reconstruction of SST, as determined by evaluation against independent observations, and low correlations with SSS across the Coral Sea region (Supplementary Fig. 31 ).

Although the likelihood of non-SST influences on our SST reconstruction is low, we nonetheless test the sensitivity of our reconstruction and its associated interpretations to the possibility of these influences on the coral data. The tests compute the correlations between our best-estimate SSTA reconstruction (highest coefficient of efficiency) and observations of SSS, along with a series of additional reconstructions based on subsets of our coral network. The correlations between our highest coefficient of efficiency January–March Coral Sea SSTA reconstruction and January–March SSS are mapped for the Coral Sea and its neighbouring domain using three instrumental SSS datasets (Supplementary Fig. 31 ). Correlations are not statistically significant over most of the domain. Noting differing spatial correlation patterns between the instrumental SSS datasets 68 , which also cover different time periods (Supplementary Information section  5.1 ), we undertake six sensitivity tests using subsets of the coral network (Supplementary Information section  5.2 ). We use the following combinations of coral series: (1) the full network of 22 δ 18 O and Sr/Ca series (Figs. 2a and 3 ); (2) a subset of the six available Sr/Ca series (Supplementary Figs. 32 – 33 ), to test how the reconstruction is influenced by the inclusion of coral δ 18 O records; (3) a fixed nest subset of the five longest coral series, extending back to at least 1700 (Supplementary Figs. 34 – 35 ), to test for the potential influence of combining series of differing lengths (from our splicing of portions of the best reconstructions from each nest); (4) a subset of the ten coral series that are most strongly correlated with the target (Supplementary Figs. 36 and 37 ), to test how our reconstruction is influenced by the inclusion of coral series that are less strongly correlated with our target; (5) a subset of coral series that excludes the six records that are reported to potentially include biological mediation or non-climatic effects, or have low correlation with the target (Supplementary Figs. 38 and 39 ), to test their influence on the reconstruction; and (6) a network perturbation test comprising 22 separate subsets of proxies, in which proxy records are added incrementally in order of highest to lowest correlation with the target, starting with a single coral series and increasing the number of included proxies to all 22 series in our network (Supplementary Information section  5.2.5 ), to systematically quantify the influence of gradually including more coral datasets on our reconstruction and its interpretations.

The evaluation metrics (Fig. 2c and Supplementary Figs. 32b , 34b , 36b and 38b ) indicate a skilful reconstruction back to 1618 for the reconstructions based on the Full, Sr/Ca only, Long, Best-10 and OmitBioMed networks. These reconstructions explain 82.7%, 80.6%, 77.6%, 79.8% and 80.4% (R-squared values) of the variance in January–March SSTAs, respectively, in the independent evaluation periods (using ERSSTv5b). All coral subsets in the network perturbation test produce skilful reconstructions (Supplementary Fig. 40 ). The highest-skill reconstructions for all subsets in the network perturbation test align with our key interpretations (Supplementary Figs. 41 and 42 ). Together, our sensitivity tests show that the coral network, observational data and reconstruction methodology are a sound basis for reconstructing Coral Sea January–March SSTAs in past centuries and contextualizing recent high-SST events ( Supplementary Information ).

Climate-model attribution ensembles and experiments

The multi-model attribution analysis used here is based on simulations from CMIP6. We analyse simulations from the historical experiment (including natural and anthropogenic influences for 1850–2014) and the historical-natural experiment (natural-only forcings for 1850–2014). We select climate models for which monthly surface temperature is available in at least three historical and historical-natural simulations (Supplementary Table 5 ). All model simulations are interpolated to a common regular 1.5° × 1.5° latitude–longitude grid. January–March SSTAs relative to 1961–90 are calculated for each simulation. The full historical all-forcings ensemble is composed of 14 models with 268 simulations for 1850–2014. The natural-only ensemble is composed of the same 14 models with 95 individual simulations. A subset of climate models in the CMIP6 ensemble are considered by the science community to be ‘too hot’, simulating warming in response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations that is larger than that supported by independent evidence 31 . We omit these models from our analysis by including only models with a transient climate response in the ‘likely’ range 31 of 1.4–2.2 °C. Our results are not strongly sensitive to this selection (Supplementary Information section  6.3 ). The ten remaining models yield a total of 25,410 years from 154 historical ensemble members and 7,095 years from 43 historical-natural ensemble members. We weight the models equally in our analysis using bootstrap sampling. We report linear trends based on simple linear regression models fitted with ordinary least squares. The statistical significance of linear trends is assessed using the Spearman’s rank correlation test 69 .

Time of emergence of the anthropogenic impact

We assess the anthropogenic influence on SSTAs in the Coral Sea region by starting with the assumption that any anthropogenic influence on SSTAs in the Coral Sea is indistinguishable from natural variability at the commencement of the model experiments. We measure the impact of anthropogenic influence on the climate in the region using a signal-to-noise approach 32 , 70 . We calculate the anthropogenic ‘signal’ as the mean of the difference between the smoothed (using a 41-year Lowess filter) modelled historical Coral Sea SSTA and the mean smoothed modelled historical-natural SSTA. Our ‘noise’ is the standard deviation of the difference between the modelled historical SSTA and its smoothed time series (Supplementary Information section  6 ).

Methods additionally rely on Supplementary Information and refs. 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 .

Data availability

The ERSSTv5 instrumental SST data are available from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaa.ersst.v5.html . The HadISST1.1 data are available from the UK Met Office at https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/ . The original coral palaeoclimate data are available at the links provided in Supplementary Table 2 . Land areas for maps are obtained from the Mapping Toolbox v.23.2 in Matlab v.2023b and the Global Self-consistent, Hierarchical, High-resolution Geography (GSHHS) Database at https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/pwessel/gshhg/ through the m_map toolbox by R. Pawlowicz, available at https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/%7Erich/map.html . Prepared data from the coral geochemical series, reconstructions and climate models that support the findings of this study are available at: https://doi.org/10.24433/CO.4883292.v1 .

Code availability

The code that supports the findings of this study is available and can be run at : https://doi.org/10.24433/CO.4883292.v1 .

Australian Institute of Marine Science. Long-Term Monitoring Program. https://www.aims.gov.au/research-topics/monitoring-and-discovery/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/long-term-monitoring-program (2024).

Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 543 , 373–377 (2017).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’s coral reefs. Mar. Freshw. Res. 50 , 839–866 (1999).

Google Scholar  

Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556 , 492–496 (2018).

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2019 (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2019).

Hughes, T. P. et al. Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature 546 , 82–90 (2017).

Davis, K. L., Colefax, A. P., Tucker, J. P., Kelaher, B. P. & Santos, I. R. Global coral reef ecosystems exhibit declining calcification and increasing primary productivity. Commun. Earth Environ. 2 , 105 (2021).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Westcott, D. A. et al. Relative efficacy of three approaches to mitigate Crown-of-Thorns Starfish outbreaks on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Sci. Rep. 10 , 12594 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mellin, C. et al. Spatial resilience of the Great Barrier Reef under cumulative disturbance impacts. Glob. Chang. Biol. 25 , 2431–2445 (2019).

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jackson, J. B. C. et al. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293 , 629–637 (2001).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. & Smith, G. J. The effect of sudden changes in temperature, light and salinity on the population density and export of zooxanthellae from the reef corals Stylophora pistillata Esper and Seriatopora hystrix Dana. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 129 , 279–303 (1989).

Article   Google Scholar  

DeCarlo, T. M. et al. Acclimatization of massive reef-building corals to consecutive heatwaves. Proc. Biol. Sci. 286 , 20190235 (2019).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

McGowan, H. & Theobald, A. ENSO weather and coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44 , 10,601–10,607 (2017).

Zhao, W., Huang, Y., Siems, S. & Manton, M. The role of clouds in coral bleaching events over the Great Barrier Reef. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48 , e2021GL093936 (2021).

Oxley, W. G., Emslie, M., Muir, P. & Thompson, A. Marine Surveys Undertaken in the Lihou Reef National Nature Reserve (Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2004).

DeCarlo, T. M. & Harrison, H. B. An enigmatic decoupling between heat stress and coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. PeerJ 7 , e7473 (2019).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Extended 44th Session of the World Heritage Committee, Fuzhou (China) 16–31 July 2021 . Draft decision 44 COM 7B.90. https://whc.unesco.org/document/188005 (UNESCO, 2021).

UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Extended 45th Session of the World Heritage Committee, Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) 10–25 September 2023 . Decision 45 COM 7B.13. https://whc.unesco.org/document/199654 (UNESCO, 2023).

IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

Kamenos, N. A. & Hennige, S. J. Reconstructing four centuries of temperature-induced coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. Front. Mar. Sci. 5 , 283 (2018).

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Commentary: reconstructing four centuries of temperature-induced coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 86 (2019).

DeCarlo, T. M. Commentary: reconstructing four centuries of temperature-induced coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. Front. Mar. Sci. 7 , 30 (2020).

Hendy, E. J. et al. Abrupt decrease in tropical Pacific sea surface salinity at end of Little Ice Age. Science 295 , 1511–1514 (2002).

Calvo, E. et al. Interdecadal climate variability in the Coral Sea since 1708 A.D. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 248 , 190–201 (2007).

Zinke, J. et al. North Flinders Reef (Coral Sea, Australia) Porites sp. corals as a candidate global boundary stratotype section and point for the Anthropocene series. Anthropocene Rev. 10 , 201–224 (2023).

Spady, B. L. et al. Global Coral Bleaching Database (NCEI Accession 0228498) (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, 2022); https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/archive/accession/0228498 .

Huang, B. et al. Extended reconstructed sea surface temperature, Version 5 (ERSSTv5): Upgrades, validations, and intercomparisons. J. Clim. 30 , 8179–8205 (2017).

Rayner, N. A. et al. Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 108 , 4407 (2003).

Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9 , 1937–1958 (2016).

Gillett, N. P. et al. The Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP v1.0) contribution to CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9 , 3685–3697 (2016).

Hausfather, Z., Marvel, K., Schmidt, G. A., Nielsen-Gammon, J. W. & Zelinka, M. Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem. Nature 605 , 26–29 (2022).

Hawkins, E. et al. Observed emergence of the climate change signal: from the familiar to the unknown. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47 , e2019GL086259 (2020).

Gagan, M. K. et al. Temperature and surface-ocean water balance of the mid-Holocene tropical western Pacific. Science 279 , 1014–1018 (1998).

Arzey, A. K. et al. Coral skeletal proxy records database for the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Preprint at Earth Syst. Sci. Data https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-159 (2024).

Brenner, L. D. et al. Coral record of Younger Dryas Chronozone warmth on the Great Barrier Reef. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 35 , e2020PA003962 (2020).

Furnas, M. J. & Mitchell, A. W. Nutrient inputs into the central Great Barrier Reef (Australia) from subsurface intrusions of Coral Sea waters: a two-dimensional displacement model. Cont. Shelf Res. 16 , 1127–1148 (1996).

Wolanski, E., Andutta, F., Deleersnijder, E., Li, Y. & Thomas, C. J. The Gulf of Carpentaria heated Torres Strait and the Northern Great Barrier Reef during the 2016 mass coral bleaching event. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 194 , 172–181 (2017).

Oliver, E. C. J. & Holbrook, N. J. Extending our understanding of South Pacific gyre ‘spin-up’: modeling the East Australian Current in a future climate. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 119 , 2788–2805 (2014).

DeCarlo, T. M. et al. Nutrient-supplying ocean currents modulate coral bleaching susceptibility. Sci. Adv. 6 , eabc5493 (2020).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wiedenmann, J. et al. Nutrient enrichment can increase the susceptibility of reef corals to bleaching. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3 , 160–164 (2013).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Chan, D. & Huybers, P. Correcting observational biases in sea surface temperature observations removes anomalous warmth during World War II. J. Clim. 34 , 4585–4602 (2021).

Chan, D., Kent, E. C., Berry, D. I. & Huybers, P. Correcting datasets leads to more homogeneous early-twentieth-century sea surface warming. Nature 571 , 393–397 (2019).

Hughes, T. P. et al. Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Science 359 , 80–83 (2018).

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Chapter 3: Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems. In Global Warming of 1.5°C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (IPCC, 2018).

Meinshausen, M. et al. Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just below 2 °C. Nature 604 , 304–309 (2022).

Matthews, H. D. & Wynes, S. Current global efforts are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5 °C. Science 376 , 1404–1409 (2022).

Coles, S. L. et al. Evidence of acclimatization or adaptation in Hawaiian corals to higher ocean temperatures. PeerJ 6 , e5347 (2018).

Hughes, T. P., Baird, A. H., Morrison, T. H. & Torda, G. Principles for coral reef restoration in the anthropocene. One Earth 6 , 656–665 (2023).

Logan, C. A., Dunne, J. P., Ryan, J. S., Baskett, M. L. & Donner, S. D. Quantifying global potential for coral evolutionary response to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11 , 537–542 (2021).

Dixon, A. M., Forster, P. M., Heron, S. F., Stoner, A. M. K. & Beger, M. Future loss of local-scale thermal refugia in coral reef ecosystems. PLOS Clim. 1 , e0000004 (2022).

Coplen, T. B. Discontinuance of SMOW and PDB. Nature 375 , 285 (1995).

van Albada, S. J. & Robinson, P. A. Transformation of arbitrary distributions to the normal distribution with application to EEG test-retest reliability. J. Neurosci. Methods 161 , 205–211 (2007).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Emile-Geay, J. & Tingley, M. Inferring climate variability from nonlinear proxies: application to palaeo-ENSO studies. Clim. Past 12 , 31–50 (2016).

Barnes, D. J., Taylor, R. B. & Lough, J. M. On the inclusion of trace materials into massive coral skeletons. Part II: distortions in skeletal records of annual climate cycles due to growth processes. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 194 , 251–275 (1995).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Gagan, M. K., Dunbar, G. B. & Suzuki, A. The effect of skeletal mass accumulation in Porites on coral Sr/Ca and δ 18 O paleothermometry. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 27 , PA1203 (2012).

ADS   Google Scholar  

Schneider, T. Analysis of incomplete climate data: estimation of mean values and covariance matrices and imputation of missing values. J. Clim. 14 , 853–871 (2001).

PAGES 2k Consortium. Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era. Nat. Geosci. 12 , 643–649 (2019).

Cook, E. R., Briffa, K. R. & Jones, P. D. Spatial regression methods in dendroclimatology: a review and comparison of two techniques. Int. J. Climatol. 14 , 379–402 (1994).

Nash, J. E. & Sutcliffe, J. V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I − a discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10 , 282–290 (1970).

Otto-Bliesner, B. L. et al. Climate variability and change since 850 CE: an ensemble approach with the Community Earth System Model. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 97 , 735–754 (2016).

Evans, M. N., Kaplan, A. & Cane, M. A. Optimal sites for coral-based reconstruction of global sea surface temperature. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 13 , 502–516 (1998).

Russon, T., Tudhope, A. W., Hegerl, G. C., Collins, M. & Tindall, J. Inter-annual tropical Pacific climate variability in an isotope-enabled CGCM: Implications for interpreting coral stable oxygen isotope records of ENSO. Clim. Past 9 , 1543–1557 (2013).

PAGES Hydro2k Consortium. Comparing proxy and model estimates of hydroclimate variability and change over the Common Era. Clim. Past 13 , 1851–1900 (2017).

Freund, M. B. et al. Higher frequency of Central Pacific El Niño events in recent decades relative to past centuries. Nat. Geosci. 12 , 450–455 (2019).

Gagan, M. K. et al. New views of tropical paleoclimates from corals. Quat. Sci. Rev. 19 , 45–64 (2000).

Thompson, D. M., Ault, T. R., Evans, M. N., Cole, J. E. & Emile-Geay, J. Comparison of observed and simulated tropical climate trends using a forward model of coral δ 18 O. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 , L14706 (2011).

LeGrande, A. N. & Schmidt, G. A. Global gridded data set of the oxygen isotopic composition in seawater. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 , L12604 (2006).

Reed, E. V., Thompson, D. M. & Anchukaitis, K. J. Coral-based sea surface salinity reconstructions and the role of observational uncertainties in inferred variability and trends. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 37 , e2021PA004371 (2022).

Khaliq, M. N., Ouarda, T. B. M. J., Gachon, P., Sushama, L. & St-Hilaire, A. Identification of hydrological trends in the presence of serial and cross correlations: A review of selected methods and their application to annual flow regimes of Canadian rivers. J. Hydrol. 368 , 117–130 (2009).

Mahlstein, I., Hegerl, G. & Solomon, S. Emerging local warming signals in observational data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39 , L21711 (2012).

Freeman, E. et al. ICOADS Release 3.0: a major update to the historical marine climate record. Int. J. Climatol. 37 , 2211–2232 (2017).

Huang, B. et al. Uncertainty estimates for sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature in NOAAGlobalTemp version 5. J. Clim. 33 , 1351–1379 (2020).

Druffel, E. R. M. & Griffin, S. Variability of surface ocean radiocarbon and stable isotopes in the southwestern Pacific. J. Geophys. Res. 104 , 23607–23613 (1999).

DeLong, K. L., Quinn, T. M., Taylor, F. W., Lin, K. & Shen, C.-C. Sea surface temperature variability in the southwest tropical Pacific since AD 1649. Nat. Clim. Change 2 , 799–804 (2012).

Quinn, T. et al. A multicentury stable isotope record from a New Caledonia coral: Interannual and decadal SST variability in the southwest Pacific since 1657. Paleoceanography 13 , 412–426 (1998).

Quinn, T. M., Crowley, T. J. & Taylor, F. W. New stable isotope results from a 173-year coral from Espiritu Santo, Vanuatu. Geophys. Res. Lett. 23 , 3413–3416 (1996).

Alibert, C. & Kinsley, L. A 170-year Sr/Ca and Ba/Ca coral record from the western Pacific warm pool: 1. What can we learn from an unusual coral record? J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 113 , C04008 (2008).

Tudhope, A. W. et al. Variability in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation through a glacial-interglacial cycle. Science 291 , 1511–1517 (2001).

Urban, F. E., Cole, J. E. & Overpeck, J. T. Influence of mean climate change on climate variability from a 155-year tropical Pacific coral record. Nature 407 , 989–993 (2000).

Guilderson, T. P. & Schrag, D. P. Reliability of coral isotope records from the western Pacific warm pool: A comparison using age-optimized records. Paleoceanography 14 , 457–464 (1999).

Quinn, T. M., Taylor, F. W. & Crowley, T. J. Coral-based climate variability in the Western Pacific Warm Pool since 1867. J. Geophys. Res. 111 , C11006 (2006).

Gorman, M. K. et al. A coral-based reconstruction of sea surface salinity at Sabine Bank, Vanuatu from 1842 to 2007 CE. Paleoceanography 27 , PA3226 (2012).

Bagnato, S., Linsley, B. K., Howe, S. S., Wellington, G. M. & Salinger, J. Coral oxygen isotope records of interdecadal climate variations in the South Pacific Convergence Zone region. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 6 , Q06001 (2005).

Linsley, B. K. et al. Tracking the extent of the South Pacific Convergence Zone since the early 1600s. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 7 , Q05003 (2006).

Cole, J. E., Fairbanks, R. G. & Shen, G. T. Recent variability in the Southern Oscillation: Isotopic results from a Tarawa Atoll coral. Science 260 , 1790–1793 (1993).

Dassié, E. P. et al. A Fiji multi-coral δ 18 O composite approach to obtaining a more accurate reconstruction of the last two-centuries of the ocean-climate variability in the South Pacific Convergence Zone region. Paleoceanography 29 , 1196–1213 (2014).

Carton, J. A., Chepurin, G. A. & Chen, L. SODA3: A new ocean climate reanalysis. J. Clim. 31 , 6967–6983 (2018).

Zuo, H., Balmaseda, M. A., Tietsche, S., Mogensen, K. & Mayer, M. The ECMWF operational ensemble reanalysis-analysis system for ocean and sea ice: A description of the system and assessment. Ocean Sci. 15 , 779–808 (2019).

Cheng, L. et al. Improved estimates of changes in upper ocean salinity and the hydrological cycle. J. Clim. 33 , 10357–10381 (2020).

Thompson, D. M. et al. Identifying hydro‐sensitive coral δ18O records for improved high‐resolution temperature and salinity reconstructions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49 , e2021GL096153 (2022).

Wu, Y., Fallon, S. J., Cantin, N. E. & Lough, J. M. Assessing multiproxy approaches (Sr/Ca, U/Ca, Li/Mg, and B/Mg) to reconstruct sea surface temperature from coral skeletons throughout the Great Barrier Reef. Sci. Total Environ. 786 , 147393 (2021).

Sadler, J., Webb, G. E., Leonard, N. D., Nothdurft, L. D. & Clark, T. R. Reef core insights into mid-Holocene water temperatures of the southern Great Barrier Reef. Paleoceanography 31 , 1395–1408 (2016).

Roche, R. C. et al. Mid-Holocene sea surface conditions and riverine influence on the inshore Great Barrier Reef. Holocene 24 , 885–897 (2014).

Reed, E. V., Cole, J. E., Lough, J. M., Thompson, D. & Cantin, N. E. Linking climate variability and growth in coral skeletal records from the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 38 , 29–43 (2019).

Razak, T. B. et al. Use of skeletal Sr/Ca ratios to determine growth patterns in a branching coral Isopora palifera. Mar. Biol. 164 , 96 (2017).

Marshall, J. F. Decadal-scale, High Resolution Records of Sea Surface Temperature in the Eastern Indian and South Western Pacific Oceans from Proxy Records of the Strontium/calcium Ratio of Massive Porites Corals PhD thesis, Australian National Univ. (2000).

Marshall, J. F. & McCulloch, M. T. An assessment of the Sr/Ca ratio in shallow water hermatypic corals as a proxy for sea surface temperature. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 66 , 3263–3280 (2002).

Gagan, M. K. et al. Coral oxygen isotope evidence for recent groundwater fluxes to the Australian Great Barrier Reef. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 , 43-1–43-4 (2002).

D’Olivo, J. P., Sinclair, D. J., Rankenburg, K. & McCulloch, M. T. A universal multi-trace element calibration for reconstructing sea surface temperatures from long-lived Porites corals: Removing ‘vital-effects’. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 239 , 109–135 (2018).

Fallon, S. J., McCulloch, M. T. & Alibert, C. Examining water temperature proxies in Porites corals from the Great Barrier Reef: a cross-shelf comparison. Coral Reefs 22 , 389–404 (2003).

Brenner, L. D., Linsley, B. K. & Potts, D. C. A modern Sr/Ca-δ 18 O-sea surface temperature calibration for Isopora corals on the Great Barrier Reef. Paleoceanography 32 , 182–194 (2017).

Alibert, C. et al. Source of trace element variability in Great Barrier Reef corals affected by the Burdekin flood plumes. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 67 , 231–246 (2003).

Murty, S. A. et al. Spatial and temporal robustness of Sr/Ca-SST calibrations in Red Sea corals: Evidence for influence of mean annual temperature on calibration slopes. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 33 , 443–456 (2018).

Sayani, H. R., Cobb, K. M., DeLong, K., Hitt, N. T. & Druffel, E. R. M. Intercolony δ 18 O and Sr/Ca variability among Porites spp. corals at Palmyra Atoll: Toward more robust coral-based estimates of climate. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 20 , 5270–5284 (2019).

Otto, F. E. L. Geert Jan van Oldenborgh 1961–2021. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11 , 1017 (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the originators of the coral data cited in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 ; S. E. Perkins-Kirkpatrick and the deceased G. J. van Oldenborgh 105 for contributions to an earlier version of this manuscript; E. P. Dassié and J. Zinke for discussions and data; R. Neukom for advice on an earlier version of the reconstruction code; and B. Trewin and K. Braganza for advice about the Bureau of Meteorology GBR SST time series. B.J.H. and H.V.M. acknowledge support from an Australian Research Council (ARC) SRIEAS grant, Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future (SR200100005), and ARC Discovery Project DP200100206. A.D.K. acknowledges support from an ARC DECRA (DE180100638) and the Australian government’s National Environmental Science Program. B.J.H. and A.D.K. acknowledge an affiliation with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (CE170100023). H.V.M. acknowledges support from an ARC Future Fellowship (FT140100286). A.K.A. acknowledges support from an Australian government research training program scholarship and an AINSE postgraduate research award. Funding was provided to B.K.L. by the Vetlesen Foundation through a gift to the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Grants to B.K.L. enabled the generation of coral oxygen isotope and Sr/Ca data from Fiji that were used in our reconstruction (US National Science Foundation OCE-0318296 and ATM-9901649 and US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NA96GP0406). We acknowledge the support of the NCI facility in Australia and the World Climate Research Programme’s working group on coupled modelling, which is responsible for CMIP. We thank the climate-modelling groups for producing and making available their model output. For CMIP, the US Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provided coordinating support and led the development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organisation for Earth System Science Portals.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Environmental Futures, School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

Benjamin J. Henley, Helen V. McGregor & Ariella K. Arzey

Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

Benjamin J. Henley

School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

Andrew D. King & David J. Karoly

ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

Andrew D. King

School of the Environment, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, Australia

Janice M. Lough

ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia

Thomas M. DeCarlo

Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY, USA

Braddock K. Linsley

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

B.J.H., H.V.M. and A.D.K. conceived the study and developed the methodology. B.J.H. did most of the analysis. A.K.A. contributed analysis of modern coral data (Supplementary Information section  4.2 ). T.M.D. contributed analysis of instrumental data coverage (Supplementary Information section  1.2 ). B.K.L. contributed sub-annual coral data. B.J.H. and H.V.M. led the preparation of the manuscript, with contributions from A.D.K., O.H.-G., A.K.A., D.J.K., J.M.L., T.M.D. and B.K.L. Generative artificial intelligence was not used in any aspect of this study or manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin J. Henley .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature thanks Simon Michel, Miriam Pfeiffer, Claudia Tebaldi and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary information ., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Henley, B.J., McGregor, H.V., King, A.D. et al. Highest ocean heat in four centuries places Great Barrier Reef in danger. Nature 632 , 320–326 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07672-x

Download citation

Received : 02 November 2022

Accepted : 04 June 2024

Published : 07 August 2024

Issue Date : 08 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07672-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Great barrier reef’s temperature soars to 400-year high.

• Jeff Tollefson

Nature (2024)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

• Alzheimer's disease & dementia
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Attention deficit disorders
• Autism spectrum disorders
• Biomedical technology
• Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Gastroenterology
• Gerontology & Geriatrics
• Health informatics
• Inflammatory disorders
• Medical economics
• Medical research
• Medications
• Neuroscience
• Obstetrics & gynaecology
• Oncology & Cancer
• Ophthalmology
• Overweight & Obesity
• Parkinson's & Movement disorders
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Radiology & Imaging
• Sleep disorders
• Sports medicine & Kinesiology
• Vaccination
• Breast cancer
• Cardiovascular disease
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Colon cancer
• Coronary artery disease
• Heart attack
• Heart disease
• High blood pressure
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Multiple sclerosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Ovarian cancer
• Post traumatic stress disorder
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Schizophrenia
• Skin cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Full List »

share this!

August 12, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

Q&A: Generative AI 'drift' and 'nondeterminism' inconsistences are important considerations in health care applications

by Mass General Brigham

Samuel (Sandy) Aronson, ALM, MA, executive director of IT and AI Solutions for Mass General Brigham Personalized Medicine and senior director of IT and AI Solutions for the Accelerator for Clinical Transformation, is the corresponding author of a paper published in NEJM AI that looked at whether generative AI could hold promise for improving scientific literature review of variants in clinical genetic testing. Their findings could have a wide impact beyond this use case.

How would you summarize your study for a lay audience?

We tested whether generative AI can be used to identify whether scientific articles contain information that can help geneticists determine whether genetic variants are harmful to patients. While testing this work, we identified inconsistencies in generative AI that could present a risk for patients if not adequately addressed. We suggest forms of testing and monitoring that could improve safety.

What question were you investigating?

We investigated whether generative AI can be used to determine: 1) whether a scientific article contains evidence about a variant that could help a geneticist's assessment of a genetic variant and 2) whether any evidence found about the variant supports a benign, pathogenic, intermediate or inconclusive conclusion.

What methods or approach did you use?

We tested a generative AI strategy based on GPT-4 using a labeled dataset of 72 articles and compared generative AI to assessments from expert geneticists.

What did you find?

Generative AI performed relatively well, but more improvement is needed for most use cases. However, as we ran our tests repeatedly, we observed a phenomenon we deemed important: running the same test dataset repeatedly produced different results. Through repeated running of the test set over time, we characterized the variability. We found that both drift (changes in model performance over time) and nondeterminism (inconsistency between consecutive runs) were present. We developed visualizations that demonstrate the nature of these problems.

What are the implications?

If a clinical tool developer is not aware that large language models can exhibit significant drift and nondeterminism, they may run their test set once and use the results to determine whether their tool can be introduced into practice. This could be unsafe.

What are the next steps?

Our results show that it could be important to run a test set multiple times to demonstrate the degree of variability (nondeterminism) present. Our results also show that it is important to monitor for changes in performance (drift) over time .

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Pre-surgical antibody treatment might prevent heart transplant rejection

Researchers enhance natural killer cells to target pediatric brain cancer

Study reveals OLAH enzyme underpins lethal respiratory viral disease

MRI technique accurately predicts heart failure risk in general population

2 hours ago

Harnessing deep learning, new research suggests phased COVID-19 vaccine rollout was a mixed bag for mental health

3 hours ago

New findings suggest alternative mechanisms behind Alzheimer's disease

Hooked on a feeling: Opioids evoke positive feelings through a newly identified brain region

Comprehensive atlas of normal breast cells offers new tool for understanding breast cancer origin

Parents who use humor have better relationships with their children, study finds

Researchers urge Medicare coverage of driving assessments for at-risk, older adults

Related stories.

Researchers explore generative AI benefits and shortfalls in medical education

Aug 5, 2024

Battle of the AIs in medical research: ChatGPT vs Elicit

Dec 8, 2023

'Open-washing' generative AI: How Meta, Google and others feign openness

Jul 3, 2024

Exploring the impact of AI on socioeconomic inequalities

Jun 12, 2024

Amazon is rolling out a generative AI feature that summarizes product reviews

Aug 14, 2023

Stories written with AI assistance found to be more creative, better written and more enjoyable

Jul 12, 2024

Recommended for you

AI accurately diagnoses genetic condition from facial photographs

5 hours ago

Study suggests heat caused over 47,000 deaths in Europe in 2023, the second highest burden of the last decade

Researchers outline promises, challenges of understanding AI for biological discovery

Aug 9, 2024

A new way to measure bipolar disorder: Focus on the 'spikes'

Computer simulations clarify how breast cancer spreads

Aug 8, 2024

Increasing clinicians' knowledge about climate change's impact on health and health care sustainability

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter