an abstract of a research proposal

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

Abstract for Research Proposal: Types and How to Write It

by  Antony W

June 26, 2024

An abstract in a research proposal summarizes the main aspect of the assignment in a given sequence in 300 words or less. It highlights the purpose of the study, the research problem, design of the study, findings, summary of your interpretations and conclusions.

For what it’s worth, the abstract of your research proposal should give a clear and concise elaboration of the major aspects of an issue you’ve investigated.

In this guide, you’ll learn how to write an abstract for any research proposal. We’ll look at why an abstract is important, the types of abstracts, writing style, and what to avoid when it comes to writing an abstract for your research proposal.

Types of Abstracts for a Research Proposal

There are four types of abstracts that you can write for a research proposal :

• Critical abstract
• Descriptive abstract
• Informative abstract
• Highlight abstract

1. Critical abstract

A critical abstract in a research proposal describes the primary findings and gives a solid judgment on the validity, completeness, and reliability of the study. It’s your responsibility as a researcher to evaluate your work and then compare it with already existing work on the same subject.

Because a critical abstract includes an additional commentary, it tends to longer. Often, the length falls between 400 and 500 words. However, do keep in mind that this type of an abstract is very are, which means your instructor may never ask you to write a critical abstract for your research proposal.

2. Highlight Abstract

A highlight abstract is a piece of writing that can’t stand independent of its associated document. It uses incomplete and leading remarks, with the primary goal of grabbing the attention of the reader to the study.

Professors have made it clear that a highlight abstract is not by itself a true abstract to use in a research proposal. Since it cannot stand on its away separate from the associated article, it’s unlikely that your teacher will ask you to use it in academic writing.

3. Descriptive abstract

A descriptive abstract gives a short description of the research proposal. It may include purpose, method, and the scope of the research, and it’s often 100 words or less in length. Some people consider it to be an outline of the research proposal rather than an actual abstract for the document.

While a descriptive abstract describes the type of information a reader will find in a research proposal, it neither critics the work nor provides results and conclusion of the study.

4. Informative Abstract

Many abstracts in academic writing are informative. They don’t analyze the study or investigation that you propose, but they explain a research project in a way that they can stand independently. In other words, an informative abstract gives an explanation for the main arguments, evidence, and significant results.

In addition to featuring purpose, method, and scope, an informative abstract also include the results, conclusion, as well as the recommendation of the author. As for the length, an informative abstract should not be more than 300 words.

How to Write an Abstract for a Research Proposal

Of the four type of abstracts that we’ve discussed above, an informative abstract is what you’ll need to write in your research proposal. Writing an abstract for a research proposal isn’t difficult at all. You only need to know what to write and how to write it, and you’re good to get started.

1. Write in Active Voice

First, use active voice when writing an abstract for your research proposal. However, this doesn’t mean you should avoid passive voice in entirety. If you find that some sentences can’t make sense unless with passive sentence construction, feel free to bend this rule somewhat.

Second, make sure your sentences are concise and complete. Refrain from using ambiguous words. Keep the language simple instead.

Lastly, never use present or future tense to write an abstract for a research proposal. You’re reporting a study that you’ve already conducted and therefore writing in past sense makes the most sense.

Your abstract should come immediately after the title page. Write in block format without paragraph indentations. The abstract should not be more than 300 words long and the page should not have a number. The word “Abstract” in your research proposal should be center aligned in the page, unless otherwise stated.

In addition to these formatting rules, the last sentence of your abstract should summarize the application to practice or the conclusions of your study. In the case where it seems appropriate, you might want follow this by statement that suggests a need for additional research.

3. Time to Write the Abstract

There are no hard rules on when to write an abstract for a research proposal. Some students choose to write the section first while others choose to write it last. We strongly recommend that you write the abstract last because it’s a summary of the whole paper. You can also write it in the beginning if you’ve already outlined your draft and know what you want to talk about even before you start writing.

Your informative abstract is subject to frequent changes as you work on your paper, and that holds whether you write the section first or last. Be flexible and tweak this part of the assignment as necessary. Also, make sure you report statistical findings in parentheses.

Read abstract to be sure the summary of the study agrees with what you’ve written in your proposal. As we mentioned earlier, this section is subject to change depending on the direction your research takes. So make sure you identify and correct any anomalies if any.

Mistakes to Avoid When Writing an Abstract for Research Proposal

To wind up this guide, here are some of the most common mistakes that you should avoid when writing an abstract for your research proposal:

• Avoid giving a lengthy background
• Don’t include citations to other people’s work
• An abstract shouldn’t include a table, figure, image, or any kind of illustration
• Don’t include terms that are difficult to understand

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

Stay ahead of the AI revolution.

How to Write an Abstract for a Research Proposal

If you're writing a research proposal, it's likely that you'll be asked to include an abstract. An abstract, in essence, is a summary of your proposal. It should convey the main objectives, methods, and results of your research, as well as its significance and potential implications. In this article, we'll guide you through the process of writing an effective abstract for your research proposal, providing you with key tips and insights to help you succeed.

Understanding the Purpose of an Abstract

Before we dive too deeply into the process of writing an abstract, it's important to understand why it's so critical. Essentially, an abstract serves as a way to communicate the core ideas of your research in a concise and accessible format. It allows readers to quickly grasp the significance and relevance of your work, even if they don't have time to read your entire proposal or report. In short, the abstract serves as a first impression, and it's crucial that you make it count.

The Role of an Abstract in a Research Proposal

The abstract is the first section of your research proposal. It should appear at the beginning of your document, immediately following the title page. In terms of content, your abstract should distill the most important aspects of your proposal into a highly readable, condensed format. The goal is to convey a clear and accurate representation of your research, without getting bogged down in unnecessary details.

Key Elements to Include in an Abstract

When writing your abstract, there are several key elements you'll want to include. These elements will help ensure that your abstract provides an accurate and compelling overview of your research. Here are some of the key elements to consider:

• The research problem or question you're addressing.
• Your research methodology and design.
• Key findings or results.
• A statement about the significance and potential implications of your research.

Preparing to Write Your Abstract

Before diving into the writing process, it's important to take some time to prepare for drafting your abstract. This involves several key steps, including:

Analyzing Your Research Proposal

First, you'll want to carefully review your research proposal. Consider the central problem or question you're addressing, as well as the methodology and data you're using to address it. Look for the most important points and objectives of your research. This will help you determine which elements to focus on in your abstract.

Identifying the Main Points and Objectives

Once you have thoroughly analyzed your proposal, it's time to identify the main points and objectives that you'll address in your abstract. This will help you keep your abstract focused and concise, while still capturing the essential aspects of your research.

Reviewing Abstract Guidelines and Requirements

Make sure to review the guidelines and requirements for your abstract before you begin writing. This will help you ensure that you're meeting any specific criteria or word limits that may be in place. You may also want to look at examples of abstracts from other research proposals to get a sense of how they are structured and formatted.

Structuring Your Abstract

Once you have completed your preparations, it's time to begin writing your abstract. Structure is key to creating an effective abstract that accurately conveys the core ideas of your research. Here are some tips for structuring your abstract:

Writing a Clear and Concise Introduction

Your introduction should be brief and to the point, introducing readers to the key ideas and objectives of your research. Make sure to use clear and concise language that accurately summarizes your work.

Summarizing Your Research Methods and Design

In this section, you should provide a brief overview of your research methodology and design. This should include key details such as the study design, sampling method, and data collection approach.

Presenting Your Key Findings and Results

Next, you'll want to outline the most significant findings or results of your research. This may involve providing specific data or statistics to support your claims. Be sure to focus on the most important findings, rather than attempting to summarize everything you've found.

Concluding with the Significance and Implications of Your Research

Finally, you'll want to wrap up your abstract with some thoughts on the significance and potential implications of your research. This may involve making recommendations for future research, or discussing the potential applications of your findings in real-world contexts.

Tips for Writing an Effective Abstract

Now that you have a sense of how to structure your abstract, let's dive into some specific tips and best practices that will help you craft an effective and compelling summary of your research.

Using Clear and Concise Language

One of the most important things you can do when writing an abstract is to use clear and concise language. Avoid using confusing or overly technical terminology whenever possible, and focus on conveying your ideas in a simple and straightforward manner.

Ensuring Coherence and Logical Flow

Your abstract should be well-organized and easy to follow. Make sure that each section flows logically and smoothly into the next, using transition words and phrases to guide readers from one idea to the next.

Avoiding Jargon and Excessive Technical Terms

While it's important to convey your research methodology and results accurately, you should avoid using excessive jargon or technical terms that may confuse readers who are not experts in your field. Use simple language whenever possible, and provide explanations or clarifications where necessary.

Proofreading and Editing Your Abstract

Finally, make sure to thoroughly proofread and edit your abstract before submitting it. Look for any grammatical or spelling errors, and make sure that your language is clear and concise. You may also want to have a colleague or advisor review your abstract to provide feedback and suggestions for improvement.

ChatGPT Prompt for Writing an Abstract for a Research Proposal

Chatgpt prompt.

Please compose a concise and thorough summary of your proposed research project, highlighting the key objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. Your abstract should provide a clear and compelling overview of the significance and relevance of your study, as well as its potential contributions to the field. Please ensure that your abstract is well-structured, engaging, and accurately reflects the scope and focus of your research proposal.

[ADD ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. CAN USE BULLET POINTS.]

Writing an abstract for a research proposal can seem daunting, but by following the guidelines and tips provided in this article, you should be well-equipped to create a compelling and effective summary of your work. Remember to focus on the most important aspects of your research, use clear and concise language, and organize your ideas in a logical and coherent manner. With these strategies in mind, you'll be able to craft an abstract that accurately represents your research and makes a lasting impression on readers.

Recommended Articles

How to write a winning painting proposal, how to write a 30-60-90 day plan: a step-by-step guide, feeling behind on ai, get the latest ai.

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Definition and Purpose of Abstracts

An abstract is a short summary of your (published or unpublished) research paper, usually about a paragraph (c. 6-7 sentences, 150-250 words) long. A well-written abstract serves multiple purposes:

• an abstract lets readers get the gist or essence of your paper or article quickly, in order to decide whether to read the full paper;
• an abstract prepares readers to follow the detailed information, analyses, and arguments in your full paper;
• and, later, an abstract helps readers remember key points from your paper.

It’s also worth remembering that search engines and bibliographic databases use abstracts, as well as the title, to identify key terms for indexing your published paper. So what you include in your abstract and in your title are crucial for helping other researchers find your paper or article.

If you are writing an abstract for a course paper, your professor may give you specific guidelines for what to include and how to organize your abstract. Similarly, academic journals often have specific requirements for abstracts. So in addition to following the advice on this page, you should be sure to look for and follow any guidelines from the course or journal you’re writing for.

The Contents of an Abstract

Abstracts contain most of the following kinds of information in brief form. The body of your paper will, of course, develop and explain these ideas much more fully. As you will see in the samples below, the proportion of your abstract that you devote to each kind of information—and the sequence of that information—will vary, depending on the nature and genre of the paper that you are summarizing in your abstract. And in some cases, some of this information is implied, rather than stated explicitly. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , which is widely used in the social sciences, gives specific guidelines for what to include in the abstract for different kinds of papers—for empirical studies, literature reviews or meta-analyses, theoretical papers, methodological papers, and case studies.

Here are the typical kinds of information found in most abstracts:

• the context or background information for your research; the general topic under study; the specific topic of your research
• the central questions or statement of the problem your research addresses
• what’s already known about this question, what previous research has done or shown
• the main reason(s) , the exigency, the rationale , the goals for your research—Why is it important to address these questions? Are you, for example, examining a new topic? Why is that topic worth examining? Are you filling a gap in previous research? Applying new methods to take a fresh look at existing ideas or data? Resolving a dispute within the literature in your field? . . .
• your research and/or analytical methods
• your main findings , results , or arguments
• the significance or implications of your findings or arguments.

Your abstract should be intelligible on its own, without a reader’s having to read your entire paper. And in an abstract, you usually do not cite references—most of your abstract will describe what you have studied in your research and what you have found and what you argue in your paper. In the body of your paper, you will cite the specific literature that informs your research.

When to Write Your Abstract

Although you might be tempted to write your abstract first because it will appear as the very first part of your paper, it’s a good idea to wait to write your abstract until after you’ve drafted your full paper, so that you know what you’re summarizing.

What follows are some sample abstracts in published papers or articles, all written by faculty at UW-Madison who come from a variety of disciplines. We have annotated these samples to help you see the work that these authors are doing within their abstracts.

Choosing Verb Tenses within Your Abstract

The social science sample (Sample 1) below uses the present tense to describe general facts and interpretations that have been and are currently true, including the prevailing explanation for the social phenomenon under study. That abstract also uses the present tense to describe the methods, the findings, the arguments, and the implications of the findings from their new research study. The authors use the past tense to describe previous research.

The humanities sample (Sample 2) below uses the past tense to describe completed events in the past (the texts created in the pulp fiction industry in the 1970s and 80s) and uses the present tense to describe what is happening in those texts, to explain the significance or meaning of those texts, and to describe the arguments presented in the article.

The science samples (Samples 3 and 4) below use the past tense to describe what previous research studies have done and the research the authors have conducted, the methods they have followed, and what they have found. In their rationale or justification for their research (what remains to be done), they use the present tense. They also use the present tense to introduce their study (in Sample 3, “Here we report . . .”) and to explain the significance of their study (In Sample 3, This reprogramming . . . “provides a scalable cell source for. . .”).

Sample Abstract 1

From the social sciences.

Reporting new findings about the reasons for increasing economic homogamy among spouses

Gonalons-Pons, Pilar, and Christine R. Schwartz. “Trends in Economic Homogamy: Changes in Assortative Mating or the Division of Labor in Marriage?” Demography , vol. 54, no. 3, 2017, pp. 985-1005.

Sample Abstract 2

From the humanities.

Analyzing underground pulp fiction publications in Tanzania, this article makes an argument about the cultural significance of those publications

Emily Callaci. “Street Textuality: Socialism, Masculinity, and Urban Belonging in Tanzania’s Pulp Fiction Publishing Industry, 1975-1985.” Comparative Studies in Society and History , vol. 59, no. 1, 2017, pp. 183-210.

Sample Abstract/Summary 3

From the sciences.

Reporting a new method for reprogramming adult mouse fibroblasts into induced cardiac progenitor cells

Lalit, Pratik A., Max R. Salick, Daryl O. Nelson, Jayne M. Squirrell, Christina M. Shafer, Neel G. Patel, Imaan Saeed, Eric G. Schmuck, Yogananda S. Markandeya, Rachel Wong, Martin R. Lea, Kevin W. Eliceiri, Timothy A. Hacker, Wendy C. Crone, Michael Kyba, Daniel J. Garry, Ron Stewart, James A. Thomson, Karen M. Downs, Gary E. Lyons, and Timothy J. Kamp. “Lineage Reprogramming of Fibroblasts into Proliferative Induced Cardiac Progenitor Cells by Defined Factors.” Cell Stem Cell , vol. 18, 2016, pp. 354-367.

Sample Abstract 4, a Structured Abstract

Reporting results about the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy in managing acute bacterial sinusitis, from a rigorously controlled study

Note: This journal requires authors to organize their abstract into four specific sections, with strict word limits. Because the headings for this structured abstract are self-explanatory, we have chosen not to add annotations to this sample abstract.

Wald, Ellen R., David Nash, and Jens Eickhoff. “Effectiveness of Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Sinusitis in Children.” Pediatrics , vol. 124, no. 1, 2009, pp. 9-15.

“OBJECTIVE: The role of antibiotic therapy in managing acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS) in children is controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of high-dose amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate in the treatment of children diagnosed with ABS.

METHODS : This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Children 1 to 10 years of age with a clinical presentation compatible with ABS were eligible for participation. Patients were stratified according to age (<6 or ≥6 years) and clinical severity and randomly assigned to receive either amoxicillin (90 mg/kg) with potassium clavulanate (6.4 mg/kg) or placebo. A symptom survey was performed on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 20, and 30. Patients were examined on day 14. Children’s conditions were rated as cured, improved, or failed according to scoring rules.

RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred thirty-five children with respiratory complaints were screened for enrollment; 139 (6.5%) had ABS. Fifty-eight patients were enrolled, and 56 were randomly assigned. The mean age was 6630 months. Fifty (89%) patients presented with persistent symptoms, and 6 (11%) presented with nonpersistent symptoms. In 24 (43%) children, the illness was classified as mild, whereas in the remaining 32 (57%) children it was severe. Of the 28 children who received the antibiotic, 14 (50%) were cured, 4 (14%) were improved, 4(14%) experienced treatment failure, and 6 (21%) withdrew. Of the 28children who received placebo, 4 (14%) were cured, 5 (18%) improved, and 19 (68%) experienced treatment failure. Children receiving the antibiotic were more likely to be cured (50% vs 14%) and less likely to have treatment failure (14% vs 68%) than children receiving the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS : ABS is a common complication of viral upper respiratory infections. Amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate results in significantly more cures and fewer failures than placebo, according to parental report of time to resolution.” (9)

Some Excellent Advice about Writing Abstracts for Basic Science Research Papers, by Professor Adriano Aguzzi from the Institute of Neuropathology at the University of Zurich:

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

How to Write an Abstract (With Examples)

By Sarah Oakley

Table of Contents

What is an abstract in a paper, how long should an abstract be, 5 steps for writing an abstract, examples of an abstract, how prowritingaid can help you write an abstract.

If you are writing a scientific research paper or a book proposal, you need to know how to write an abstract, which summarizes the contents of the paper or book.

When researchers are looking for peer-reviewed papers to use in their studies, the first place they will check is the abstract to see if it applies to their work. Therefore, your abstract is one of the most important parts of your entire paper.

In this article, we’ll explain what an abstract is, what it should include, and how to write one.

An abstract is a concise summary of the details within a report. Some abstracts give more details than others, but the main things you’ll be talking about are why you conducted the research, what you did, and what the results show.

When a reader is deciding whether to read your paper completely, they will first look at the abstract. You need to be concise in your abstract and give the reader the most important information so they can determine if they want to read the whole paper.

Remember that an abstract is the last thing you’ll want to write for the research paper because it directly references parts of the report. If you haven’t written the report, you won’t know what to include in your abstract.

If you are writing a paper for a journal or an assignment, the publication or academic institution might have specific formatting rules for how long your abstract should be. However, if they don’t, most abstracts are between 150 and 300 words long.

A short word count means your writing has to be precise and without filler words or phrases. Once you’ve written a first draft, you can always use an editing tool, such as ProWritingAid, to identify areas where you can reduce words and increase readability.

If your abstract is over the word limit, and you’ve edited it but still can’t figure out how to reduce it further, your abstract might include some things that aren’t needed. Here’s a list of three elements you can remove from your abstract:

Discussion : You don’t need to go into detail about the findings of your research because your reader will find your discussion within the paper.

Definition of terms : Your readers are interested the field you are writing about, so they are likely to understand the terms you are using. If not, they can always look them up. Your readers do not expect you to give a definition of terms in your abstract.

References and citations : You can mention there have been studies that support or have inspired your research, but you do not need to give details as the reader will find them in your bibliography.

Good writing = better grades

ProWritingAid will help you improve the style, strength, and clarity of all your assignments.

If you’ve never written an abstract before, and you’re wondering how to write an abstract, we’ve got some steps for you to follow. It’s best to start with planning your abstract, so we’ve outlined the details you need to include in your plan before you write.

Remember to consider your audience when you’re planning and writing your abstract. They are likely to skim read your abstract, so you want to be sure your abstract delivers all the information they’re expecting to see at key points.

1. What Should an Abstract Include?

Abstracts have a lot of information to cover in a short number of words, so it’s important to know what to include. There are three elements that need to be present in your abstract:

Your context is the background for where your research sits within your field of study. You should briefly mention any previous scientific papers or experiments that have led to your hypothesis and how research develops in those studies.

Your hypothesis is your prediction of what your study will show. As you are writing your abstract after you have conducted your research, you should still include your hypothesis in your abstract because it shows the motivation for your paper.

Throughout your abstract, you also need to include keywords and phrases that will help researchers to find your article in the databases they’re searching. Make sure the keywords are specific to your field of study and the subject you’re reporting on, otherwise your article might not reach the relevant audience.

2. Can You Use First Person in an Abstract?

You might think that first person is too informal for a research paper, but it’s not. Historically, writers of academic reports avoided writing in first person to uphold the formality standards of the time. However, first person is more accepted in research papers in modern times.

If you’re still unsure whether to write in first person for your abstract, refer to any style guide rules imposed by the journal you’re writing for or your teachers if you are writing an assignment.

3. Abstract Structure

Some scientific journals have strict rules on how to structure an abstract, so it’s best to check those first. If you don’t have any style rules to follow, try using the IMRaD structure, which stands for Introduction, Methodology, Results, and Discussion.

Following the IMRaD structure, start with an introduction. The amount of background information you should include depends on your specific research area. Adding a broad overview gives you less room to include other details. Remember to include your hypothesis in this section.

The next part of your abstract should cover your methodology. Try to include the following details if they apply to your study:

What type of research was conducted?

How were the test subjects sampled?

What were the sample sizes?

What was done to each group?

How long was the experiment?

How was data recorded and interpreted?

Following the methodology, include a sentence or two about the results, which is where your reader will determine if your research supports or contradicts their own investigations.

The results are also where most people will want to find out what your outcomes were, even if they are just mildly interested in your research area. You should be specific about all the details but as concise as possible.

The last few sentences are your conclusion. It needs to explain how your findings affect the context and whether your hypothesis was correct. Include the primary take-home message, additional findings of importance, and perspective. Also explain whether there is scope for further research into the subject of your report.

Your conclusion should be honest and give the reader the ultimate message that your research shows. Readers trust the conclusion, so make sure you’re not fabricating the results of your research. Some readers won’t read your entire paper, but this section will tell them if it’s worth them referencing it in their own study.

4. How to Start an Abstract

The first line of your abstract should give your reader the context of your report by providing background information. You can use this sentence to imply the motivation for your research.

You don’t need to use a hook phrase or device in your first sentence to grab the reader’s attention. Your reader will look to establish relevance quickly, so readability and clarity are more important than trying to persuade the reader to read on.

5. How to Format an Abstract

Most abstracts use the same formatting rules, which help the reader identify the abstract so they know where to look for it.

Here’s a list of formatting guidelines for writing an abstract:

Stick to one paragraph

Use block formatting with no indentation at the beginning

Put your abstract straight after the title and acknowledgements pages

Use present or past tense, not future tense

There are two primary types of abstract you could write for your paper—descriptive and informative.

An informative abstract is the most common, and they follow the structure mentioned previously. They are longer than descriptive abstracts because they cover more details.

Descriptive abstracts differ from informative abstracts, as they don’t include as much discussion or detail. The word count for a descriptive abstract is between 50 and 150 words.

Here is an example of an informative abstract:

A growing trend exists for authors to employ a more informal writing style that uses “we” in academic writing to acknowledge one’s stance and engagement. However, few studies have compared the ways in which the first-person pronoun “we” is used in the abstracts and conclusions of empirical papers. To address this lacuna in the literature, this study conducted a systematic corpus analysis of the use of “we” in the abstracts and conclusions of 400 articles collected from eight leading electrical and electronic (EE) engineering journals. The abstracts and conclusions were extracted to form two subcorpora, and an integrated framework was applied to analyze and seek to explain how we-clusters and we-collocations were employed. Results revealed whether authors’ use of first-person pronouns partially depends on a journal policy. The trend of using “we” showed that a yearly increase occurred in the frequency of “we” in EE journal papers, as well as the existence of three “we-use” types in the article conclusions and abstracts: exclusive, inclusive, and ambiguous. Other possible “we-use” alternatives such as “I” and other personal pronouns were used very rarely—if at all—in either section. These findings also suggest that the present tense was used more in article abstracts, but the present perfect tense was the most preferred tense in article conclusions. Both research and pedagogical implications are proffered and critically discussed.

Wang, S., Tseng, W.-T., & Johanson, R. (2021). To We or Not to We: Corpus-Based Research on First-Person Pronoun Use in Abstracts and Conclusions. SAGE Open, 11(2).

Here is an example of a descriptive abstract:

From the 1850s to the present, considerable criminological attention has focused on the development of theoretically-significant systems for classifying crime. This article reviews and attempts to evaluate a number of these efforts, and we conclude that further work on this basic task is needed. The latter part of the article explicates a conceptual foundation for a crime pattern classification system, and offers a preliminary taxonomy of crime.

Farr, K. A., & Gibbons, D. C. (1990). Observations on the Development of Crime Categories. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34(3), 223–237.

If you want to ensure your abstract is grammatically correct and easy to read, you can use ProWritingAid to edit it. The software integrates with Microsoft Word, Google Docs, and most web browsers, so you can make the most of it wherever you’re writing your paper.

Before you edit with ProWritingAid, make sure the suggestions you are seeing are relevant for your document by changing the document type to “Abstract” within the Academic writing style section.

You can use the Readability report to check your abstract for places to improve the clarity of your writing. Some suggestions might show you where to remove words, which is great if you’re over your word count.

We hope the five steps and examples we’ve provided help you write a great abstract for your research paper.

Sarah Oakley

Get started with prowritingaid.

Drop us a line or let's stay in touch via:

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 3. The Abstract
• 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

An abstract summarizes, usually in one paragraph of 300 words or less, the major aspects of the entire paper in a prescribed sequence that includes: 1) the overall purpose of the study and the research problem(s) you investigated; 2) the basic design of the study; 3) major findings or trends found as a result of your analysis; and, 4) a brief summary of your interpretations and conclusions.

Writing an Abstract. The Writing Center. Clarion University, 2009; Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper. The Writing Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Koltay, Tibor. Abstracts and Abstracting: A Genre and Set of Skills for the Twenty-first Century . Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing, 2010;

Importance of a Good Abstract

Sometimes your professor will ask you to include an abstract, or general summary of your work, with your research paper. The abstract allows you to elaborate upon each major aspect of the paper and helps readers decide whether they want to read the rest of the paper. Therefore, enough key information [e.g., summary results, observations, trends, etc.] must be included to make the abstract useful to someone who may want to examine your work.

How do you know when you have enough information in your abstract? A simple rule-of-thumb is to imagine that you are another researcher doing a similar study. Then ask yourself: if your abstract was the only part of the paper you could access, would you be happy with the amount of information presented there? Does it tell the whole story about your study? If the answer is "no" then the abstract likely needs to be revised.

Farkas, David K. “A Scheme for Understanding and Writing Summaries.” Technical Communication 67 (August 2020): 45-60;  How to Write a Research Abstract. Office of Undergraduate Research. University of Kentucky; Staiger, David L. “What Today’s Students Need to Know about Writing Abstracts.” International Journal of Business Communication January 3 (1966): 29-33; Swales, John M. and Christine B. Feak. Abstracts and the Writing of Abstracts . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2009.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Types of Abstracts

To begin, you need to determine which type of abstract you should include with your paper. There are four general types.

Critical Abstract A critical abstract provides, in addition to describing main findings and information, a judgment or comment about the study’s validity, reliability, or completeness. The researcher evaluates the paper and often compares it with other works on the same subject. Critical abstracts are generally 400-500 words in length due to the additional interpretive commentary. These types of abstracts are used infrequently.

Descriptive Abstract A descriptive abstract indicates the type of information found in the work. It makes no judgments about the work, nor does it provide results or conclusions of the research. It does incorporate key words found in the text and may include the purpose, methods, and scope of the research. Essentially, the descriptive abstract only describes the work being summarized. Some researchers consider it an outline of the work, rather than a summary. Descriptive abstracts are usually very short, 100 words or less. Informative Abstract The majority of abstracts are informative. While they still do not critique or evaluate a work, they do more than describe it. A good informative abstract acts as a surrogate for the work itself. That is, the researcher presents and explains all the main arguments and the important results and evidence in the paper. An informative abstract includes the information that can be found in a descriptive abstract [purpose, methods, scope] but it also includes the results and conclusions of the research and the recommendations of the author. The length varies according to discipline, but an informative abstract is usually no more than 300 words in length.

Highlight Abstract A highlight abstract is specifically written to attract the reader’s attention to the study. No pretense is made of there being either a balanced or complete picture of the paper and, in fact, incomplete and leading remarks may be used to spark the reader’s interest. In that a highlight abstract cannot stand independent of its associated article, it is not a true abstract and, therefore, rarely used in academic writing.

II.  Writing Style

Use the active voice when possible , but note that much of your abstract may require passive sentence constructions. Regardless, write your abstract using concise, but complete, sentences. Get to the point quickly and always use the past tense because you are reporting on a study that has been completed.

Abstracts should be formatted as a single paragraph in a block format and with no paragraph indentations. In most cases, the abstract page immediately follows the title page. Do not number the page. Rules set forth in writing manual vary but, in general, you should center the word "Abstract" at the top of the page with double spacing between the heading and the abstract. The final sentences of an abstract concisely summarize your study’s conclusions, implications, or applications to practice and, if appropriate, can be followed by a statement about the need for additional research revealed from the findings.

Composing Your Abstract

Although it is the first section of your paper, the abstract should be written last since it will summarize the contents of your entire paper. A good strategy to begin composing your abstract is to take whole sentences or key phrases from each section of the paper and put them in a sequence that summarizes the contents. Then revise or add phrases or words to make the narrative flow clearly and smoothly. A useful strategy is to avoid using conjunctions [ e.g. and, but, if] that connect long clauses or sentences and, instead, write short, concise sentences . Note that statistical findings should be reported parenthetically [i.e., written in parentheses].

Before handing in your final paper, check to make sure that the information in the abstract completely agrees with what you have written in the paper. Think of the abstract as a sequential set of complete sentences describing the most crucial information using the fewest necessary words. The abstract SHOULD NOT contain:

• A catchy introductory phrase, provocative quote, or other device to grab the reader's attention,
• Lengthy background or contextual information,
• Redundant phrases, unnecessary adverbs and adjectives, and repetitive information;
• Acronyms or abbreviations,
• References to other literature [say something like, "current research shows that..." or "studies have indicated..."],
• Using ellipticals [i.e., ending with "..."] or incomplete sentences,
• Jargon or terms that may be confusing to the reader,
• Citations to other works, and
• Any sort of image, illustration, figure, or table, or references to them.

Abstract. Writing Center. University of Kansas; Abstract. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Abstracts. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Borko, Harold and Seymour Chatman. "Criteria for Acceptable Abstracts: A Survey of Abstracters' Instructions." American Documentation 14 (April 1963): 149-160; Abstracts. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Hartley, James and Lucy Betts. "Common Weaknesses in Traditional Abstracts in the Social Sciences." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (October 2009): 2010-2018; Koltay, Tibor. Abstracts and Abstracting: A Genre and Set of Skills for the Twenty-first Century. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing, 2010; Procter, Margaret. The Abstract. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Riordan, Laura. “Mastering the Art of Abstracts.” The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 115 (January 2015 ): 41-47; Writing Report Abstracts. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing Abstracts. Writing Tutorial Services, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Indiana University; Koltay, Tibor. Abstracts and Abstracting: A Genre and Set of Skills for the Twenty-First Century . Oxford, UK: 2010; Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper. The Writing Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Writing Tip

Never Cite Just the Abstract!

Citing to just a journal article's abstract does not confirm for the reader that you have conducted a thorough or reliable review of the literature. If the full-text is not available, go to the USC Libraries main page and enter the title of the article [NOT the title of the journal]. If the Libraries have a subscription to the journal, the article should appear with a link to the full-text or to the journal publisher page where you can get the article. If the article does not appear, try searching Google Scholar using the link on the USC Libraries main page [scroll down under the heading Quick Links]. If you still can't find the article after doing this, contact a librarian or you can request it from our free i nterlibrary loan and document delivery service .

• << Previous: Research Process Video Series
• Next: Executive Summary >>
• Last Updated: Oct 14, 2024 1:50 PM
• 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

Abstract Writing: A Step-by-Step Guide With Tips & Examples

Table of Contents

Introduction

Abstracts of research papers have always played an essential role in describing your research concisely and clearly to researchers and editors of journals, enticing them to continue reading. However, with the widespread availability of scientific databases, the need to write a convincing abstract is more crucial now than during the time of paper-bound manuscripts.

Abstracts serve to "sell" your research and can be compared with your "executive outline" of a resume or, rather, a formal summary of the critical aspects of your work. Also, it can be the "gist" of your study. Since most educational research is done online, it's a sign that you have a shorter time for impressing your readers, and have more competition from other abstracts that are available to be read.

The APCI (Academic Publishing and Conferences International) articulates 12 issues or points considered during the final approval process for conferences & journals and emphasises the importance of writing an abstract that checks all these boxes (12 points). Since it's the only opportunity you have to captivate your readers, you must invest time and effort in creating an abstract that accurately reflects the critical points of your research.

With that in mind, let’s head over to understand and discover the core concept and guidelines to create a substantial abstract. Also, learn how to organise the ideas or plots into an effective abstract that will be awe-inspiring to the readers you want to reach.

What is Abstract? Definition and Overview

The word "Abstract' is derived from Latin abstractus meaning "drawn off." This etymological meaning also applies to art movements as well as music, like abstract expressionism. In this context, it refers to the revealing of the artist's intention.

Based on this, you can determine the meaning of an abstract: A condensed research summary. It must be self-contained and independent of the body of the research. However, it should outline the subject, the strategies used to study the problem, and the methods implemented to attain the outcomes. The specific elements of the study differ based on the area of study; however, together, it must be a succinct summary of the entire research paper.

Abstracts are typically written at the end of the paper, even though it serves as a prologue. In general, the abstract must be in a position to:

• Describe the paper.
• Identify the problem or the issue at hand.
• Explain to the reader the research process, the results you came up with, and what conclusion you've reached using these results.
• Include keywords to guide your strategy and the content.

Furthermore, the abstract you submit should not reflect upon any of  the following elements:

• Examine, analyse or defend the paper or your opinion.
• What you want to study, achieve or discover.
• Be redundant or irrelevant.

After reading an abstract, your audience should understand the reason - what the research was about in the first place, what the study has revealed and how it can be utilised or can be used to benefit others. You can understand the importance of abstract by knowing the fact that the abstract is the most frequently read portion of any research paper. In simpler terms, it should contain all the main points of the research paper.

What is the Purpose of an Abstract?

Abstracts are typically an essential requirement for research papers; however, it's not an obligation to preserve traditional reasons without any purpose. Abstracts allow readers to scan the text to determine whether it is relevant to their research or studies. The abstract allows other researchers to decide if your research paper can provide them with some additional information. A good abstract paves the interest of the audience to pore through your entire paper to find the content or context they're searching for.

Abstract writing is essential for indexing, as well. The Digital Repository of academic papers makes use of abstracts to index the entire content of academic research papers. Like meta descriptions in the regular Google outcomes, abstracts must include keywords that help researchers locate what they seek.

Types of Abstract

Informative and Descriptive are two kinds of abstracts often used in scientific writing.

A descriptive abstract gives readers an outline of the author's main points in their study. The reader can determine if they want to stick to the research work, based on their interest in the topic. An abstract that is descriptive is similar to the contents table of books, however, the format of an abstract depicts complete sentences encapsulated in one paragraph. It is unfortunate that the abstract can't be used as a substitute for reading a piece of writing because it's just an overview, which omits readers from getting an entire view. Also, it cannot be a way to fill in the gaps the reader may have after reading this kind of abstract since it does not contain crucial information needed to evaluate the article.

To conclude, a descriptive abstract is:

• A simple summary of the task, just summarises the work, but some researchers think it is much more of an outline
• Typically, the length is approximately 100 words. It is too short when compared to an informative abstract.
• A brief explanation but doesn't provide the reader with the complete information they need;
• An overview that omits conclusions and results

An informative abstract is a comprehensive outline of the research. There are times when people rely on the abstract as an information source. And the reason is why it is crucial to provide entire data of particular research. A well-written, informative abstract could be a good substitute for the remainder of the paper on its own.

A well-written abstract typically follows a particular style. The author begins by providing the identifying information, backed by citations and other identifiers of the papers. Then, the major elements are summarised to make the reader aware of the study. It is followed by the methodology and all-important findings from the study. The conclusion then presents study results and ends the abstract with a comprehensive summary.

In a nutshell, an informative abstract:

• Has a length that can vary, based on the subject, but is not longer than 300 words.
• Contains all the content-like methods and intentions
• Offers evidence and possible recommendations.

Informative Abstracts are more frequent than descriptive abstracts because of their extensive content and linkage to the topic specifically. You should select different types of abstracts to papers based on their length: informative abstracts for extended and more complex abstracts and descriptive ones for simpler and shorter research papers.

What are the Characteristics of a Good Abstract?

• A good abstract clearly defines the goals and purposes of the study.
• It should clearly describe the research methodology with a primary focus on data gathering, processing, and subsequent analysis.
• A good abstract should provide specific research findings.
• It presents the principal conclusions of the systematic study.
• It should be concise, clear, and relevant to the field of study.
• A well-designed abstract should be unifying and coherent.
• It is easy to grasp and free of technical jargon.
• It is written impartially and objectively.

You can have a thorough understanding of abstracts using SciSpace ChatPDF which makes your abstract analysis part easier.

What are the various sections of an ideal Abstract?

By now, you must have gained some concrete idea of the essential elements that your abstract needs to convey . Accordingly, the information is broken down into six key sections of the abstract, which include:

An Introduction or Background

Research methodology, objectives and goals, limitations.

Let's go over them in detail.

The introduction, also known as background, is the most concise part of your abstract. Ideally, it comprises a couple of sentences. Some researchers only write one sentence to introduce their abstract. The idea behind this is to guide readers through the key factors that led to your study.

It's understandable that this information might seem difficult to explain in a couple of sentences. For example, think about the following two questions like the background of your study:

• What is currently available about the subject with respect to the paper being discussed?
• What isn't understood about this issue? (This is the subject of your research)

While writing the abstract’s introduction, make sure that it is not lengthy. Because if it crosses the word limit, it may eat up the words meant to be used for providing other key information.

Research methodology is where you describe the theories and techniques you used in your research. It is recommended that you describe what you have done and the method you used to get your thorough investigation results. Certainly, it is the second-longest paragraph in the abstract.

In the research methodology section, it is essential to mention the kind of research you conducted; for instance, qualitative research or quantitative research (this will guide your research methodology too) . If you've conducted quantitative research, your abstract should contain information like the sample size, data collection method, sampling techniques, and duration of the study. Likewise, your abstract should reflect observational data, opinions, questionnaires (especially the non-numerical data) if you work on qualitative research.

The research objectives and goals speak about what you intend to accomplish with your research. The majority of research projects focus on the long-term effects of a project, and the goals focus on the immediate, short-term outcomes of the research. It is possible to summarise both in just multiple sentences.

In stating your objectives and goals, you give readers a picture of the scope of the study, its depth and the direction your research ultimately follows. Your readers can evaluate the results of your research against the goals and stated objectives to determine if you have achieved the goal of your research.

In the end, your readers are more attracted by the results you've obtained through your study. Therefore, you must take the time to explain each relevant result and explain how they impact your research. The results section exists as the longest in your abstract, and nothing should diminish its reach or quality.

One of the most important things you should adhere to is to spell out details and figures on the results of your research.

Instead of making a vague assertion such as, "We noticed that response rates varied greatly between respondents with high incomes and those with low incomes", Try these: "The response rate was higher for high-income respondents than those with lower incomes (59 30 percent vs. 30 percent in both cases; P<0.01)."

You're likely to encounter certain obstacles during your research. It could have been during data collection or even during conducting the sample . Whatever the issue, it's essential to inform your readers about them and their effects on the research.

Research limitations offer an opportunity to suggest further and deep research. If, for instance, you were forced to change for convenient sampling and snowball samples because of difficulties in reaching well-suited research participants, then you should mention this reason when you write your research abstract. In addition, a lack of prior studies on the subject could hinder your research.

Your conclusion should include the same number of sentences to wrap the abstract as the introduction. The majority of researchers offer an idea of the consequences of their research in this case.

Your conclusion should include three essential components:

• A significant take-home message.
• Corresponding important findings.
• The Interpretation.

Even though the conclusion of your abstract needs to be brief, it can have an enormous influence on the way that readers view your research. Therefore, make use of this section to reinforce the central message from your research. Be sure that your statements reflect the actual results and the methods you used to conduct your research.

Good Abstract Examples

Abstract example #1.

Children’s consumption behavior in response to food product placements in movies.

The abstract:

"Almost all research into the effects of brand placements on children has focused on the brand's attitudes or behavior intentions. Based on the significant differences between attitudes and behavioral intentions on one hand and actual behavior on the other hand, this study examines the impact of placements by brands on children's eating habits. Children aged 6-14 years old were shown an excerpt from the popular film Alvin and the Chipmunks and were shown places for the item Cheese Balls. Three different versions were developed with no placements, one with moderately frequent placements and the third with the highest frequency of placement. The results revealed that exposure to high-frequency places had a profound effect on snack consumption, however, there was no impact on consumer attitudes towards brands or products. The effects were not dependent on the age of the children. These findings are of major importance to researchers studying consumer behavior as well as nutrition experts as well as policy regulators."

Abstract Example #2

Social comparisons on social media: The impact of Facebook on young women’s body image concerns and mood. The abstract:

"The research conducted in this study investigated the effects of Facebook use on women's moods and body image if the effects are different from an internet-based fashion journal and if the appearance comparison tendencies moderate one or more of these effects. Participants who were female ( N = 112) were randomly allocated to spend 10 minutes exploring their Facebook account or a magazine's website or an appearance neutral control website prior to completing state assessments of body dissatisfaction, mood, and differences in appearance (weight-related and facial hair, face, and skin). Participants also completed a test of the tendency to compare appearances. The participants who used Facebook were reported to be more depressed than those who stayed on the control site. In addition, women who have the tendency to compare appearances reported more facial, hair and skin-related issues following Facebook exposure than when they were exposed to the control site. Due to its popularity it is imperative to conduct more research to understand the effect that Facebook affects the way people view themselves."

Abstract Example #3

The Relationship Between Cell Phone Use and Academic Performance in a Sample of U.S. College Students

"The cellphone is always present on campuses of colleges and is often utilised in situations in which learning takes place. The study examined the connection between the use of cell phones and the actual grades point average (GPA) after adjusting for predictors that are known to be a factor. In the end 536 students in the undergraduate program from 82 self-reported majors of an enormous, public institution were studied. Hierarchical analysis ( R 2 = .449) showed that use of mobile phones is significantly ( p < .001) and negative (b equal to -.164) connected to the actual college GPA, after taking into account factors such as demographics, self-efficacy in self-regulated learning, self-efficacy to improve academic performance, and the actual high school GPA that were all important predictors ( p < .05). Therefore, after adjusting for other known predictors increasing cell phone usage was associated with lower academic performance. While more research is required to determine the mechanisms behind these results, they suggest the need to educate teachers and students to the possible academic risks that are associated with high-frequency mobile phone usage."

Quick tips on writing a good abstract

There exists a common dilemma among early age researchers whether to write the abstract at first or last? However, it's recommended to compose your abstract when you've completed the research since you'll have all the information to give to your readers. You can, however, write a draft at the beginning of your research and add in any gaps later.

If you find abstract writing a herculean task, here are the few tips to help you with it:

1. Always develop a framework to support your abstract

Before writing, ensure you create a clear outline for your abstract. Divide it into sections and draw the primary and supporting elements in each one. You can include keywords and a few sentences that convey the essence of your message.

2. Review Other Abstracts

Abstracts are among the most frequently used research documents, and thousands of them were written in the past. Therefore, prior to writing yours, take a look at some examples from other abstracts. There are plenty of examples of abstracts for dissertations in the dissertation and thesis databases.

3. Avoid Jargon To the Maximum

When you write your abstract, focus on simplicity over formality. You should  write in simple language, and avoid excessive filler words or ambiguous sentences. Keep in mind that your abstract must be readable to those who aren't acquainted with your subject.

4. Focus on Your Research

It's a given fact that the abstract you write should be about your research and the findings you've made. It is not the right time to mention secondary and primary data sources unless it's absolutely required.

Conclusion: How to Structure an Interesting Abstract?

Abstracts are a short outline of your essay. However, it's among the most important, if not the most important. The process of writing an abstract is not straightforward. A few early-age researchers tend to begin by writing it, thinking they are doing it to "tease" the next step (the document itself). However, it is better to treat it as a spoiler.

The simple, concise style of the abstract lends itself to a well-written and well-investigated study. If your research paper doesn't provide definitive results, or the goal of your research is questioned, so will the abstract. Thus, only write your abstract after witnessing your findings and put your findings in the context of a larger scenario.

The process of writing an abstract can be daunting, but with these guidelines, you will succeed. The most efficient method of writing an excellent abstract is to centre the primary points of your abstract, including the research question and goals methods, as well as key results.

Interested in learning more about dedicated research solutions? Go to the SciSpace product page to find out how our suite of products can help you simplify your research workflows so you can focus on advancing science.

The best-in-class solution is equipped with features such as literature search and discovery, profile management, research writing and formatting, and so much more.

But before you go,

You might also like.

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples

How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples

Published on 1 March 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022 by Eoghan Ryan.

An abstract is a short summary of a longer work (such as a dissertation or research paper ). The abstract concisely reports the aims and outcomes of your research, so that readers know exactly what your paper is about.

Although the structure may vary slightly depending on your discipline, your abstract should describe the purpose of your work, the methods you’ve used, and the conclusions you’ve drawn.

One common way to structure your abstract is to use the IMRaD structure. This stands for:

• Introduction

Abstracts are usually around 100–300 words, but there’s often a strict word limit, so make sure to check the relevant requirements.

In a dissertation or thesis , include the abstract on a separate page, after the title page and acknowledgements but before the table of contents .

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

Abstract example, when to write an abstract, step 1: introduction, step 2: methods, step 3: results, step 4: discussion, tips for writing an abstract, frequently asked questions about abstracts.

Hover over the different parts of the abstract to see how it is constructed.

This paper examines the role of silent movies as a mode of shared experience in the UK during the early twentieth century. At this time, high immigration rates resulted in a significant percentage of non-English-speaking citizens. These immigrants faced numerous economic and social obstacles, including exclusion from public entertainment and modes of discourse (newspapers, theater, radio).

Incorporating evidence from reviews, personal correspondence, and diaries, this study demonstrates that silent films were an affordable and inclusive source of entertainment. It argues for the accessible economic and representational nature of early cinema. These concerns are particularly evident in the low price of admission and in the democratic nature of the actors’ exaggerated gestures, which allowed the plots and action to be easily grasped by a diverse audience despite language barriers.

Keywords: silent movies, immigration, public discourse, entertainment, early cinema, language barriers.

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

You will almost always have to include an abstract when:

• Completing a thesis or dissertation
• Submitting a research paper to an academic journal
• Writing a book proposal
• Applying for research grants

It’s easiest to write your abstract last, because it’s a summary of the work you’ve already done. Your abstract should:

• Be a self-contained text, not an excerpt from your paper
• Be fully understandable on its own
• Reflect the structure of your larger work

Start by clearly defining the purpose of your research. What practical or theoretical problem does the research respond to, or what research question did you aim to answer?

You can include some brief context on the social or academic relevance of your topic, but don’t go into detailed background information. If your abstract uses specialised terms that would be unfamiliar to the average academic reader or that have various different meanings, give a concise definition.

After identifying the problem, state the objective of your research. Use verbs like “investigate,” “test,” “analyse,” or “evaluate” to describe exactly what you set out to do.

This part of the abstract can be written in the present or past simple tense  but should never refer to the future, as the research is already complete.

• This study will investigate the relationship between coffee consumption and productivity.
• This study investigates the relationship between coffee consumption and productivity.

Next, indicate the research methods that you used to answer your question. This part should be a straightforward description of what you did in one or two sentences. It is usually written in the past simple tense, as it refers to completed actions.

• Structured interviews will be conducted with 25 participants.
• Structured interviews were conducted with 25 participants.

Don’t evaluate validity or obstacles here — the goal is not to give an account of the methodology’s strengths and weaknesses, but to give the reader a quick insight into the overall approach and procedures you used.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Next, summarise the main research results . This part of the abstract can be in the present or past simple tense.

• Our analysis has shown a strong correlation between coffee consumption and productivity.
• Our analysis shows a strong correlation between coffee consumption and productivity.
• Our analysis showed a strong correlation between coffee consumption and productivity.

Depending on how long and complex your research is, you may not be able to include all results here. Try to highlight only the most important findings that will allow the reader to understand your conclusions.

Finally, you should discuss the main conclusions of your research : what is your answer to the problem or question? The reader should finish with a clear understanding of the central point that your research has proved or argued. Conclusions are usually written in the present simple tense.

• We concluded that coffee consumption increases productivity.
• We conclude that coffee consumption increases productivity.

If there are important limitations to your research (for example, related to your sample size or methods), you should mention them briefly in the abstract. This allows the reader to accurately assess the credibility and generalisability of your research.

If your aim was to solve a practical problem, your discussion might include recommendations for implementation. If relevant, you can briefly make suggestions for further research.

If your paper will be published, you might have to add a list of keywords at the end of the abstract. These keywords should reference the most important elements of the research to help potential readers find your paper during their own literature searches.

Be aware that some publication manuals, such as APA Style , have specific formatting requirements for these keywords.

It can be a real challenge to condense your whole work into just a couple of hundred words, but the abstract will be the first (and sometimes only) part that people read, so it’s important to get it right. These strategies can help you get started.

Read other abstracts

The best way to learn the conventions of writing an abstract in your discipline is to read other people’s. You probably already read lots of journal article abstracts while conducting your literature review —try using them as a framework for structure and style.

You can also find lots of dissertation abstract examples in thesis and dissertation databases .

Reverse outline

Not all abstracts will contain precisely the same elements. For longer works, you can write your abstract through a process of reverse outlining.

For each chapter or section, list keywords and draft one to two sentences that summarise the central point or argument. This will give you a framework of your abstract’s structure. Next, revise the sentences to make connections and show how the argument develops.

Write clearly and concisely

A good abstract is short but impactful, so make sure every word counts. Each sentence should clearly communicate one main point.

To keep your abstract or summary short and clear:

• Avoid passive sentences: Passive constructions are often unnecessarily long. You can easily make them shorter and clearer by using the active voice.
• Avoid long sentences: Substitute longer expressions for concise expressions or single words (e.g., “In order to” for “To”).
• Avoid obscure jargon: The abstract should be understandable to readers who are not familiar with your topic.
• Avoid repetition and filler words: Replace nouns with pronouns when possible and eliminate unnecessary words.
• Avoid detailed descriptions: An abstract is not expected to provide detailed definitions, background information, or discussions of other scholars’ work. Instead, include this information in the body of your thesis or paper.

If you’re struggling to edit down to the required length, you can get help from expert editors with Scribbr’s professional proofreading services .

Check your formatting

If you are writing a thesis or dissertation or submitting to a journal, there are often specific formatting requirements for the abstract—make sure to check the guidelines and format your work correctly. For APA research papers you can follow the APA abstract format .

Checklist: Abstract

The word count is within the required length, or a maximum of one page.

The abstract appears after the title page and acknowledgements and before the table of contents .

I have clearly stated my research problem and objectives.

I have briefly described my methodology .

I have summarized the most important results .

I have stated my main conclusions .

I have mentioned any important limitations and recommendations.

The abstract can be understood by someone without prior knowledge of the topic.

You've written a great abstract! Use the other checklists to continue improving your thesis or dissertation.

An abstract is a concise summary of an academic text (such as a journal article or dissertation ). It serves two main purposes:

• To help potential readers determine the relevance of your paper for their own research.
• To communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper.

Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your work more easily findable. Since the abstract is the first thing any reader sees, it’s important that it clearly and accurately summarises the contents of your paper.

An abstract for a thesis or dissertation is usually around 150–300 words. There’s often a strict word limit, so make sure to check your university’s requirements.

The abstract is the very last thing you write. You should only write it after your research is complete, so that you can accurately summarize the entirety of your thesis or paper.

Avoid citing sources in your abstract . There are two reasons for this:

• The abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others.
• The abstract should be self-contained and fully understandable without reference to other sources.

There are some circumstances where you might need to mention other sources in an abstract: for example, if your research responds directly to another study or focuses on the work of a single theorist. In general, though, don’t include citations unless absolutely necessary.

The abstract appears on its own page, after the title page and acknowledgements but before the table of contents .

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). How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 15 October 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/abstract/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a thesis or dissertation introduction, thesis & dissertation acknowledgements | tips & examples, dissertation title page.

• Mission Statement
• Office of Undergraduate Research FAQ's
• URSA Engage
• Resources for Students
• Resources for Faculty
• Earn Money by Participating in Research Studies
• Presenting Your Research
• Funding and Awards
• Transcript Notation
• Drop-in Advising Hours

How to Write an Abstract

How to write an abstract for a conference, what is an abstract and why is it important.

An abstract is a brief summary of your research or creative project, usually about a paragraph long (250-350 words), and is written when you are ready to present your research or included in a thesis or research publication.

For additional support in writing your abstract, you can contact the Office of URSA at [email protected]  or schedule a time to meet with a Writing and Research Consultant at the OSU Writing Center .

Main Components of an Abstract: 

The opening sentences should summarize your topic and describe what researchers already know, with reference to the literature. 

A brief discussion that clearly states the purpose of your research or creative project. This should give general background information on your work and allow people from different fields to understand what you are talking about. Use verbs like investigate, analyze, test, etc. to describe how you began your work. 

In this section you will be discussing the ways in which your research was performed and the type of tools or methodological techniques you used to conduct your research. 

This is where you describe the main findings of your research study and what you have learned. Try to include only the most important findings of your research that will allow the reader to understand your conclusions. If you have not completed the project, talk about your anticipated results and what you expect the outcomes of the study to be. 

Significance

This is the final section of your abstract where you summarize the work performed. This is where you also discuss the relevance of your work and how it advances your field and the scientific field in general.

• Your word count for a conference may be limited, so make your abstract as clear and concise as possible.
• Organize it by using good transition words found on the lef so the information flows well.
• Have your abstract proofread and receive feedback from your supervisor, advisor, peers, writing center, or other professors from different disciplines. 
• Double-check on the guidelines for your abstract and adhere to any formatting or word count requirements.
• Do not include bibliographic references or footnotes. 
• Avoid the overuse of technical terms or jargon. 

Feeling stuck? Visit the OSU ScholarsArchive for more abstract examples related to your field

Physical Science Example

Human trafficking: The relationship between government efforts & survivor punishment.

By Amantia, R, Irvin, VL, Smit, E, Seifert, JR, Garcia, J

Context: Human trafficking is a global public health and human rights issue, although it remains unknown how governmental-level systems impact survivors of human trafficking. Survivor punishment (where federal or local officials arrest, fine, imprison, deport, or otherwise punish survivors) is evident even with global promotion of survivor-centered approaches to human trafficking.

Purpose: This study serves as an initial investigation of how government involvement in survivor services and prevention progress are related to survivor punishment.

Methods: This cross-national study utilized the 2011 Human Trafficking Indicators. Although this dataset heavily relies on the U.S. TIP reports, our analyses are guided by a human rights framework that recognizes the importance of prevention and partnerships in mitigating the vulnerability of survivors. Multiple logistic regression was conducted to determine factors associated with survivor punishment.

Findings: Findings indicate that countries categorized by the U.S. as showing substantial prevention progress have a lower likelihood of survivor punishment (OR = 0.30; 95% CI [0.15, 0.62]). Government survivor service offering was not significantly associated with punishment (OR = 0.65; 95% CI [0.33, 1.28]).

Significance: Findings call for the development of global measures resulting from international partnerships to characterize stocks and flows of human trafficking, as well as the quality and effectiveness of governmental efforts and partnerships.

Social Science Example

Guinea pig model of mild hyperandrogenemia – is it a suitable model for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)? A pilot study.

By Juriana E. Barboza Sagrero

Context: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) is an idiopathic disorder prevalent in ~5-10% of reproductive-aged women. In PCOS women who become pregnant, many experience complications including increased susceptibility of having a miscarriage, high blood pressure, and gestational diabetes, among others. Additionally, exposure to PCOS may have transgenerational impacts: offspring may be at increased risk of overall poor health in adulthood.

Purpose: Many models of PCOS have been developed, such as the sheep and rodent animal models; yet these models do not provide a good foundation to study PCOS as it would appear in women, and to understand the effects inflicted on offspring later in life. In previous studies, a nonhuman primate model of PCOS which exposed rhesus monkeys to mildly elevated testosterone (T) with and without a high fat diet (HFD) during early adolescence developed many PCOS-like symptoms; however, transgenerational studies in macaques were challenging to pursue due to longer generational intervals (5+ years). We hypothesize the guinea pig is a good surrogate for primates and will show a similar PCOS like phenotype.

Methods: Eight Hartley Guinea Pigs were obtained prior to puberty, and had subcutaneous implants placed containing either cholesterol (n=4) or T (n=4) at 1 month of age and again at 3 months of age. Serum T levels and weight were assessed weekly, and females were monitored for signs of estrus periodically. At 5 months of age, after 16 weeks of treatment, all females were necropsied, and tissues of interest were analyzed, and some collected for histology.

Findings: The T-treated females did not differ in body weight by age or compared to the controls, similar to previous studies in rhesus monkeys. After the end of the eight weeks, the levels of serum T remained 2.01 +/- 0.5-fold increase above female guinea pigs in the cholesterol control group.

Significance: Further analyses are ongoing, but these results suggest the guinea pig sow may be a good surrogate model of mild hyperandrogenemia, similar to women with PCOS.

How to Write an Abstract APA Format

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

An APA abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of an article, research paper, dissertation, or report.

It is written in accordance with the guidelines of the American Psychological Association (APA), which is a widely used format in social and behavioral sciences. 

An APA abstract summarizes, usually in one paragraph of between 150–250 words, the major aspects of a research paper or dissertation in a prescribed sequence that includes:

• The rationale: the overall purpose of the study, providing a clear context for the research undertaken.
• Information regarding the method and participants: including materials/instruments, design, procedure, and data analysis.
• Main findings or trends: effectively highlighting the key outcomes of the hypotheses.
• Interpretations and conclusion(s): solidify the implications of the research.
• Keywords related to the study: assist the paper’s discoverability in academic databases.

The abstract should stand alone, be “self-contained,” and make sense to the reader in isolation from the main article.

The purpose of the abstract is to give the reader a quick overview of the essential information before reading the entire article. The abstract is placed on its own page, directly after the title page and before the main body of the paper.

Although the abstract will appear as the very first part of your paper, it’s good practice to write your abstract after you’ve drafted your full paper, so that you know what you’re summarizing.

Note : This page reflects the latest version of the APA Publication Manual (i.e., APA 7), released in October 2019.

Structure of the Abstract

[NOTE: DO NOT separate the components of the abstract – it should be written as a single paragraph. This section is separated to illustrate the abstract’s structure.]

1) The Rationale

One or two sentences describing the overall purpose of the study and the research problem(s) you investigated. You are basically justifying why this study was conducted.

• What is the importance of the research?
• Why would a reader be interested in the larger work?
• For example, are you filling a gap in previous research or applying new methods to take a fresh look at existing ideas or data?
• Women who are diagnosed with breast cancer can experience an array of psychosocial difficulties; however, social support, particularly from a spouse, has been shown to have a protective function during this time. This study examined the ways in which a woman’s daily mood, pain, and fatigue, and her spouse’s marital satisfaction predict the woman’s report of partner support in the context of breast cancer.
• The current nursing shortage, high hospital nurse job dissatisfaction, and reports of uneven quality of hospital care are not uniquely American phenomena.
• Students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) are more likely to exhibit behavioral difficulties than their typically developing peers. The aim of this study was to identify specific risk factors that influence variability in behavior difficulties among individuals with SEND.

2) The Method

Information regarding the participants (number, and population). One or two sentences outlining the method, explaining what was done and how. The method is described in the present tense.

• Pretest data from a larger intervention study and multilevel modeling were used to examine the effects of women’s daily mood, pain, and fatigue and average levels of mood, pain, and fatigue on women’s report of social support received from her partner, as well as how the effects of mood interacted with partners’ marital satisfaction.
• This paper presents reports from 43,000 nurses from more than 700 hospitals in the United States, Canada, England, Scotland, and Germany in 1998–1999.
• The study sample comprised 4,228 students with SEND, aged 5–15, drawn from 305 primary and secondary schools across England. Explanatory variables were measured at the individual and school levels at baseline, along with a teacher-reported measure of behavior difficulties (assessed at baseline and the 18-month follow-up).

3) The Results

One or two sentences indicating the main findings or trends found as a result of your analysis. The results are described in the present or past tense.

• Results show that on days in which women reported higher levels of negative or positive mood, as well as on days they reported more pain and fatigue, they reported receiving more support. Women who, on average, reported higher levels of positive mood tended to report receiving more support than those who, on average, reported lower positive mood. However, average levels of negative mood were not associated with support. Higher average levels of fatigue but not pain were associated with higher support. Finally, women whose husbands reported higher levels of marital satisfaction reported receiving more partner support, but husbands’ marital satisfaction did not moderate the effect of women’s mood on support.
• Nurses in countries with distinctly different healthcare systems report similar shortcomings in their work environments and the quality of hospital care. While the competence of and relation between nurses and physicians appear satisfactory, core problems in work design and workforce management threaten the provision of care.
• Hierarchical linear modeling of data revealed that differences between schools accounted for between 13% (secondary) and 15.4% (primary) of the total variance in the development of students’ behavior difficulties, with the remainder attributable to individual differences. Statistically significant risk markers for these problems across both phases of education were being male, eligibility for free school meals, being identified as a bully, and lower academic achievement. Additional risk markers specific to each phase of education at the individual and school levels are also acknowledged.

4) The Conclusion / Implications

A brief summary of your conclusions and implications of the results, described in the present tense. Explain the results and why the study is important to the reader.

• For example, what changes should be implemented as a result of the findings of the work?
• How does this work add to the body of knowledge on the topic?

Implications of these findings are discussed relative to assisting couples during this difficult time in their lives.

• Resolving these issues, which are amenable to managerial intervention, is essential to preserving patient safety and care of consistently high quality.
• Behavior difficulties are affected by risks across multiple ecological levels. Addressing any one of these potential influences is therefore likely to contribute to the reduction in the problems displayed.

The above examples of abstracts are from the following papers:

Aiken, L. H., Clarke, S. P., Sloane, D. M., Sochalski, J. A., Busse, R., Clarke, H., … & Shamian, J. (2001). Nurses’ reports on hospital care in five countries . Health affairs, 20(3) , 43-53.

Boeding, S. E., Pukay-Martin, N. D., Baucom, D. H., Porter, L. S., Kirby, J. S., Gremore, T. M., & Keefe, F. J. (2014). Couples and breast cancer: Women’s mood and partners’ marital satisfaction predicting support perception . Journal of Family Psychology, 28(5) , 675.

Oldfield, J., Humphrey, N., & Hebron, J. (2017). Risk factors in the development of behavior difficulties among students with special educational needs and disabilities: A multilevel analysis . British journal of educational psychology, 87(2) , 146-169.

5) Keywords

APA style suggests including a list of keywords at the end of the abstract. This is particularly common in academic articles and helps other researchers find your work in databases.

Keywords in an abstract should be selected to help other researchers find your work when searching an online database. These keywords should effectively represent the main topics of your study. Here are some tips for choosing keywords:

Core Concepts: Identify the most important ideas or concepts in your paper. These often include your main research topic, the methods you’ve used, or the theories you’re discussing.

Specificity: Your keywords should be specific to your research. For example, suppose your paper is about the effects of climate change on bird migration patterns in a specific region. In that case, your keywords might include “climate change,” “bird migration,” and the region’s name.

Consistency with Paper: Make sure your keywords are consistent with the terms you’ve used in your paper. For example, if you use the term “adolescent” rather than “teen” in your paper, choose “adolescent” as your keyword, not “teen.”

Jargon and Acronyms: Avoid using too much-specialized jargon or acronyms in your keywords, as these might not be understood or used by all researchers in your field.

Synonyms: Consider including synonyms of your keywords to capture as many relevant searches as possible. For example, if your paper discusses “post-traumatic stress disorder,” you might include “PTSD” as a keyword.

Remember, keywords are a tool for others to find your work, so think about what terms other researchers might use when searching for papers on your topic.

The Abstract SHOULD NOT contain:

Lengthy background or contextual information: The abstract should focus on your research and findings, not general topic background.

Undefined jargon, abbreviations,  or acronyms: The abstract should be accessible to a wide audience, so avoid highly specialized terms without defining them.

Citations: Abstracts typically do not include citations, as they summarize original research.

Incomplete sentences or bulleted lists: The abstract should be a single, coherent paragraph written in complete sentences.

New information not covered in the paper: The abstract should only summarize the paper’s content.

Subjective comments or value judgments: Stick to objective descriptions of your research.

Excessive details on methods or procedures: Keep descriptions of methods brief and focused on main steps.

Speculative or inconclusive statements: The abstract should state the research’s clear findings, not hypotheses or possible interpretations.

• Any illustration, figure, table, or references to them . All visual aids, data, or extensive details should be included in the main body of your paper, not in the abstract. 
• Elliptical or incomplete sentences should be avoided in an abstract . The use of ellipses (…), which could indicate incomplete thoughts or omitted text, is not appropriate in an abstract.

APA Style for Abstracts

An APA abstract must be formatted as follows:

Include the running head aligned to the left at the top of the page (professional papers only) and page number. Note, student papers do not require a running head. On the first line, center the heading “Abstract” and bold (do not underlined or italicize). Do not indent the single abstract paragraph (which begins one line below the section title). Double-space the text. Use Times New Roman font in 12 pt. Set one-inch (or 2.54 cm) margins. If you include a “keywords” section at the end of the abstract, indent the first line and italicize the word “Keywords” while leaving the keywords themselves without any formatting.

Example APA Abstract Page

Download this example as a PDF

Further Information

• APA 7th Edition Abstract and Keywords Guide
• Example APA Abstract
• How to Write a Good Abstract for a Scientific Paper or Conference Presentation
• How to Write a Lab Report
• Writing an APA paper

How long should an APA abstract be?

An APA abstract should typically be between 150 to 250 words long. However, the exact length may vary depending on specific publication or assignment guidelines. It is crucial that it succinctly summarizes the essential elements of the work, including purpose, methods, findings, and conclusions.

Where does the abstract go in an APA paper?

In an APA formatted paper, the abstract is placed on its own page, directly after the title page and before the main body of the paper. It’s typically the second page of the document. It starts with the word “Abstract” (centered and not in bold) at the top of the page, followed by the text of the abstract itself.

What are the 4 C’s of abstract writing?

The 4 C’s of abstract writing are an approach to help you create a well-structured and informative abstract. They are:

Conciseness: An abstract should briefly summarize the key points of your study. Stick to the word limit (typically between 150-250 words for an APA abstract) and avoid unnecessary details.

Clarity: Your abstract should be easy to understand. Avoid jargon and complex sentences. Clearly explain the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions of your study.

Completeness: Even though it’s brief, the abstract should provide a complete overview of your study, including the purpose, methods, key findings, and your interpretation of the results.

Cohesion: The abstract should flow logically from one point to the next, maintaining a coherent narrative about your study. It’s not just a list of disjointed elements; it’s a brief story of your research from start to finish.

What is the abstract of a psychology paper?

An abstract in a psychology paper serves as a snapshot of the paper, allowing readers to quickly understand the purpose, methodology, results, and implications of the research without reading the entire paper. It is generally between 150-250 words long.

• Privacy Policy

Home » How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write a Research Proposal

Writing a Research proposal involves several steps to ensure a well-structured and comprehensive document. Here is an explanation of each step:

1. Title and Abstract

• Choose a concise and descriptive title that reflects the essence of your research.
• Write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. It should provide a brief overview of your proposal.

2. Introduction:

• Provide an introduction to your research topic, highlighting its significance and relevance.
• Clearly state the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Discuss the background and context of the study, including previous research in the field.

3. Research Objectives

• Outline the specific objectives or aims of your research. These objectives should be clear, achievable, and aligned with the research problem.

4. Literature Review:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings, identify gaps, and highlight how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

5. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to employ to address your research objectives.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques you will use.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate and suitable for your research.

6. Timeline:

• Create a timeline or schedule that outlines the major milestones and activities of your research project.
• Break down the research process into smaller tasks and estimate the time required for each task.

7. Resources:

• Identify the resources needed for your research, such as access to specific databases, equipment, or funding.
• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources to carry out your research effectively.

8. Ethical Considerations:

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise during your research and explain how you plan to address them.
• If your research involves human subjects, explain how you will ensure their informed consent and privacy.

9. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

• Clearly state the expected outcomes or results of your research.
• Highlight the potential impact and significance of your research in advancing knowledge or addressing practical issues.

10. References:

• Provide a list of all the references cited in your proposal, following a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

11. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as survey questionnaires, interview guides, or data analysis plans.

Research Proposal Format

The format of a research proposal may vary depending on the specific requirements of the institution or funding agency. However, the following is a commonly used format for a research proposal:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your research proposal, your name, your affiliation or institution, and the date.

2. Abstract:

• Provide a brief summary of your research proposal, highlighting the research problem, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.

3. Introduction:

• Introduce the research topic and provide background information.
• State the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Explain the significance and relevance of the research.
• Review relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings and identify gaps in the existing knowledge.
• Explain how your research will contribute to filling those gaps.

5. Research Objectives:

• Clearly state the specific objectives or aims of your research.
• Ensure that the objectives are clear, focused, and aligned with the research problem.

6. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to use.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate for your research.

7. Timeline:

8. Resources:

• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources effectively.

9. Ethical Considerations:

• If applicable, explain how you will ensure informed consent and protect the privacy of research participants.

10. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

11. References:

12. Appendices:

Research Proposal Template

Here’s a template for a research proposal:

1. Introduction:

2. Literature Review:

3. Research Objectives:

4. Methodology:

5. Timeline:

6. Resources:

7. Ethical Considerations:

8. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

9. References:

10. Appendices:

Research Proposal Sample

Title: The Impact of Online Education on Student Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Study

1. Introduction

Online education has gained significant prominence in recent years, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes by comparing them with traditional face-to-face instruction. The study will explore various aspects of online education, such as instructional methods, student engagement, and academic performance, to provide insights into the effectiveness of online learning.

2. Objectives

The main objectives of this research are as follows:

• To compare student learning outcomes between online and traditional face-to-face education.
• To examine the factors influencing student engagement in online learning environments.
• To assess the effectiveness of different instructional methods employed in online education.
• To identify challenges and opportunities associated with online education and suggest recommendations for improvement.

3. Methodology

3.1 Study Design

This research will utilize a mixed-methods approach to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The study will include the following components:

3.2 Participants

The research will involve undergraduate students from two universities, one offering online education and the other providing face-to-face instruction. A total of 500 students (250 from each university) will be selected randomly to participate in the study.

3.3 Data Collection

The research will employ the following data collection methods:

• Quantitative: Pre- and post-assessments will be conducted to measure students’ learning outcomes. Data on student demographics and academic performance will also be collected from university records.
• Qualitative: Focus group discussions and individual interviews will be conducted with students to gather their perceptions and experiences regarding online education.

3.4 Data Analysis

Quantitative data will be analyzed using statistical software, employing descriptive statistics, t-tests, and regression analysis. Qualitative data will be transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and themes.

4. Ethical Considerations

The study will adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Informed consent will be obtained, and participants will have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

5. Significance and Expected Outcomes

This research will contribute to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the impact of online education on student learning outcomes. The findings will help educational institutions and policymakers make informed decisions about incorporating online learning methods and improving the quality of online education. Moreover, the study will identify potential challenges and opportunities related to online education and offer recommendations for enhancing student engagement and overall learning outcomes.

6. Timeline

The proposed research will be conducted over a period of 12 months, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.

The estimated budget for this research includes expenses related to data collection, software licenses, participant compensation, and research assistance. A detailed budget breakdown will be provided in the final research plan.

8. Conclusion

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes through a comparative study with traditional face-to-face instruction. By exploring various dimensions of online education, this research will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and challenges associated with online learning. The findings will contribute to the ongoing discourse on educational practices and help shape future strategies for maximizing student learning outcomes in online education settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

How To Write A Grant Proposal – Step-by-Step...

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

Scholars often write abstracts for various applications: conference presentations may require an abstract or other short summary for a program; journal articles almost always require abstracts; invited talks and lectures are often advertised using an abstract. While the application may necessarily change the length of the abstract (a conference program may only allow for 50-75 words, for instance), the purpose and structure remains fairly constant.

Abstracts are generally kept brief (approximately 150-200 words). They differ by field, but in general, they need to summarize the article so that readers can decide if it is relevant to their work. The typical abstract includes these elements:

• A statement of the problem and objectives
• A statement of the significance of the work
• A summary of employed methods or your research approach
• A summary of findings or conclusions of the study
• A description of the implications of the findings

Regardless of field, abstract authors should explain the purpose of the work, methods used, the results and the conclusions that can be drawn. However, each field purports slightly different ways to structure the abstract. A reliable strategy is to write the abstract as a condensed version of your article, with 1-2 sentences summarizing each major section. This means that in many of the sciences and a large portion of the humanities, abstracts follow a version of the IMRAD structure: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion.

Most scientific journals require authors to submit such abstracts. It is generally advisable to write the abstract in the English language. That is because most papers in other languages, especially Asian nations, tend to publish an English abstract with common search engines, such as, the MLA site.

Example Abstract

This example abstract follows the IMRAD structure closely. The first two sentences are the introduction and background information. Sentences 3-5 describe the methods used in the study. Sentence 6 summarizes the results, while the last two sentences summarize the discussion and conclusion of the study; they also indicate the significance of the results.

Usability and User-Centered Theory for 21 st Century OWLs — by Dana Lynn Driscoll, H. Allen Brizee, Michael Salvo, and Morgan Sousa from The Handbook of Research on Virtual Workplaces and the New Nature of Business Practices . Eds. Kirk St. Amant and Pavel Zemlansky. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2008.

This article describes results of usability research conducted on the Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL). The Purdue OWL is an information-rich educational website that provides free writing resources to users worldwide. Researchers conducted two generations of usability tests. In the first test, participants were asked to navigate the OWL and answer questions. Results of the first test and user-centered scholarship indicated that a more user-centered focus would improve usability. The second test asked participants to answer writing-related questions using both the OWL website and a user-centered OWL prototype. Participants took significantly less time to find information using the prototype and reported a more positive response to the user-centered prototype than the original OWL. Researchers conclude that a user-centered website is more effective and can be a model for information-rich online resources. Researchers also conclude that usability research can be a productive source of ideas, underscoring the need for participatory invention.

The Dissertation/Thesis Abstract

How To Write A High-Impact Abstract (With Examples)

By:   Madeline Fink (MSc) Reviewed By: Derek Jansen (MBA)   | June 2020

Overview: The Dissertation/Thesis Abstract

• What exactly is a dissertation (or thesis) abstract
• What’s the purpose and function of the abstract
• Why is the abstract so important
• How to write a high-quality dissertation abstract
• Example/sample of a quality abstract
• Quick tips to write a high-quality dissertation abstract

What is an abstract?

Simply put, the abstract in a dissertation or thesis is a short (but well structured) summary that outlines the most important points of your research (i.e. the key takeaways). The abstract is usually 1 paragraph or about 300-500 words long (about one page), but but this can vary between universities.

A quick note regarding terminology – strictly speaking, an abstract and an executive summary are two different things when it comes to academic publications. Typically, an abstract only states what the research will be about, but doesn’t explore the findings – whereas an executive summary covers both . However, in the context of a dissertation or thesis, the abstract usually covers both, providing a summary of the full project.

In terms of content, a good dissertation abstract usually covers the following points:

• The purpose of the research (what’s it about and why’s that important)
• The methodology (how you carried out the research)
• The key research findings (what answers you found)
• The implications of these findings (what these answers mean)

We’ll explain each of these in more detail a little later in this post. Buckle up.

What’s the purpose of the abstract?

A dissertation abstract has two main functions:

The first purpose is to  inform potential readers  of the main idea of your research without them having to read your entire piece of work. Specifically, it needs to communicate what your research is about (what were you trying to find out) and what your findings were . When readers are deciding whether to read your dissertation or thesis, the abstract is the first part they’ll consider. 

The second purpose of the abstract is to  inform search engines and dissertation databases  as they index your dissertation or thesis. The keywords and phrases in your abstract (as well as your keyword list) will often be used by these search engines to categorize your work and make it accessible to users. 

Simply put, your abstract is your shopfront display window – it’s what passers-by (both human and digital) will look at before deciding to step inside. 

Why’s it so important?

The short answer – because most people don’t have time to read your full dissertation or thesis! Time is money, after all…

If you think back to when you undertook your literature review , you’ll quickly realise just how important abstracts are! Researchers reviewing the literature on any given topic face a mountain of reading, so they need to optimise their approach. A good dissertation abstract gives the reader a “TLDR” version of your work – it helps them decide whether to continue to read it in its entirety. So, your abstract, as your shopfront display window, needs to “sell” your research to time-poor readers.

You might be thinking, “but I don’t plan to publish my dissertation”. Even so, you still need to provide an impactful abstract for your markers. Your ability to concisely summarise your work is one of the things they’re assessing, so it’s vital to invest time and effort into crafting an enticing shop window.  

A good abstract also has an added purpose for grad students . As a freshly minted graduate, your dissertation or thesis is often your most significant professional accomplishment and highlights where your unique expertise lies. Potential employers who want to know about this expertise are likely to only read the abstract (as opposed to reading your entire document) – so it needs to be good!

Think about it this way – if your thesis or dissertation were a book, then the abstract would be the blurb on the back cover. For better or worse, readers will absolutely judge your book by its cover .

How to write your abstract

As we touched on earlier, your abstract should cover four important aspects of your research: the purpose , methodology , findings , and implications . Therefore, the structure of your dissertation or thesis abstract needs to reflect these four essentials, in the same order.  Let’s take a closer look at each of them, step by step:

Step 1: Describe the purpose and value of your research

Here you need to concisely explain the purpose and value of your research. In other words, you need to explain what your research set out to discover and why that’s important. When stating the purpose of research, you need to clearly discuss the following:

• What were your research aims and research questions ?
• Why were these aims and questions important?

It’s essential to make this section extremely clear, concise and convincing . As the opening section, this is where you’ll “hook” your reader (marker) in and get them interested in your project. If you don’t put in the effort here, you’ll likely lose their interest.

Step 2: Briefly outline your study’s methodology

In this part of your abstract, you need to very briefly explain how you went about answering your research questions . In other words, what research design and methodology you adopted in your research. Some important questions to address here include:

• Did you take a qualitative or quantitative approach ?
• Who/what did your sample consist of?
• How did you collect your data?
• How did you analyse your data?

Simply put, this section needs to address the “ how ” of your research. It doesn’t need to be lengthy (this is just a summary, after all), but it should clearly address the four questions above.

Need a helping hand?

Step 3: Present your key findings

Next, you need to briefly highlight the key findings . Your research likely produced a wealth of data and findings, so there may be a temptation to ramble here. However, this section is just about the key findings – in other words, the answers to the original questions that you set out to address.

Again, brevity and clarity are important here. You need to concisely present the most important findings for your reader.

Step 4: Describe the implications of your research

Have you ever found yourself reading through a large report, struggling to figure out what all the findings mean in terms of the bigger picture? Well, that’s the purpose of the implications section – to highlight the “so what?” of your research. 

In this part of your abstract, you should address the following questions:

• What is the impact of your research findings on the industry /field investigated? In other words, what’s the impact on the “real world”. 
• What is the impact of your findings on the existing body of knowledge ? For example, do they support the existing research?
• What might your findings mean for future research conducted on your topic?

Example: Dissertation/thesis abstract

The U.S. citizenship application process is a legal and symbolic journey shaped by many cultural processes. This research project aims to bring to light the experiences of immigrants and citizenship applicants living in Dallas, Texas, to promote a better understanding of Dallas’ increasingly diverse population. Additionally, the purpose of this project is to provide insights to a specific client, the office of Dallas Welcoming Communities and Immigrant Affairs, about Dallas’ lawful permanent residents who are eligible for citizenship and their reasons for pursuing citizenship status . The data for this project was collected through observation at various citizenship workshops and community events, as well as through semi-structured interviews with 14 U.S. citizenship applicants . Reasons for applying for U.S. citizenship discussed in this project include a desire for membership in U.S. society, access to better educational and economic opportunities, improved ease of travel and the desire to vote. Barriers to the citizenship process discussed in this project include the amount of time one must dedicate to the application, lack of clear knowledge about the process and the financial cost of the application. Other themes include the effects of capital on applicant’s experience with the citizenship process, symbolic meanings of citizenship, transnationalism and ideas of deserving and undeserving surrounding the issues of residency and U.S. citizenship. These findings indicate the need for educational resources and mentorship for Dallas-area residents applying for U.S. citizenship, as well as a need for local government programs that foster a sense of community among citizenship applicants and their neighbours.

Practical tips for writing your abstract

When crafting the abstract for your dissertation or thesis, the most powerful technique you can use is to try and put yourself in the shoes of a potential reader. Assume the reader is not an expert in the field, but is interested in the research area. In other words, write for the intelligent layman, not for the seasoned topic expert.

Start by trying to answer the question “why should I read this dissertation?”

Remember the WWHS.

Make sure you include the  what , why ,  how , and  so what  of your research in your abstract:

• What you studied (who and where are included in this part)
• Why the topic was important
• How you designed your study (i.e. your research methodology)
• So what were the big findings and implications of your research

Keep it simple.

Use terminology appropriate to your field of study, but don’t overload your abstract with big words and jargon that cloud the meaning and make your writing difficult to digest. A good abstract should appeal to all levels of potential readers and should be a (relatively) easy read. Remember, you need to write for the intelligent layman.

Be specific.

When writing your abstract, clearly outline your most important findings and insights and don’t worry about “giving away” too much about your research – there’s no need to withhold information. This is the one way your abstract is not like a blurb on the back of a book – the reader should be able to clearly understand the key takeaways of your thesis or dissertation after reading the abstract. Of course, if they then want more detail, they need to step into the restaurant and try out the menu.

You Might Also Like:

How To Choose A Tutor For Your Dissertation

Hiring the right tutor for your dissertation or thesis can make the difference between passing and failing. Here’s what you need to consider.

5 Signs You Need A Dissertation Helper

Discover the 5 signs that suggest you need a dissertation helper to get unstuck, finish your degree and get your life back.

Writing A Dissertation While Working: A How-To Guide

Struggling to balance your dissertation with a full-time job and family? Learn practical strategies to achieve success.

How To Review & Understand Academic Literature Quickly

Learn how to fast-track your literature review by reading with intention and clarity. Dr E and Amy Murdock explain how.

Dissertation Writing Services: Far Worse Than You Think

Thinking about using a dissertation or thesis writing service? You might want to reconsider that move. Here’s what you need to know.

📄 FREE TEMPLATES

Research Topic Ideation

Proposal Writing

Literature Review

Methodology & Analysis

Academic Writing

Referencing & Citing

Apps, Tools & Tricks

The Grad Coach Podcast

21 Comments

This was so very useful, thank you Caroline.

Much appreciated.

This information on Abstract for writing a Dissertation was very helpful to me!

Write an abstract on the impact of monetary policy on banks profitability in Nigeria

This was so useful. Thank you very much.

This was really useful in writing the abstract for my dissertation. Thank you Caroline.

Very clear and helpful information. Thanks so much!

Fabulous information – succinct, simple information which made my life easier after the most stressful and rewarding 21 months of completing this Masters Degree.

Very clear, specific and to the point guidance. Thanks a lot. Keep helping people 🙂

This was very helpful

Thanks for this nice and helping document.

Nicely explained. Very simple to understand. Thank you!

Waw!!, this is a master piece to say the least.

Very helpful and enjoyable

Thank you for sharing the very important and usful information. Best Bahar

Very clear and more understandable way of writing. I am so interested in it. God bless you dearly!!!!

Really, I found the explanation given of great help. The way the information is presented is easy to follow and capture.

Wow! Thank you so much for opening my eyes. This was so helpful to me.

Thanks for this! Very concise and helpful for my ADHD brain.

I am so grateful for the tips. I am very optimistic in coming up with a winning abstract for my dessertation, thanks to you.

Thank you! First time writing anything this long!

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.

Submit Comment

• Print Friendly

Find your course

• Aston Graduate School
• How to Apply

Writing your PhD research proposal

Guidance to help you craft and structure your PhD research proposal effectively

What is a PhD research proposal?

Crafting a clear research proposal is an important part of your application. At its core, an effective research proposal outlines the what, why and how of your proposed study.

For potential supervisors, your proposal provides an important opportunity for them to understand your knowledge of the academic discipline, approach to research and to assess your ability to plan a programme of work that is coherent, meaningful and feasible.

It's your opportunity to articulate your research aim(s)/question(s), discuss their significance and contributions to the existing academic discipline and practice and chart the approach you intend to take. 

Your research proposal must be original and written by you .

We're here to guide you through the process of writing an effective research proposal that not only piques the interest of prospective supervisors but also sets the stage for novel and meaningful research.  

Research proposal statements for named PhD projects

This page provides guidance on proposing your own research. If you are applying for a named PhD project, you will need to detail your knowledge of the research area, how you would approach the project, a brief review of relevant literature, reflect on what you bring to the project and how your future career will be shaped by it.

Proposal preparation 

You don’t need to have all the answers yet, but you need to think about these elements: 

The importance of your project

Why is your project worth investing in? 

Is it original? 

What theoretical and empirical knowledge gaps is it filling, and why are these gaps important? 

The potential impact of your project 

What will be different and for whom when you have answered your research questions?

Your planned approach and methodology

Is it logical, valid, reliable and feasible?

Also think about: 

• How does your research project fit with the interests of potential supervisors and the wider School, College and University? 
• Why are you the best person to carry out this project? Reflect on your strengths and qualities and describe how they will help you conduct this work. Why is Aston the best place to come to? How will this help you to develop further? 

You will not necessarily write about these final two issues in your proposal (although you will do so in the main application form), but you must consider these in the development to improve your chances of having your application accepted.  

Structure 

The title should be clear and succinct and should clearly communicate the focus and discipline of your research. 

Set out the research aims/questions of your project.

Explain why these aims/questions are important, briefly outlining recent research in this area, outstanding gaps in knowledge, and why it is important to fill these gaps with new research (your research). 

Provide a brief critical review of key contemporary literature informing your research aims/questions. This review should further develop the rationale for, and theoretical underpinning of, your proposed study.

Where relevant, this may include the development of more specific hypotheses you wish to test as part of your study.   

Outline the methodological approach you intend to use and why. 

Indicate what data (if any) you plan to collect and how, including any ethical and practical considerations (e.g. access). 

Briefly discuss your proposed approach to data analysis including any software or tools you may plan to use.

Outline the various stages of the project, including data collection or fieldwork, corresponding to the time available for the project (usually three years for a full-time and four to six years for a part-time PhD, including writing-up).

Identify and justify the required resources, such as equipment, materials and travel expenses.

Presented consistently, in a standard and consistent format. 

Include supplementary materials, such as survey questionnaires, interview protocols, or additional data.

Your research proposal should be no longer than 1000 - 1500 words (not including references).

Tips from PhD researchers

Don’t be afraid to explore. Your PhD is a journey of discovery and learning so your proposal may evolve as part of this process.  

Seek feedback. Share your proposal with your potential supervisor, colleagues, or mentors for feedback and suggestions. Incorporate their input to strengthen your proposal and address any weaknesses.

Start early. Give yourself plenty of time to research, plan, and write your proposal. Rushing the process can lead to a less polished and coherent document.

Show your passion for your area of research throughout your application. This can make your proposal more compelling and memorable to reviewers.

Frequently asked questions

What is the purpose of an abstract.

An abstract is a concise summary of an academic text (such as a journal article or dissertation ). It serves two main purposes:

• To help potential readers determine the relevance of your paper for their own research.
• To communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper.

Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your work more easily findable. Since the abstract is the first thing any reader sees, it’s important that it clearly and accurately summarizes the contents of your paper.

Frequently asked questions: Academic writing

A rhetorical tautology is the repetition of an idea of concept using different words.

Rhetorical tautologies occur when additional words are used to convey a meaning that has already been expressed or implied. For example, the phrase “armed gunman” is a tautology because a “gunman” is by definition “armed.”

A logical tautology is a statement that is always true because it includes all logical possibilities.

Logical tautologies often take the form of “either/or” statements (e.g., “It will rain, or it will not rain”) or employ circular reasoning (e.g., “she is untrustworthy because she can’t be trusted”).

You may have seen both “appendices” or “appendixes” as pluralizations of “ appendix .” Either spelling can be used, but “appendices” is more common (including in APA Style ). Consistency is key here: make sure you use the same spelling throughout your paper.

The purpose of a lab report is to demonstrate your understanding of the scientific method with a hands-on lab experiment. Course instructors will often provide you with an experimental design and procedure. Your task is to write up how you actually performed the experiment and evaluate the outcome.

In contrast, a research paper requires you to independently develop an original argument. It involves more in-depth research and interpretation of sources and data.

A lab report is usually shorter than a research paper.

The sections of a lab report can vary between scientific fields and course requirements, but it usually contains the following:

• Title: expresses the topic of your study
• Abstract: summarizes your research aims, methods, results, and conclusions
• Introduction: establishes the context needed to understand the topic
• Method: describes the materials and procedures used in the experiment
• Results: reports all descriptive and inferential statistical analyses
• Discussion: interprets and evaluates results and identifies limitations
• Conclusion: sums up the main findings of your experiment
• References: list of all sources cited using a specific style (e.g. APA)
• Appendices: contains lengthy materials, procedures, tables or figures

A lab report conveys the aim, methods, results, and conclusions of a scientific experiment . Lab reports are commonly assigned in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The abstract is the very last thing you write. You should only write it after your research is complete, so that you can accurately summarize the entirety of your thesis , dissertation or research paper .

If you’ve gone over the word limit set for your assignment, shorten your sentences and cut repetition and redundancy during the editing process. If you use a lot of long quotes , consider shortening them to just the essentials.

If you need to remove a lot of words, you may have to cut certain passages. Remember that everything in the text should be there to support your argument; look for any information that’s not essential to your point and remove it.

To make this process easier and faster, you can use a paraphrasing tool . With this tool, you can rewrite your text to make it simpler and shorter. If that’s not enough, you can copy-paste your paraphrased text into the summarizer . This tool will distill your text to its core message.

Revising, proofreading, and editing are different stages of the writing process .

• Revising is making structural and logical changes to your text—reformulating arguments and reordering information.
• Editing refers to making more local changes to things like sentence structure and phrasing to make sure your meaning is conveyed clearly and concisely.
• Proofreading involves looking at the text closely, line by line, to spot any typos and issues with consistency and correct them.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

Avoid citing sources in your abstract . There are two reasons for this:

• The abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others.
• The abstract should be self-contained and fully understandable without reference to other sources.

There are some circumstances where you might need to mention other sources in an abstract: for example, if your research responds directly to another study or focuses on the work of a single theorist. In general, though, don’t include citations unless absolutely necessary.

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

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

Whether you’re publishing a blog, submitting a research paper , or even just writing an important email, there are a few techniques you can use to make sure it’s error-free:

• Take a break : Set your work aside for at least a few hours so that you can look at it with fresh eyes.
• Proofread a printout : Staring at a screen for too long can cause fatigue – sit down with a pen and paper to check the final version.
• Use digital shortcuts : Take note of any recurring mistakes (for example, misspelling a particular word, switching between US and UK English , or inconsistently capitalizing a term), and use Find and Replace to fix it throughout the document.

If you want to be confident that an important text is error-free, it might be worth choosing a professional proofreading service instead.

Editing and proofreading are different steps in the process of revising a text.

Editing comes first, and can involve major changes to content, structure and language. The first stages of editing are often done by authors themselves, while a professional editor makes the final improvements to grammar and style (for example, by improving sentence structure and word choice ).

Proofreading is the final stage of checking a text before it is published or shared. It focuses on correcting minor errors and inconsistencies (for example, in punctuation and capitalization ). Proofreaders often also check for formatting issues, especially in print publishing.

The cost of proofreading depends on the type and length of text, the turnaround time, and the level of services required. Most proofreading companies charge per word or page, while freelancers sometimes charge an hourly rate.

For proofreading alone, which involves only basic corrections of typos and formatting mistakes, you might pay as little as $0.01 per word, but in many cases, your text will also require some level of editing , which costs slightly more.

It’s often possible to purchase combined proofreading and editing services and calculate the price in advance based on your requirements.

There are many different routes to becoming a professional proofreader or editor. The necessary qualifications depend on the field – to be an academic or scientific proofreader, for example, you will need at least a university degree in a relevant subject.

For most proofreading jobs, experience and demonstrated skills are more important than specific qualifications. Often your skills will be tested as part of the application process.

To learn practical proofreading skills, you can choose to take a course with a professional organization such as the Society for Editors and Proofreaders . Alternatively, you can apply to companies that offer specialized on-the-job training programmes, such as the Scribbr Academy .

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

Exploring Opportunities for Sustainable Housing: The Case of East Africa

• Open access
• Published: 15 October 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Max Rosvall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8008-7913 1 ,
• Klas Palm 1 ,
• Swaminathan Ramanathan 1 &
• Raine Isaksson 1 , 2  

This paper contributes to the development of a problem-structuring method for exploring sustainability opportunities in systems. It presents a case of designing the plane while flying it, using an action research methodology to develop the Sustainability Opportunity Study over a period of 2 years. The problem-structuring method was applied and developed in the context of a research and development network for improving sustainability of housing in East Africa through alternative binders in block-based building. The resulting method consists of the three main stages Diagnosing, Analysing, Solving, where activities are informed by critical systems thinking and insights derived from experience and reflections from the case. The method uses different types of workshops to derive specific project proposals for further implementation and realisation of the identified sustainability opportunities. Results also suggest four types of evaluation of the Sustainability Opportunity Study based on the main focus of the intervention: Focus on effectiveness (number of relevant project proposals), focus on creating shared understanding (perceived learning among participants), focus on ensuring fairness (level of engagement among marginalized stakeholders), or focus on commitment to Critical Systems Thinking (breadth and depth in Diagnosing, Analysing and Solving).

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The global system for providing housing accounts for 30–40% of global carbon emission making it a major contributor to global warming (Architecture 2030 , 2024 ; Berardi 2017 ). Access to affordable housing is one of the declared human rights (United and Nations 2017 ). To provide all people with access to affordable housing by 2030, housing for some 3 billion people is yet to be produced (World Bank 2023 ). In light of this, the need for a transition towards a sustainable supply of housing is emphasised. Organisations associated with the value chain for providing housing will be affected and affect the needed transition towards a sustainable supply of housing. While the need for sustainable housing seems clear, assessment on general levels of understanding of sustainable building indicate low levels of understanding in both industry and research (Isaksson et al. 2022 ; Isaksson and Rosvall 2020 ). How organisations, and networks of organisations, in the value chain for providing housing can identify and improve their sustainability impacts seems unknown based on the low understanding among leading industry and research.

The challenge in sustainable building is similar to challenges in other industries in that they all inhibit the VUCA characteristics; high in Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity (VUCA). In an organisational context muddled by the VUCA characteristics, identifying the ‘right’ things to do as an organisation is challenging. Development of an Opportunity Study has suggested three distinct stages for identifying opportunities in systems, namely Diagnosing, Analysing and Solving (Isaksson 2015 ). Opportunities are defined as potential to realise measurable improvements. A sustainability opportunity is defined as a potential to realise a measurable improvement that is aligned with a larger transition of progress and development inside the boundaries of an agreed framework for sustainable development. Later development introduces a Sustainability Opportunity Study (Isaksson et al. 2023a ) focused on identifying stakeholder needs as a way to complement the Diagnosing in the Opportunity Study. This previous research has made conceptual contributions to the development of a systematic method to identifying and evaluating opportunities for improved sustainability performance in systems. Empirical exploration could contribute to the development through testing the methods and experiencing the strengths and weaknesses based on implementations in cases.

Being able to identify opportunities for improved performance in value chains is a necessary dynamic capability of organisations for achieving sustainable development (Linde et al. 2021 ; Mousavi and Bossink 2017 ). The framework for dynamic capabilities in systems has identified Opportunity screening and Partnership scouting as key system capabilities (Linde et al. 2021 ). However, they do not present any systematic method that could be used to guide efforts aiming to identifying opportunities and scout for partnerships.

This paper seeks to continue the development of the Sustainability Opportunity Study as a response to the identified need among ‘purposeful systems’ to develop their dynamic capability Identifying opportunities. Ackoff and Emery ( 1972 ) state that a purposeful system is a group of actors working together to achieve a common goal, i.e. their purpose. This can be an organisation, but in this study it is used to describe temporary groups of participants who come together seeking to explore opportunities and screen for future partnerships. When looking for a method to derive opportunities, there is an assumption that if a systematic method is used, it will be possible to achieve effective use of resources in that exploration. In this paper, systematic means that there is a structure to follow that is repeatable in multiple contexts. Identifying, in relation to opportunities, refers to finding some information that was not known beforehand. Exploring refers to the process of connecting new and known information about the identified opportunity that is explanatory to why the opportunity exists.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how purposeful systems can identify and explore opportunities for sustainability in a systematic way. To be able to compare the derived systematic method to other methods, indicators for evaluating the method is also explored. This is done in the context of pursuing sustainable housing in East Africa through alternative binders in block-based construction. The paper is guided by the following research questions:

RQ1: How could purposeful systems identify and assess opportunities for sustainability in a systematic way?

RQ2: How could such a systemic method be evaluated?

According to the UN-Habitat and the World Bank, the need for affordable housing is estimated to be 3 billion people by the end of 2030 (World Bank 2023 ). Examples from East Africa region highlight the growing deficit of housing units as Kenya is estimated to have a deficit of 2 million units growing by 200 000 per year, Uganda’s deficit is estimated to 1.7 million in 2019 growing to 3 million by 2030 (Mwesigye 2019 ). Access to affordable housing is a human right (United and Nations 2017 ), but far from a reality for habitants in the East African region. Two key factors are highlighted as causes for the major challenges in access to affordable housing in the region; cost of construction and cost of borrowing for financing housing (Mwesigye 2019 ). Cement as the binder in concrete blocks have been described as a key driver for cost of the block-based housing constructions used in sub-Sahara (Isaksson and Babatunde 2019 ). Cement is also recognised as one of the key sources for carbon emissions in the construction section. Global construction activities are estimated to account for 30–40% of carbon emissions (Architecture 2030 , 2024 ; Berardi 2017 ) and cement production alone accounts for 8% of global carbon emissions (Andrew 2019 ).

In block-based housing constructions in East Africa, substituting the amount of ordinary Portland cement has been suggested as a way to improve sustainability performance in terms of cost and carbon emissions (Isaksson and Buregyeya 2020 ). Research on alternative binders that could complement or fully replace the use of ordinary Portland cement has yielded a plethora of potential alternatives, often referred to as pozzolanic materials. The pozzolanic property describes how certain materials can create strong and cement-like substances when they react with a specific type of lime (Lothenbach et al. 2011 ). Pozzolans are often divided into two types, natural and artificial where examples of natural pozzolans are volcanic ash and calcined clays while artificial pozzolans are often by-products from human production processes like rice-husk-ash, cassava-peel-ash, and saw-dust-ash (Sabir et al. 2001 ). Exploring how research findings about the properties of these pozzolanic materials can support the system of actors in the value chain for providing block-based housing construction in East Africa, offers an example of a complex sustainability challenge with overwhelming opportunities (Isaksson et al. 2023b ).

Theoretical Background

The sustainability opportunity study is an emerging problem-structuring method seeking to support system actors in deriving relevant sustainability opportunities to invest in. The concept of a sustainability opportunity study draws its inspiration from a seminal document titled “Manual for the Preparation of Industrial Feasibility Studies,” which was issued by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in 1991 (Behrens and Hawranek, 1991 ). Within this manual, the notion of an opportunity study is delineated as an initial and rudimentary evaluation, conducted with the purpose of assessing the potential viability of an industrial project Conducted prior to embarking on a more comprehensive pre-feasibility study, and subsequently, a full-fledged feasibility study. The fundamental premise underlying this approach is to ensure that the initial investigative phase of a novel undertaking is conducted with reasonable resource allocation. This premise is aptly reflected in the cost estimations associated with each category of study, as outlined in Behrens and Hawranek ( 1991 , p. 39):

An opportunity study is estimated to require approximately 0.2-1.0% of the total investment.

A pre-feasibility study typically demands an allocation of approximately 0.25-1.0% of the total investment.

In the case of small to medium-sized industrial projects, a full feasibility study is projected to consume approximately 1.0–3.0% of the total investment (Behrens and Hawranek, 1991 ).

The idea of an opportunity study is developed further in the work of Isaksson ( 2015 ). Isaksson’s method involves three key steps: Diagnosing, Analysing, and Solving problems with the goal of creating a sense of urgency for making positive changes. Here an opportunity exists if there is sufficient improvement potential and causes can be explained and solved. Later development of the opportunity study introduces its purpose to identify sustainability opportunities (Isaksson et al. 2023a ). Changing the focus from opportunity studies traditionally used for industrial projects to those for organizational sustainability projects involves a change in how the study is done. The key steps of the sustainability opportunity study is described using a matrix combining Diagnosing, Analysing, Solving (DAS) from Isaksson ( 2015 ), with the three first stages of a common sense logic from understanding to leading namely Understanding, Defining, Measuring (Isaksson et al. 2023a ). The major shift between the opportunity- and the sustainability opportunity study is in how we understand, define, and measure sustainability improvements, as opposed to mainly evaluating the economic aspects of industrial projects. The starting point of the Sustainability Opportunity Study is that there is a notion of improvement options, but that there is no agreed key performance indicators and no definition of sustainability. Often there is only urgency, but not a common understanding of neither the problem nor the solution. This makes it necessary to first establish a working definition and propose KPIs to be able to carry out Diagnosing. However, the overall goal of identifying opportunities for further exploration without using excessive resources remains the same. Focus in Isaksson et al. ( 2023a ) is mainly on Understanding, Defining and Measuring in the stage of Diagnosing. The suggested process-steps of the Sustainability Opportunity Study (SOS) is described in Table  1 , where Diagnosing is based on Isaksson et al. ( 2023a ) and the Analysing and Solving is based on development done in Isaksson ( 2015 ) and applied in Isaksson ( 2016 ).

As the SOS specifically aims for identifying sustainability opportunities within certain systems, the concept of sustainability in systems is foundational for further progress and development.

Sustainability in Systems

The term ‘sustainability’ has one of its first appearances in Hans Carl von Carlowitz’s 1713 book Sylvicultura Oeconomica, where he described a sustainable use of forest resources to maintain a balance between old and young trees (read in Du Pisani 2006 ). A dictionary definition of the term is “ the quality of being able to continue over a [long] period of time ” (Cambridge Dictionary 2023 ). Research has grabbled with trying to reach a unified universal definition of the concept for a long time, see examples in (Hopwood et al. 2005 ; Pawłowski 2008 ). For a historic account of the roots of sustainable development see Du Pisani ( 2006 ) and for an overview of common conceptualisations of sustainability in organisations see Lozano ( 2008 ). Systems thinking was early in exploring sustainable development on a planetary level, with the account in the club of Rome’s report “Limits to growth” (Meadows 1972 ).

Sustainability and sustainable development are sometimes used interchangeably but here they are defined separately to make a distinction between the goal and the process. Sustainability is understood as an ideal state with a two-tiered equilibrium (Lozano 2008 ). The first equilibrium being among the three dimensions Economic, Environmental, and Social. The second equilibrium is among the time perspectives ranging between current and future generations, short-, long-, and longer-term. Sustainability is therefore the ideal state where an equilibrium between the current and future stakeholder needs are met and have the opportunity to continue do so for a long period of time. Sustainable development is understood as the process of progress approaching the ideal state of equilibrium with a required rate of change.

Drawing from the notion of tipping points, introduced in the limits to growth report, which are thresholds that ignite irreversible system changes if trespassed, the understanding of sustainable development entails progress that are within these boundaries of known tipping points. The planetary boundaries (Persson et al. 2022 ; Rockström et al. 2009 ) are an example of a framework that has operationalised this idea for the environmental dimension of sustainability and their framework indicates the thresholds for which development should stay within. Here development is understood on a global system level as accumulated progress from various sub-system levels. Progress in turn is understood as accumulated improvements from further sub-system levels. Identifying these sub-sub-level improvements that contribute to overall development within our boundaries striving towards an ideal state is the purpose of the sustainability opportunity study.

Critical Systems Thinking

Parallel to the development of the Opportunity study is the work on various problem-structuring methods. Systems thinkers have for long been engaged in the development of problem-structuring methods for supporting the identification and realisation of opportunities in various systems (Gomes Júnior and Schramm 2022 ; Jackson 2006 ). Critical Systems Thinking (CST) is a second-order thinking approach which is the combination of critical systems theory and the applied multimethodology Critical Systems Practice (CSP) (Jackson 2019 ). CST is a resulting approach from decades of implementations, developments and critiques of system methodologies. CST provides the bigger picture that has allowed systems thinking to mature and progress as a transdiscipline (Jackson 2019 ). The theoretical foundations of CST are critical systems theory and its cornerstones are captured as commitments to: critical awareness, pluralism, and improvement.

Critical awareness includes a commitment to theoretical awareness and social awareness. Theoretical awareness emphasizes understanding and challenging the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of applied systems approaches for more effective interventions (Jackson 2019 ). Social awareness emphasizes understanding the societal and organizational influences that shape the popularity of specific systems methodologies at different times. Further, it involves considering the consequences of using particular systems approaches, as choices may privilege certain goals over others (Jackson 2019 ).

The emergence of critical systems theory is closely tied to the adoption of pluralism in systems thinking. Jackson and Keys ( 1984 ) initiated a research program, utilizing the System of Systems Methodology (SOSM), to explore the relationships between various systems methodologies. Contrary to the paradigm crisis in hard systems thinking, the SOSM revealed that different approaches could be complementary rather than competitive. Pluralism, as a central tenet of critical systems theory, encourages mutual respect among diverse approaches. In contrast to isolationism, imperialism, and pragmatism, pluralism is identified as the strategy offering optimal opportunities for successful development in management science (Jackson 1987 ). It acknowledges and leverages the strengths of various systems thinking trends, providing a meta-methodology to guide theoretical endeavours and practical interventions. The theoretical basis for pluralism is rooted in Habermas’ ( 1972 ) theory of human interests, linking technical, practical, and emancipatory interests to different dimensions of the SOSM (Flood and Jackson 1991 ). Overcoming debates about paradigm incommensurability, pluralism at the theoretical level justifies and supports methodological pluralism, allowing different systems methodologies to work together in a complementary manner for the benefit of diverse human interests (Jackson 2019 ).

The commitment to improvement within critical systems theory embraces a broader dedication to enhancing human well-being and potential. Informed by Habermas’ ( 1972 ) theory of three human interests—technical, practical, and emancipatory—CST seeks to address each interest with appropriate methodologies. The goal is to foster comprehensive improvement by utilizing the strengths of different methodologies based on their relevance to specific human interests, ultimately contributing to a more effective and inclusive approach to problem-solving and societal well-being (Jackson 2019 ).

Critical Systems Practice is a multimethodological approach with four distinct stages – Explore, Produce, Intervene, Check (Jackson 2020 ). The commitments of critical systems theory are operationalised in CSP and complemented with a commitment to systems thinking (Jackson 2020 ). Throughout the four stages of CSP, but emphasised in Explore, five system perspective are continuously considered: machine, organism, cultural/political, societal/environmental, and interrelationships. Their main function in CSP is to ensure the breadth and depth of the system intervention and by that avoiding false starts (Jackson 2020 ). The lack of in-depth exploration will lead to a lack of insight hindering the subsequent Produce and Intervene. A lack of breadth will lead to a narrow purview restricting the scope of the subsequent Produce and Intervene.

The theoretical foundations of critical systems theory and the applied CSP, as briefly described above, will be used to draw from CST in the continued exploration into the opportunities for sustainable housing through block-based construction in East Africa.

Framework for Exploring Opportunities with SOS

The relations between the context of (1) sustainable housing through block-based construction in East Africa, (2) the sustainability opportunity study as method for exploring opportunities for improvements in systems, and (3) critical systems thinking can now be elaborated. This paper uses the SOS as a problem-structuring method for identifying opportunities for improving sustainability performance. This is applied in the context of sustainable housing through block-based building in east Africa. Critical systems thinking is used to formulate improvements and suggested developments of the SOS as a problem-structuring method based on the experiences from the implementations in the context. These relations are visualised in Fig.  1 .

Relations between the context, problem-structuring method and critical systems thinking as applied in this paper

Action Research Methodology

In seeking the dual purpose of contributing to the local improvements in sustainable housing in East Africa, and exploring how a systematic method for identifying sustainability opportunities in social systems, action research (AR) is identified as a suitable methodology (Bradbury 2015 ). Susman and Evered ( 1978 ) describes a generic action research cycle as involving five main activities; reconnaissance, action research planning, action implementation, evaluating, specifying learnings. A core idea of the action research method is that reflection is used throughout any intervention and resulting ideas for improvement, based on participants reflexivity are fed back into the intervention initiating a new cycle of intervention (Coghlan and Brydon-Miller 2014 , p. 675). Checkland and Holwell ( 1998 , p. 17) suggests that the number of cycles of an AR initiative is decided based on researchers judgement that the chosen methodology has yielded significant learnings in interaction with the area of application. In this study two cycles were conducted with the five main activities in each cylce, where the learnings from cycle 1 were fed into cycle 2 as visualised in Fig.  2 .

Generic action research cycles interlocking with each other. Based on Susman and Evered ( 1978 )

The Context of the Study

The AR initiative was conducted in the context of an initiative to create a network of actors for increased sustainability in housing solutions in sub-Sahara Africa. The initiative was funded by two Swedish agencies funding development research, Swedish Research Council and FORMAS Footnote 1 . Participants were invited to the network and the planned activities (workshops and conferences) based on the principal investigators’ (4th author of this paper) existing network in the region. The purpose of the networking initiative was to identify opportunities for further development in the area of alternative binders for block-based housing constructions. A shared interest for the general aim of the initiative was the initial criteria for the inclusion of any new participants invited or requesting invitation.

Deployment of Action Research Initiative

When conducting action research, it is common that dual purposes are pursued simultaneously, as here with the development of the SOS, i.e. research, and identifying and pursuing opportunities for sustainable housing through block-based construction, i.e. real problem. In doing this, researchers could benefit from distinguishing between the scientific problem statement and the real-world problem statement, and the processes for exploring each of them (McKay and Marshall 2001 ).

The two action research cycles conducted in order to identify and pursue opportunities for sustainable housing through block-based construction are hereafter described and visualized in Fig 3 . Through these cycles, empirical data has also been generated in order to answer the two research questions posed in Sect. 1 of this paper. A more explicit description of how the research questions were answered is described in the later sub-section: Data, experiences and reflection.

First Cycle

The initial guiding real world problem statement of the first action research cycle was: What is the potential for alternative binders as substitutes for cement in concrete mixes for blocks? In reconnaissance of cycle 1 it became clear that the answer was not obvious, which led the investigation towards published research and pursuing a second guiding questions: What research is available on using alternative binders as substitutes for cement in concrete mixes for blocks?

This second question was explored using two attempts with Diagnosing, Analysing, Solving steps of the SOS. This led to a scoping review being written, which was later published as “Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Building Blocks—Diagnosing Opportunities in Sub-Saharan Africa” (Isaksson et al. 2023b ), using secondary sources to compile an estimate of the potential on the regional level of sub-Saharan Africa. This review revealed a significant knowledge gap in the identified research on supplementary cementitious materials. Namely the fact that the documented reports from laboratory tests from replacing cement with alternative binders all lack relevance in terms of explaining the total replacement factor for use cases like ordinary building blocks.

Within the same cycle, subsequently a second attempt was carried out with Diagnosing, Analysing, Solving. This was done through three two-day workshops conducted in Dar es Salaam (27 participants), Kampala (23 participants) and Meru (24 participants) in autumn 2022 (referred to as the workshops in cycle 1 in the Result section). The participants in these workshops were a mix of university lectures, researchers, master and bachelor students, entrepreneurs, construction company managers, architects, representatives from bureaus of construction standards, all united in a common interest in alternative binders for concrete construction. Insights based on reflections from experiences related to the first cycle was used to design the second cycle of intervention. These insights were partly shared with the network during a digital conference in January 2023. There were 10–20 participants listening in during this conference, as it was a digital forum participants could easily join and leave while presentations were given. Presentations were given by nine of the researchers in the network, including author 1, 3 and 4 of this paper.

Second Cycle

Result from the first cycle fed into the second cycle allowing for a deeper understanding of the gap in laboratory research results as well as the lack of local knowledge of the real potential of alternative binders for blocks. The guiding problem statement of the second cycle was: Why is the potential of the Pugu clay reserve not utilised as an alternative binder for concrete applications today? Here the case of Pugu, which is a large clay reserve outside Dar es Salaam, was selected to provide more narrow case boundaries for the SOS workshop. Narrower compared to the previous scope in cycle 1 ranging from sub-Saharan Africa to East Africa and a national scope of Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya. This time only one workshop was conducted. The workshop was carried out in Dar es Salaam in October 2023. The workshop sessions were longer in this cycle and the conference was divided into two parts. The first day was a full-day workshop based on the SOS structure, referred to as the workshop during cycle 2 in the results section. For this workshop, 22 participants with mixed expertise in research, development and deployment and based in seven different countries Footnote 2 contributed. The second day was a half-day conference with invited speakers from the network, complemented with external presentations from the local industry in Dar es Salaam. An overview of the key events related to the two action research cycles conducted is presented in Fig.  3 .

Action research cycle 1 and 2 with key activities for different stages of the project

These cycles in Fig.  3 have been carried out according to the timeline described in Table  2 .

Data, Experiences and Reflection

The process of conducting the two cycles of the SOS has generated data through the use of surveys and documenting the ideas, cause-effect relations and project proposals produced in the stages Diagnosing, Analysing and Solving. These data have been used as manifests of the content produced while experiences among the participating action researchers, author 1, 3 and 4 of this paper, have been used as data from the process. Reflection is used as the link between the content and process that happened and the generation of insights for future action. The reflective practice is a key component for knowledge generation in action research (Coghlan and Brydon-Miller 2014 , p. 675). Kakabadse et al. ( 2007 ) emphasise that two types of reflection can be used in action research, reflection in vivo, i.e. reflection directly related to the ongoing practice, and post reflection which is a more structured process taking a step back from experience and inquiring into its meaning. Reflective practice is therefore considered to be a primary link between experience, interpretation and future action (Kakabadse et al. 2007 ).

The three action researchers have engaged in spontaneous reflection throughout the initiative and a specific post reflection session was conducted among the three. For this, a set of reflective questions were prepared and answered in a group reflection which was recorded and later transcribed. Figure  4 illustrate how action researcher 1, 2 and 3 (hereafter referred to as AR1, AR2, AR3) are embedded among the other participants ‘wearing two hats’ of both participant in workshops and action researcher. The workshops, and all interaction that occurs, produces some data which can be analysed and visualised. At the same time, the action researchers gain experiences of the perceived support from the structure introduced via the SOS. The three action researchers later use reflection based on the data, experiences and theory from critical systems thinking to derive results in the form of suggested activities for the Diagnosing, Analysing and Solving stages of the SOS and measures to evaluate the method by.

Schematic overview of data collection and analysis from the interactions with participants and the dual role of the participating action researchers. Coggs represent a role as a participant and the Tudor bonnet represent the role as researcher

Quality and Validity in Action Research

Herr and Anderson ( 2014 ) conclude that we should not judge action research by the same criteria which we judge positivistic or naturalistic research. For elaboration on this see e.g. Checkland and Holwell ( 1998 ) and Susman and Evered ( 1978 ). Instead Herr and Anderson ( 2014 ) suggest that the quality and validity criteria of action research should be linked to the intended goals of the action research. They list five criteria: Dialogic and process validity, Outcome validity, Catalytic validity, Democratic validity and Process validity. The related goals of these criteria and the interpretation of the criteria to this paper is outlined in Table  3 .

Based on the experiences acquired from the two cycles of exploring opportunities for sustainable block-based housing in East Africa, this section focuses on the development of the problem-structuring method SOS.

RQ1: How could Purposeful Systems Identify and Explore Opportunities in a Systematic way?

The working hypothesis during the intervention has been that a sequence of Diagnosing-Analysing-Solving could be used to derive relevant projects with a potential to realise improvements of sustainability performance in the systems in focus. After defining the key concepts used in the Sustainability Opportunity Study, this section continues to describe the processes of Diagnosing, Analysing and Solving with examples of experiences, reflections and insights from CST. Each stages’ activities are listed in Tables  4 and 5 , and 6 respectively where the comments guide the reader in providing the examples which led to the suggested activity.

The Diagnosing process was prepared before conducting the workshops in both cycle 1 and 2. Previous research by one of the action researchers led the project to focus on cost and carbon emissions as key indicators for performance in production of concrete block-based housing constructions in east Africa (Isaksson 2015 ; Isaksson and Babatunde 2019 ; Isaksson and Buregyeya 2020 ). To explore the associations of sustainable building among the participants in the workshops during cycle 1, a keyword survey was conducted asking the participants to provide three to five keywords they associated with sustainable building. From a thematic analysis, the themes ‘Areas and objects’, ‘Properties’ and ‘Sustainability impacts’ emerged. Figure  5 shows all eight clusters and examples of keywords associated to each of them. The keyword association was also conducted after the workshop and the frequency of each theme at each of the workshop sessions during cycle 1 is visualised in Fig.  6 .

Illustration of the relations between the themes ‘Areas and objects’, ‘Properties’, and ‘Sustainability impacts’, and their clusters where examples of keywords associated to each cluster is provided in the grey boxes

Distribution of keyword frequency over the three themes, before and after each workshop in cycle 1

The key takeaway from the keyword association of the participants is that it does not exist any shared understanding of what constitutes sustainable building in the context of East Africa. This insight was further reinforced when an analysis of the submitted project proposals from the workshops in cycle 1 was conducted. Here the project proposals were again clustered into four themes. First theme is ‘Technology’ which includes projects directly focused on new knowledge about cement-based blocks with regards to minimizing ordinary cement or new knowledge about block-based construction materials. Second, ‘Alternative solutions/technology’ includes suggestions that involves other construction techniques beyond the block-based using a binder and water to achieve compressive strength. The third theme ‘System development and demonstration’ includes project proposals like ‘Raise customer awareness’, i.e. targeting challenges beyond the technical scope of identifying alternative mixes of binders that can form blocks that construct walls at low cost and low carbon footprints. The final theme was every other proposal named ‘Out of scope’.

The distribution among the project proposals is illustrated in Fig.  7 . From this illustration we learn that about 35%, i.e. more than a third, of all project proposals aims either on alternative solutions or out of scope. This is suggested to result from a failed anchoring of the diagnosing in the beginning of the workshop, which should provide the boundaries for the opportunity study and assure that the aim of the produced project proposals remains within the scope.

Distribution of project proposals over the four themes, for each workshop session in cycle 1 and in total

An insight resulting from reflections on the discussions during the workshops in cycle 1, is that the fact that many participants had other perspectives on what aspects should be included when discussing sustainable building. One example from the workshop in Dar es Salaam during cycle 1, is where the issue of sand, the aggregate in the concrete blocks, was highlighted as becoming a scarce resource and sand looting from local beaches were increasingly becoming a problem. A pragmatic approach to evade the discussion about what should be the complete definition of sustainable building was used, where the phrase ‘at least’ was used when introducing cost and carbon footprints as the main impacts. This provided space for other participants to include their own views about what indicators should be considered in evaluating sustainable housing, while keeping the focus of the specific workshop within the predetermined scope. Further, discussions about alternative block solutions like burnt clay, stabilized soil or cut sandstone, were all limited by the conclusion that there were no available data for comparison based on the functional unit square meter wall. The reason for this lack of data is interpreted as a lack of shared understanding of the indicators relevant for sustainable building. This further indicated the need to anchor the diagnosing with the participants before moving on with Analysing and Solving workshops.

In the workshop during cycle 2, the Diagnosing was documented as a one-pager in an attempt to improve the shared understanding of the case prepared for the workshop, and prepare for a larger acceptance of the boundaries and focus on described ‘vital few’ sustainability impacts. Further, the participants were asked to respond to a survey prior to the workshop where they had to take a stance on the content of the diagnosing, see Fig.  8 . Both the one-pager and the survey were used as preparations for an initial discussion about the case, boundaries, and focus suggested for the Analysing and Solving workshops. The initial discussion was done in small groups for 15 min before all participants met again and any potential revisions to the case, boundaries, and focus was discussed and a consensus was reached to keep the diagnosing as in the one-pager.

Five statements regarding the initial Diagnosing shared with the workshop participants of cycle 2 with numerical averages showing and the distribution indicated as waves

Reflections from the use of the one-pager, the associated survey, and initial groups discussions, were captured in the reflection session among the three action researchers where the following was said about the Diagnosing in cycle 2:

Question: Did the Diagnosing session work out as planned?

AR2: “Nothing I reacted on like: oh we should have done this differently.”

AR2: “I mean it was a huge simplification to go from saying that we look at alternative binders to say that we look at Pugu clay and I thought that would lead to some criticism because people would like to talk about their own pet projects but somehow it passed. And I’m happy it went through because it made so much more sense to creating this common understanding that: yes this is an opportunity. And still it was unclear in the discussions, when we are discussing the causes everybody is already solving the problem. That happens with everybody.”

AR3: “Yeah [agreeing]”.

AR2: “Even if it logically is so simple: Is there an opportunity? Yes – tick. What are the causes? People go schoum: we can do this, we can do that – so it just shows how much pre-work is needed to agree upon the boundaries like this is where we are. So I think if something we would have needed even more clarification on the diagnosing part.”

AR1: “My experience from my group were that we were able to establish a consensus from the group discussion and we didn’t flow out [of scope].”

Based on the experiences and reflections presented, a step-wise set of activities for the Diagnosing of an opportunity is suggested in Table  4 . Here activity-specific comments are provided in relation to the key source for the suggested activity and the experiences and reflections presented here above.

The reflections on the Analysing session in the workshop during cycle 2 witness of a successful session:

Question: Did the Analysing session work out as planned?

AR3: “I think the causes-part of the group exercise was very nicely structured and I think it flowed beautifully”.

AR1: “In my opinion I was very happy with the analysing session, where we were able to brainstorm out all the possible solutions, and then narrow it down to three key causes and then share that in the big group and kind of have a selection of key causes. I’m very happy with that.”

Some major changes in the Analysing session were done between the first workshop and the other two in cycle 1, as well as a remake of the activities for the workshop in cycle 2. The first workshop in cycle 1 was given a free format for group discussions based on the questions “Why is this improvement potential here?”. This resulted in quite superficial discussions where the summary from the sharing among the groups resulted in a set of 19 “causes” collected as a starting ground for the Solving session. Examples of such causes are “unfair competition due to unofficial market for blocks”, “high cement prices”, “correct sand grading is difficult” and “no big investors”. For the following two Analysing workshops in cycle 1, a 10 M resource analysis was introduced and the participants were asked to rank the importance of each resource, set a ranking number for its level and relevance for the purpose of enabling the system to improve its sustainability performance. These rankings could then be used to derive a weighted score for each group of resources.

Experiences from introducing the 10 M analysis tell that the 10 M tool was difficult to use with a value chain perspective and the discussions remained on a superficial level throughout the discussions. Two out of four group submissions from Makerere workshop named the mission resource highest priority with motivations like “ The climate change policies exists but their interpretations are limited ”, and “ Mission concise explanation of the organisations reason for existence ”. Similar for the workshop in Meru where 2 out of 6 group submissions named ‘Method’ resource as the top priority with motivations like “ the methods in which the production of the binders are not clear. Documentation of these methods need to be developed ” and “ Methods to provide standardization in the production of the binders ”. While the data collected from the participants’ 10 M analysis could be used to create nice graphs, like the one in Fig.  9 , it was clear from the workshops that too little time was given for the participants to comprehend the concept of resources mapping using the 10 M tool. The time given for the Analysing session in cycle 1 was about 30–40 min, this was increased to 120 min in cycle 2. The 10 M analysis in cycle 1 did not provide any fruitful insights that could be used as a stepping stone for the next Solving session and were rather considered a barrier than enabler for good group discussions. Later reflection on the use of the 10 M tool led to the removal of the tool from the Analysing session. The evaluation of this decision was conducted during the reflection session after the workshop in cycle 2:

AR2: “I think it was good not to confuse people. Maybe now afterwards we can try to fit these into an explanatory structure. Theory can also be a limitation in action. So I think it went well.”

Example of graph created with results from ranking 10 M resources in Makerere workshop during cycle 1

A key insight from doing the Analysing in cycle 1 was that much of the group discussions were based on assumptions and high-level reasoning. This led to an inclusion of a documentation of assumptions in the Analysing of cycle 2. Since the opportunity study is not designed to be complete, assumptions are accepted and needed to move forward. Acknowledging and documenting them enables more efficient follow-up work where the underlying assumptions can be scrutinised and the continued intervention can adjust based on new information shifting the viability of the assumption. Further, a clearer set of activities guiding the group-work with the Analysing was introduced. First an individual brainstorm where some 10 min were given to each participant for individual thinking and documenting challenges guided by the problem-statement “Why is the potential of the Pugu clay reserve not utilised as an alternative binder for concrete applications today?”. Following this was a group discussion, continuing to document challenges on post-it notes before the challenges were related to each other and spontaneously clustered. Here a post-reflection based on CST suggests introducing a check against the three system perspectives Mechanic, Organismic, Cultural/Political. The check would be done to challenge the group-thinking conducted by the group as they identify potential challenges, and ensure breadth of the Analysing (Jackson 2020 ).

The reason for suggesting three out of five system perspectives is that the Interrelationship perspective is considered in the subsequent step when the relations among the identified challenges are mapped. And the Societal/Environmental perspective is dealt with during the Diagnosing. In order to improve the work with prioritising the key challenges that were selected for continuing with in the Solving workshop, a matrix with two dimensions ranging from low to high complexity and impact was introduced. The matrix worked as a tool to help compare the derived challenges and identify those deemed to have low complexity and high impact. An example of one groups’ matrix and the positioned post-it notes with challenges is shown in Fig.  10 . This is captured in the suggestion during the reflection session after the workshop in cycle 2:

AR1: “So a suggestion of looking for what comes first of the causes identified in the brainstorm and then go ahead and start looking for relations. I think that gives, even though it was difficult and messy, it gives you insight into like ‘where does the real problem lie’? and then when you have the complexity matrix you can go like, ok this seems to be the real problem and it has x complexity and y impact.”

Example of one groups’ impact/complexity matrix with challenges documented on post-it notes. Here post-its marked with one, two and three were identified as the top selections due to their high impact and simple complexity

Once the groups have mapped the challenges based on complexity and impact, before moving on to selecting the top three challenges, one AR witness:

AR3: “We had a stress test to see if we could drop any of the causes after the brainstorming in saying that ‘is this something that we can solve as a network’?”

Introducing such a check, before moving on to select the top three challenges is assumed to improve the chances of finding working groups for the Solving session where there is enough willingness, competence and access to resources to take the project proposal beyond the SOS into an actual intervention. After the selection of the top three challenges, they were documented with a description to clarify what the group meant by the challenge. Their identified relations to other challenges was also documented to explain how the group understood the interrelations and how engagement with the challenge could affect other challenges. Finally, the main assumptions made by the group about each challenge was documented. When this was done all groups gathered and shared this information about their top three challenges with each other and space was given to ask questions and suggest improvements in each other’s documented challenges. The resulting suggested activity steps for the Analysing is presented in Table  5 .

The solving sessions during the workshops in both cycle 1 and 2 were given a free format with a starting point in the identified challenges from the previous Analysing session. The groups were provided with a template for completing a short-version of a project proposal. An aspect that was noted as not working out so well in the workshop during the second cycle was the continuation with the same groups as in the Analysing session. The groups were constructed for achieving high diversity amongst the participants for the Analysing session so that several perspectives would be present in many different groups. However, the gap between the drafted project proposals and moving into a real intervention triggered reflections among the action researchers about how groups could be reformed for the Solving session:

AR1: “Maybe an alternative could be to synthesize the causes that we found and have some way of describing those causes so that the participants can choose the one that they feel that they have the competence and the willingness to contribute to.” AR3: “So if we synthesize the causes maybe we can reduce them, so if there are five groups then you put out those five core causes, and then each group can choose which cause they want to work with.” AR1: “You can have some type of speed dating or a small group exercise that you can do. And then I was also thinking that the competences and access to resources could be highlighted in some way. So it would be kind of a matchmaking around the causes and the start of forming an alliance going forward in looking for solutions and real projects that could be implemented.” AR2: “So I don’t think we talked about this but maybe we should have said that we take the three main causes and then select the one main cause and look for solutions to that one. So, you narrow it down further. And we might have divided it into different groups.” AR1: “Group the causes that we did identify into themes, then have an exercise that lets the participants understand their capabilities and access to resources to prepare self-selection of solution groups based on interest for the theme and recognition of actual solving capabilities”.

Comparing with CSP, the second stage Produce seeks to identify already existing system methodologies, methods and models based on the identified system perspective the Primary issues is mainly associated with. In the case that participants of the Solving session have experience or knowledge of systems methodologies and CST/CSP an activity could be added to the Solving session. Where the participants reflect on the Primary issue, i.e. the challenge they have formed a group around, relate it to a system perspective and discuss any potential system methodology that can be used to guide an intervention. An alternative and complement to this would be a brainstorming session. Both approaches would result in three documented project proposals briefly describing the ideated motivation, team members, goal, potential sponsors, timeline with activities of the project, and assumptions used in designing the project. A summary of the activities suggested for Solving is presented in Table  6 .

RQ2: How could such a Systemic Method be Evaluated?’

In the development of the Sustainability Opportunity Study the question of how to evaluate the results of the workshops was discussed and elaborated on. Initially in the three workshops during cycle 1, a schema was developed to test the learnings in terms of increased abilities for systems thinking, as a result of the participation in the workshops. The schema planned to use the first workshop in cycle 1 as a control group where no system models and tools were introduced and the structure of D-A-S was the only influence from the SOS to the workshop. As compared to the two following workshops where a process-based system model was introduced and used to describe the Diagnosing and how the following Analysing using the 10 M tool related to the overall system and the stakeholders in focus. The hypothesis was that the project proposals and the keywords collected at the end of the workshops would show higher levels of systems thinking. This was never possible to derive since there was a big discrepancy between the participating persons that completed both the keyword surveys prior and after the workshops. Further, no pattern could be distinguished between the first and the two following workshops’ resulting project proposals, see Fig.  6 for comparison based on the theme.

After the attempt to measure some learning effects in the first cycle, discussions among the action researchers partly shifted the focus towards the quality of the project proposals and the likelihood of moving into actual projects being implemented. In these discussions the concept of agency and ambitions surfaced as key factors among the participants, determining the likelihood of the continuation of the project proposals from idea to implementation. Here agency is defined as the ability among actors to mobilise resources for a certain goal and ambition defined as the willingness of actors to move to action (Avelino 2011 ). In preparations of the digital networking conference, an analysis of the data collected during cycle 1 was done. Here the project proposals were screened and clustered based on the themes presented in Fig.  7 . The analysis was done based on an expert review, assuming that the experience and knowledge of the action researcher granted the privileged position to make judgements about the content and quality of the project proposals.

Going into cycle 2 and preparing for the workshops, it was agreed that while producing relevant project proposals was part of the aim, more important was the learning and relation building opportunities for the participants joining the workshop in Dar es Salaam. This guided the evaluation survey, that was conducted at the end of the workshop, to focus on the participants perceived learning and networking, captured with statements and answers on a Likert scale. See Fig.  11 for results from the workshop during cycle 2. Here a question about exceeding expectations and general success of the workshop was also included as general measurements of the perceived success of the workshop among the participants.

Survey results from workshop in cycle 2 showing average scores for participants perceived level of agreement to four different statements

The start of this project was the successful application of two networking grants where the purpose was to build relations with local researchers and developers to create common project proposals. The explicit outcome expected from the networking grants was research applications for funding from various research agencies and development grants. Research applications were submitted, but not assessed (see Table  2 ). These committees would serve as a type of independent expert panel, which would have the agency to allocate the resources estimated for implementation of the identified research projects. Where the success rate of the applications submitted to such funding agencies could serve as a proxy for a successful SOS. Time and resources of this project would not allow for this type of evaluation but is suggested as an alternative for future evaluation.

Another aspect of the evaluation that was discussed during the project was the scope of stakeholder needs considered. It was suggested at several instances throughout both cycle 1 and 2, that the introduction of an alternative value chain for producing binders for block-based building would create employment locally. See the argument being presented in Isaksson et al. ( 2023b ). This was included, and again excluded, from the diagnosing as a complementary key sustainability indicator to the focus on cost and carbon emissions. In discussion with one of the project partners it was questioned as a simplified chain of logic. Due to the uncertainty in how the cause-effect of an introduction of an alternative value chain for binders for block-based construction, it was for practical reasons decided that the impacts on local employment would be left out the discussion in the workshop of cycle 2. Where the practicality considered was the likelihood of acceptance of such indicator among the participants, where disagreement would lead to discussions on the scope of stakeholders to include, rather than exploring opportunities.

Using the main system paradigms identified by Jackson ( 2016 ), it is apparent that the perspectives and aims of the functionalist, the interpretative and the emancipatory paradigms have been considered in the discussion on how to evaluate the success of the SOS. This leads to a conclusion that the main purpose of the project should guide the selection of which measures for evaluations are considered most important, or if all should be designed for.

A post-reflection from CST contributes to the discussion, where Jackson ( 2020 ) in CSP emphasises a focus on breadth and depth of the Explore phase of CSP. The argument is that a lack of breadth and depth will lead to a false start in Explore. This is deemed equally true for the Diagnosing, Analysing and Solving of the SOS. Where a false start would be any derived project proposals based on false assumptions or missed project proposals due to narrow purview. Experiences from the discussions during the first cycle was that their focus was often quite high-level and superficial, indicating a lack of depth. In seeking breadth of Exploration, Jackson ( 2020 ) warns that problem solving techniques like brainstorming limits the boundaries of the discussion to the groups existing ideas and quotes Einstein’s dictum saying that ‘no problem can be solved on the same level of consciousness that created it’. Jackson’s ( 2020 , p. 843) suggested solution to ensuring breadth and depth, and avoiding the trap of false starts, is to ensure pluralism and guard against the competing approaches like isolationist, imperialist, and pragmatist. Based on this argumentation by Jackson, another way to evaluate the SOS would be to consider the design elements aimed towards ensuring breadth and depth of any SOS.

Based on these experiences, reflections and insights from CST, Table  7 summarises four types of evaluation of the SOS based on the primary purpose of the study.

The development of the Sustainability Opportunity Study has further progressed as a result of the 2 year long systemic intervention. Critical Systems Thinking has been used to revise the method to be suitable for multimethodological interventions, ensuring both breadth and depth in the exploration of sustainability opportunities (Jackson 2020 ). While this development of SOS could be viewed as competing with Jackson’s Critical Systems Practice, the SOS is introduced as a method that specifically could be used to support purposeful systems’ dynamic capabilities of screening for opportunities. The area identified by Linde et al. ( 2021 ) and Mousavi and Bossink ( 2017 ) as a key capability for achieving improvements in sustainability performance and progress towards a sustainable development. CSP is also questioned for being too complicated, comprehensive and demanding for some practitioners (Patton 2023 ). This is acknowledge in the reply from Jackson ( 2023a ) and is to be thought of as an ‘ideal type’ of multimethodological systemic intervention which will require some flexibility and adjustment for each application (Jackson 2022 ). While practitioners are informed by the paper series on CSP (Jackson 2020 , 2021 , 2022 , 2023b ), the summary of guidelines for practitioners in appendix 1 of (Jackson 2023b ) is very limited in its tangible advice for practitioners. The suggested activities for conducting a SOS through the steps of Diagnosing, Analysing and Solving could be easier for practitioners who are less familiar with CST and the range of system methodologies available in the literature. In this sense SOS could be a step on the way in the model of learning proposed by Midgely ( 2001 ). Due to the challenges of dealing with incommensurable paradigms, psychological resistance to methodological pluralism and cultural norms resisting pluralism, Midgley ( 2001 , p. 253) presents a model of learning which emphasises that “ learning about the existence of different methods , and their possible strengths and weaknesses , need to be an ongoing process: one can start with just a couple of methods and proceed from there ”.

Reviewing the sustainability opportunity study from a CST perspective, it would seem like a method aspiring to be on the same level as critical systems practice doing practically the same thing as the two initial stages explore and produce. Here the initial stage of CSP, Explore, aims to identify primary and secondary issues, which is partly similar to what happens in Diagnosing. Although a focus on deriving measurable indicators for the primary issues is more evident in the SOS. Further, Analysing and Solving of the SOS are similar to the focus on producing and intervention strategy of CSP, i.e. the second stage Produce. See Fig.  12 for comparison. The implementation component of SOS has been suggested to be a reiteration of Diagnosing, Analysing, Solving followed by the stages Implement, Anchor, Study forming a DASIAS improvement process (Isaksson 2015 ). The match between the SOS and DASIAS study remains unexplored but could be an interesting continuation of this development of the SOS. How DASIAS compares to the EPIC of critical systems thinking could possibly provide new insights contributing to the development of both concepts.

Illustration of the relation between CSP Explore and Produce and the SOS Diagnosing, Analysing and Solving and the suggested sub-sequent DASIAS improvement process, which yet remains unexplored in relation to the SOS developed in this paper

While some suggestions for new activities in the stages of the SOS have been based on the commitments of CST, a full review of how the new SOS relates to the four commitments of CST can indicate further areas of development. See Table  8 for a crosscheck of the stages Diagnosing, Analysing and Solving against the four commitments of CST, Systems Thinking, Improvement, Pluralism and Critical Awareness. It is apparent that the new SOS aligns with CST in commitments to Systems Thinking and Improvement, but not yet to Pluralism or Critical awareness. Future studies could contribute to the continued development by exploring if and how a problem-structuring method like the new SOS can benefit from operationalising a commitment to pluralism and critical awareness.

There is an interesting point to be made about the relation between the two dynamic capabilities, exploring opportunities and screening for partnerships as described by (Linde et al. 2021 ), and the main focus of the SOS. The SOS can either be conducted with a pure ‘emancipatory/liberating’ perspective and identify the improvement dimensions in Diagnosing based on the interpretation of what is needed for a sustainable development. The resulting project proposals would then be used to attract potential partners with similar values and willingness to engage for that type of ‘emancipation/liberation’. Or, the Diagnosing in SOS can be conducted after identifying the group of project participants, and let the collective ambitions and agency guide the choices in the opportunity study. This would lead to a set of project proposals that can go directly to the intervention stage since the partnerships are already identified and forged. This analysis of the two ways of conducting the SOS is not yet explored.

The purpose of the network grant was double sided, expecting both an exploration of opportunities and scouting for partnerships, while the espoused purpose of the SOS has remained as focusing on identifying opportunities. The focus of the workshop in the second cycle was mainly evaluated based on perceived learning and relationship building among the participants. The role of, and the interdependence of, the two dynamic sensing capabilities Opportunity Screening and Partnership Scouting, should also be interesting for further investigations.

Preparing for a Successful Workshop

The preparation for workshops on both cycle 1 and 2 were complemented by specific workshop skills and tools beyond the SOS. As a final note on the updated activities suggested for the SOS these workshop planning skills are briefly touched upon. Palm et al. ( 2024 ) suggest that the success of any workshop is determined by achieving four key parts:

Right mix of participants.

Right structure.

Right problem-statements.

Right facilitation.

The SOS was used to design the right structure in terms of the D-A-S sequence and the activities related to each stage of the SOS. The problem-statements, used as main guidance for the Analysing and Solving workshops during the second cycle, were derived based on the Diagnosing of the case and formulated as:

Problem-statement for Analysing: “Why is the potential of the Pugu clay reserve not utilised as an alternative binder for concrete applications today?”

Problem-statement for Solving: “What solutions can you identify as part of realising the potential of Pugu clay as an alternative binder for concrete applications?”

Further use of the SOS as a method for deriving sustainability opportunities should benefit from considering how to achieve the right mix of participants and right facilitation Palm et al. ( 2024 ).

Conclusions

The new SOS constitute a further development from previous publications (Isaksson et al. 2023a ), exploring activities beyond the Diagnosing, and suggesting activities for both Analysing and Solving based on experiences from two cycles of implementation. The intervention into the system for providing housing in East Africa with block-based building, has yielded both tangible project proposals and learning and shared understanding among participants. New relations have formed and the network has expanded as results of the conducted workshops and conferences during the intervention. These are all relevant dimensions for evaluating the SOS for potential comparison to alternative support methods for identifying and exploring sustainability opportunities in systems. Further measures of evaluation are suggested to be the level to which marginalised stakeholder needs are considered throughout the stages of the method. Finally, informed by critical systems thinking, the method could be evaluated based on to what extent breadth and depth is ensured in the different stages of the method and throughout the intervention. The summarising overview of the suggested activities for the stages Diagnosing, Analysing and Solving, as well as the suggested measures for evaluating the method is presented in Fig.  13 .

Overview of the revised Sustainability Opportunity Study, its three stages Diagnosing, Analysing and Solving, each stages’ activities and four suggested focuses for evaluating an SOS based on different main purposes

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

The Research Council for the Environment, Areal Industries and Community Building.

Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa, Nepal, India, Switzerland and Sweden.

Ackoff RL, Emery FE (1972) On purposeful systems.

Andrew RM (2019) Global CO 2 emissions from cement production, 1928–2018. Earth Syst Sci Data 11:1675–1710

Article   Google Scholar  

Architecture 2030 (2024). Why The Built Environment. https://www.architecture2030.org/why-the-built-environment/ . Accessed 2 May 2024

Avelino F (2011) Power in transition: Empowering discourses on sustainability transitions. Dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam

Behrens W, Hawranek PM (1991) Manual for the preparation of industrial feasibility studies. United Nations Industrial Development Organization

Berardi U (2017) A cross-country comparison of the building energy consumptions and their trends. Resour Conserv Recycl 123:230–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.03.014

Bradbury H (2015) The Sage handbook of action research. Sage

Book   Google Scholar  

Cambridge Dictionary (2023) sustainability.   https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sustainability . Accessed 20 Apr 2023

Checkland P, Holwell S (1998) Action research: its nature and validity. Systemic Pract Action Res 11:9–21. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022908820784

Coghlan D, Brydon-Miller M (2014) The SAGE encyclopedia of action research. SAGE, Los Angeles

Du Pisani JA (2006) Sustainable development – historical roots of the concept. Environ Sci 3:83–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15693430600688831

Flood RL, Jackson MC (1991) Critical systems heuristics: application of an emancipatory approach for police strategy toward the carrying of offensive weapons. Syst Pract 4:283–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01062006

Gomes Júnior ADA, Schramm VB (2022) Problem structuring methods: a review of advances over the last decade. Syst Pract Action Res 35:55–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-021-09560-1

Habermas J (1972) Knowledge and human interests, (H. E. B. Paperback). Heinemann Educational, London

Google Scholar  

Herr K, Anderson GL (2014) The action research dissertation: a guide for students and faculty, Sage publications

Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G (2005) Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sust Dev 13:38–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.244

Isaksson R (2015) Making sense of opportunities in building material production. TQM J 27:781–797. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-06-2015-0073

Isaksson R (2016) Process based system models for detecting opportunities and threats–the case of world cement production. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences

Isaksson R, Babatunde O (2019) Opportunities for improved sustainability in house building: the case of Dar es Salaam. Afr J Sci Technol Innov Dev 11:457–463

Isaksson R, Buregyeya A (2020) Understanding sustainability–the case of building blocks in Tanzania and Uganda. TQM Journal 36(7)

Isaksson R, Rosvall M (2020) Understanding building sustainability - the case of Sweden. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2020.1853520

Isaksson R, Rosvall M, Espuny M, Nunhes TV, de Oliveira OJ (2022) How is building sustainability understood?—a study of research papers and sustainability reports. Sustainability 14:12430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912430

Isaksson R, Ramanathan S, Rosvall M (2023a) The sustainability opportunity study (SOS) – diagnosing by operationalising and sensemaking of sustainability using total quality management. TQM J 35:1329–1347. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-01-2022-0038

Isaksson R, Rosvall M, Babaahmadi A, Buregyeya A, Hazarika A, Marangu JM, Olonade K, Ramanathan S, Rucukye A, Valentini L (2023b) Supplementary cementitious materials in building blocks—diagnosing opportunities in Sub-saharan Africa. Sustainability 15:5822. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075822

Jackson M (1987) Present positions and future prospects in management science. Omega 15:455–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(87)90003-X

Jackson MC (2006) Beyond problem structuring methods: reinventing the future of OR/MS. J Oper Res Soc 57:868–878

Jackson MC (2016) Systems thinking: creative holism for managers. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Jackson MC (2019) Critical systems thinking and the management of complexity: responsible leadership for a complex world. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ

Jackson MC (2020) Critical systems practice 1: explore—starting a multimethodological intervention. Syst Res Behav Sci 37:839–858. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2746

Jackson MC (2021) Critical systems practice 2: produce—constructing a multimethodological intervention strategy. Syst Res Behav Sci 38:594–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2809

Jackson MC (2022) Critical systems practice 3: intervene—flexibly executing a multimethodological intervention. Syst Res Behav Sci 39:1014–1023. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2909

Jackson MC (2023a) In search of a golden mean for systemic evaluation: a response to Michael Quinn Patton. Syst Res Behav Sci 40:636–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2938

Jackson MC (2023b) Critical systems practice 4: check—evaluating and reflecting on a multimethodological intervention. Syst Res Behav Sci 40:617–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2912

Jackson MC, Keys P (1984) Towards a system of systems methodologies. J Oper Res Soc 35:473–486

Kakabadse NK, Kakabadse AP, Kalu KN (2007) Communicative action through collaborative inquiry: journey of a facilitating co-inquirer. Systemic Pract Action Res 20:245–272

Linde L, Sjödin D, Parida V, Wincent J (2021) Dynamic capabilities for ecosystem orchestration a capability-based framework for smart city innovation initiatives. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 166:120614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120614

Lothenbach B, Scrivener K, Hooton RD (2011) Supplementary cementitious materials. Cem Concr Res 41:1244–1256

Lozano R (2008) Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J Clean Prod 16:1838–1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008

McKay J, Marshall P (2001) The dual imperatives of action research. Inform Technol People 14:46–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840110384771

Meadows DH (1972) The limits to growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New American Library, New York

Midgley G (2001) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology, and practice. Springer Science & Business Media

Mousavi S, Bossink BAG (2017) Firms’ capabilities for sustainable innovation: the case of biofuel for aviation. J Clean Prod 167:1263–1275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.146

Mwesigye JA (2019) Yearbook 2019 - Housing finance in East Africa (yearbook), Africa housing finance. Centre for Affordable Housing Finance in Africa

Palm K, Fredriksson S, Silfversten E, & Özbek N (2024) Exploring systemic design practices in public sector innovation. Policy Design and Practice 7(3): 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2024.2345866

Patton MQ (2023) To the editor. Syst Res Behav Sci 40:633–635. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2927

Pawłowski A (2008) How many dimensions does sustainable development have? Sustain Dev 16:81–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.339

Persson L, Almroth BMC, Collins CD, Cornell S, de Wit CA, Diamond ML, Fantke P, Hassellöv M, MacLeod M, Ryberg MW, Jørgensen PS, Villarrubia-Gómez P, Wang Z, Hauschild MZ (2022) Outside the safe operating space of the planetary boundary for novel entities. Environ Sci Technol 56:1510–1521. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158

Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a

Sabir BB, Wild S, Bai J (2001) Metakaolin and calcined clays as pozzolans for concrete: a review. Cem Concrete Compos Metakaolin Calcined Clays 23:441–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(00)00092-5

Susman GI, Evered RD (1978) An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. Adm Sci Q 23:582–603. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392581

United Nations (2017) Universal declaration of human rights. United Nations, New York. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights . Accessed 15 Jan 2024

World Bank (2023) Housing Finance. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialsector/brief/housing-finance . Accessed 15 Nov 2023

Download references

Open access funding provided by Uppsala University. The workshops and field visits conducted during the reported research project was enabled by funding for travels and organisation from the Swedish Science Council (VR) #2021–05146 and The Research Council for the Environment, Areal Industries and Community Building (FORMAS) #2021–02691.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Civil Engineering and Industrial Technology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Max Rosvall, Klas Palm, Swaminathan Ramanathan & Raine Isaksson

Business Administration and Industrial Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Social Sciences, Technology and Arts, Luleå, Sweden

Raine Isaksson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Max Rosvall, Swaminathan Ramanathan and Raine Isaksson. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Max Rosvall and all authors provided input for subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Max Rosvall .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

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

Rosvall, M., Palm, K., Ramanathan, S. et al. Exploring Opportunities for Sustainable Housing: The Case of East Africa. Syst Pract Action Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-024-09698-8

Download citation

Accepted : 02 October 2024

Published : 15 October 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-024-09698-8

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

• Sustainability opportunities
• Problem structuring method
• Critical systems thinking
• Sustainable housing
• Sustainability opportunity study
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research