what is recommendation in research example

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper
• How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

Published on September 15, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on July 18, 2023.

Recommendations in research are a crucial component of your discussion section and the conclusion of your thesis , dissertation , or research paper .

As you conduct your research and analyze the data you collected , perhaps there are ideas or results that don’t quite fit the scope of your research topic. Or, maybe your results suggest that there are further implications of your results or the causal relationships between previously-studied variables than covered in extant research.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What should recommendations look like, building your research recommendation, how should your recommendations be written, recommendation in research example, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about recommendations.

Recommendations for future research should be:

• Concrete and specific
• Supported with a clear rationale
• Directly connected to your research

Overall, strive to highlight ways other researchers can reproduce or replicate your results to draw further conclusions, and suggest different directions that future research can take, if applicable.

Relatedly, when making these recommendations, avoid:

• Undermining your own work, but rather offer suggestions on how future studies can build upon it
• Suggesting recommendations actually needed to complete your argument, but rather ensure that your research stands alone on its own merits
• Using recommendations as a place for self-criticism, but rather as a natural extension point for your work

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

There are many different ways to frame recommendations, but the easiest is perhaps to follow the formula of research question   conclusion  recommendation. Here’s an example.

Conclusion An important condition for controlling many social skills is mastering language. If children have a better command of language, they can express themselves better and are better able to understand their peers. Opportunities to practice social skills are thus dependent on the development of language skills.

As a rule of thumb, try to limit yourself to only the most relevant future recommendations: ones that stem directly from your work. While you can have multiple recommendations for each research conclusion, it is also acceptable to have one recommendation that is connected to more than one conclusion.

These recommendations should be targeted at your audience, specifically toward peers or colleagues in your field that work on similar subjects to your paper or dissertation topic . They can flow directly from any limitations you found while conducting your work, offering concrete and actionable possibilities for how future research can build on anything that your own work was unable to address at the time of your writing.

See below for a full research recommendation example that you can use as a template to write your own.

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Survivorship bias
• Self-serving bias
• Availability heuristic
• Halo effect
• Hindsight bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

While it may be tempting to present new arguments or evidence in your thesis or disseration conclusion , especially if you have a particularly striking argument you’d like to finish your analysis with, you shouldn’t. Theses and dissertations follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the discussion section and results section .) The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation should include the following:

• A restatement of your research question
• A summary of your key arguments and/or results
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

• Important evidence or analysis that wasn’t mentioned in the discussion section and results section
• Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion …”)
• Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g., “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

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 Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, July 18). How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/recommendations-in-research/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples, how to write a thesis or dissertation conclusion, how to write a results section | tips & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing Guide

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Recommendations

Definition:

Research recommendations refer to suggestions or advice given to someone who is looking to conduct research on a specific topic or area. These recommendations may include suggestions for research methods, data collection techniques, sources of information, and other factors that can help to ensure that the research is conducted in a rigorous and effective manner. Research recommendations may be provided by experts in the field, such as professors, researchers, or consultants, and are intended to help guide the researcher towards the most appropriate and effective approach to their research project.

Parts of Research Recommendations

Research recommendations can vary depending on the specific project or area of research, but typically they will include some or all of the following parts:

• Research question or objective : This is the overarching goal or purpose of the research project.
• Research methods : This includes the specific techniques and strategies that will be used to collect and analyze data. The methods will depend on the research question and the type of data being collected.
• Data collection: This refers to the process of gathering information or data that will be used to answer the research question. This can involve a range of different methods, including surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments.
• Data analysis : This involves the process of examining and interpreting the data that has been collected. This can involve statistical analysis, qualitative analysis, or a combination of both.
• Results and conclusions: This section summarizes the findings of the research and presents any conclusions or recommendations based on those findings.
• Limitations and future research: This section discusses any limitations of the study and suggests areas for future research that could build on the findings of the current project.

How to Write Research Recommendations

Writing research recommendations involves providing specific suggestions or advice to a researcher on how to conduct their study. Here are some steps to consider when writing research recommendations:

• Understand the research question: Before writing research recommendations, it is important to have a clear understanding of the research question and the objectives of the study. This will help to ensure that the recommendations are relevant and appropriate.
• Consider the research methods: Consider the most appropriate research methods that could be used to collect and analyze data that will address the research question. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods and how they might apply to the specific research question.
• Provide specific recommendations: Provide specific and actionable recommendations that the researcher can implement in their study. This can include recommendations related to sample size, data collection techniques, research instruments, data analysis methods, or other relevant factors.
• Justify recommendations : Justify why each recommendation is being made and how it will help to address the research question or objective. It is important to provide a clear rationale for each recommendation to help the researcher understand why it is important.
• Consider limitations and ethical considerations : Consider any limitations or potential ethical considerations that may arise in conducting the research. Provide recommendations for addressing these issues or mitigating their impact.
• Summarize recommendations: Provide a summary of the recommendations at the end of the report or document, highlighting the most important points and emphasizing how the recommendations will contribute to the overall success of the research project.

Example of Research Recommendations

Example of Research Recommendations sample for students:

• Further investigate the effects of X on Y by conducting a larger-scale randomized controlled trial with a diverse population.
• Explore the relationship between A and B by conducting qualitative interviews with individuals who have experience with both.
• Investigate the long-term effects of intervention C by conducting a follow-up study with participants one year after completion.
• Examine the effectiveness of intervention D in a real-world setting by conducting a field study in a naturalistic environment.
• Compare and contrast the results of this study with those of previous research on the same topic to identify any discrepancies or inconsistencies in the findings.
• Expand upon the limitations of this study by addressing potential confounding variables and conducting further analyses to control for them.
• Investigate the relationship between E and F by conducting a meta-analysis of existing literature on the topic.
• Explore the potential moderating effects of variable G on the relationship between H and I by conducting subgroup analyses.
• Identify potential areas for future research based on the gaps in current literature and the findings of this study.
• Conduct a replication study to validate the results of this study and further establish the generalizability of the findings.

Applications of Research Recommendations

Research recommendations are important as they provide guidance on how to improve or solve a problem. The applications of research recommendations are numerous and can be used in various fields. Some of the applications of research recommendations include:

• Policy-making: Research recommendations can be used to develop policies that address specific issues. For example, recommendations from research on climate change can be used to develop policies that reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability.
• Program development: Research recommendations can guide the development of programs that address specific issues. For example, recommendations from research on education can be used to develop programs that improve student achievement.
• Product development : Research recommendations can guide the development of products that meet specific needs. For example, recommendations from research on consumer behavior can be used to develop products that appeal to consumers.
• Marketing strategies: Research recommendations can be used to develop effective marketing strategies. For example, recommendations from research on target audiences can be used to develop marketing strategies that effectively reach specific demographic groups.
• Medical practice : Research recommendations can guide medical practitioners in providing the best possible care to patients. For example, recommendations from research on treatments for specific conditions can be used to improve patient outcomes.
• Scientific research: Research recommendations can guide future research in a specific field. For example, recommendations from research on a specific disease can be used to guide future research on treatments and cures for that disease.

Purpose of Research Recommendations

The purpose of research recommendations is to provide guidance on how to improve or solve a problem based on the findings of research. Research recommendations are typically made at the end of a research study and are based on the conclusions drawn from the research data. The purpose of research recommendations is to provide actionable advice to individuals or organizations that can help them make informed decisions, develop effective strategies, or implement changes that address the issues identified in the research.

The main purpose of research recommendations is to facilitate the transfer of knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, or other stakeholders who can benefit from the research findings. Recommendations can help bridge the gap between research and practice by providing specific actions that can be taken based on the research results. By providing clear and actionable recommendations, researchers can help ensure that their findings are put into practice, leading to improvements in various fields, such as healthcare, education, business, and public policy.

Characteristics of Research Recommendations

Research recommendations are a key component of research studies and are intended to provide practical guidance on how to apply research findings to real-world problems. The following are some of the key characteristics of research recommendations:

• Actionable : Research recommendations should be specific and actionable, providing clear guidance on what actions should be taken to address the problem identified in the research.
• Evidence-based: Research recommendations should be based on the findings of the research study, supported by the data collected and analyzed.
• Contextual: Research recommendations should be tailored to the specific context in which they will be implemented, taking into account the unique circumstances and constraints of the situation.
• Feasible : Research recommendations should be realistic and feasible, taking into account the available resources, time constraints, and other factors that may impact their implementation.
• Prioritized: Research recommendations should be prioritized based on their potential impact and feasibility, with the most important recommendations given the highest priority.
• Communicated effectively: Research recommendations should be communicated clearly and effectively, using language that is understandable to the target audience.
• Evaluated : Research recommendations should be evaluated to determine their effectiveness in addressing the problem identified in the research, and to identify opportunities for improvement.

Advantages of Research Recommendations

Research recommendations have several advantages, including:

• Providing practical guidance: Research recommendations provide practical guidance on how to apply research findings to real-world problems, helping to bridge the gap between research and practice.
• Improving decision-making: Research recommendations help decision-makers make informed decisions based on the findings of research, leading to better outcomes and improved performance.
• Enhancing accountability : Research recommendations can help enhance accountability by providing clear guidance on what actions should be taken, and by providing a basis for evaluating progress and outcomes.
• Informing policy development : Research recommendations can inform the development of policies that are evidence-based and tailored to the specific needs of a given situation.
• Enhancing knowledge transfer: Research recommendations help facilitate the transfer of knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, or other stakeholders who can benefit from the research findings.
• Encouraging further research : Research recommendations can help identify gaps in knowledge and areas for further research, encouraging continued exploration and discovery.
• Promoting innovation: Research recommendations can help identify innovative solutions to complex problems, leading to new ideas and approaches.

Limitations of Research Recommendations

While research recommendations have several advantages, there are also some limitations to consider. These limitations include:

• Context-specific: Research recommendations may be context-specific and may not be applicable in all situations. Recommendations developed in one context may not be suitable for another context, requiring adaptation or modification.
• I mplementation challenges: Implementation of research recommendations may face challenges, such as lack of resources, resistance to change, or lack of buy-in from stakeholders.
• Limited scope: Research recommendations may be limited in scope, focusing only on a specific issue or aspect of a problem, while other important factors may be overlooked.
• Uncertainty : Research recommendations may be uncertain, particularly when the research findings are inconclusive or when the recommendations are based on limited data.
• Bias : Research recommendations may be influenced by researcher bias or conflicts of interest, leading to recommendations that are not in the best interests of stakeholders.
• Timing : Research recommendations may be time-sensitive, requiring timely action to be effective. Delayed action may result in missed opportunities or reduced effectiveness.
• Lack of evaluation: Research recommendations may not be evaluated to determine their effectiveness or impact, making it difficult to assess whether they are successful or not.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Survey Instruments – List and Their Uses

Research Objectives – Types, Examples and...

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Tables in Research Paper – Types, Creating Guide...

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of exploration. In an era marked by rapid technological advancements and an ever-expanding knowledge base, refining the process of generating research recommendations becomes imperative.

But, what is a research recommendation?

Research recommendations are suggestions or advice provided to researchers to guide their study on a specific topic . They are typically given by experts in the field. Research recommendations are more action-oriented and provide specific guidance for decision-makers, unlike implications that are broader and focus on the broader significance and consequences of the research findings. However, both are crucial components of a research study.

Difference Between Research Recommendations and Implication

Although research recommendations and implications are distinct components of a research study, they are closely related. The differences between them are as follows:

Types of Research Recommendations

Recommendations in research can take various forms, which are as follows:

These recommendations aim to assist researchers in navigating the vast landscape of academic knowledge.

Let us dive deeper to know about its key components and the steps to write an impactful research recommendation.

Key Components of Research Recommendations

The key components of research recommendations include defining the research question or objective, specifying research methods, outlining data collection and analysis processes, presenting results and conclusions, addressing limitations, and suggesting areas for future research. Here are some characteristics of research recommendations:

Research recommendations offer various advantages and play a crucial role in ensuring that research findings contribute to positive outcomes in various fields. However, they also have few limitations which highlights the significance of a well-crafted research recommendation in offering the promised advantages.

The importance of research recommendations ranges in various fields, influencing policy-making, program development, product development, marketing strategies, medical practice, and scientific research. Their purpose is to transfer knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, or stakeholders, facilitating informed decision-making and improving outcomes in different domains.

How to Write Research Recommendations?

Research recommendations can be generated through various means, including algorithmic approaches, expert opinions, or collaborative filtering techniques. Here is a step-wise guide to build your understanding on the development of research recommendations.

1. Understand the Research Question:

Understand the research question and objectives before writing recommendations. Also, ensure that your recommendations are relevant and directly address the goals of the study.

2. Review Existing Literature:

Familiarize yourself with relevant existing literature to help you identify gaps , and offer informed recommendations that contribute to the existing body of research.

3. Consider Research Methods:

Evaluate the appropriateness of different research methods in addressing the research question. Also, consider the nature of the data, the study design, and the specific objectives.

4. Identify Data Collection Techniques:

Gather dataset from diverse authentic sources. Include information such as keywords, abstracts, authors, publication dates, and citation metrics to provide a rich foundation for analysis.

5. Propose Data Analysis Methods:

Suggest appropriate data analysis methods based on the type of data collected. Consider whether statistical analysis, qualitative analysis, or a mixed-methods approach is most suitable.

6. Consider Limitations and Ethical Considerations:

Acknowledge any limitations and potential ethical considerations of the study. Furthermore, address these limitations or mitigate ethical concerns to ensure responsible research.

7. Justify Recommendations:

Explain how your recommendation contributes to addressing the research question or objective. Provide a strong rationale to help researchers understand the importance of following your suggestions.

8. Summarize Recommendations:

Provide a concise summary at the end of the report to emphasize how following these recommendations will contribute to the overall success of the research project.

By following these steps, you can create research recommendations that are actionable and contribute meaningfully to the success of the research project.

Download now to unlock some tips to improve your journey of writing research recommendations.

Example of a Research Recommendation

Here is an example of a research recommendation based on a hypothetical research to improve your understanding.

Research Recommendation: Enhancing Student Learning through Integrated Learning Platforms

Background:

The research study investigated the impact of an integrated learning platform on student learning outcomes in high school mathematics classes. The findings revealed a statistically significant improvement in student performance and engagement when compared to traditional teaching methods.

Recommendation:

In light of the research findings, it is recommended that educational institutions consider adopting and integrating the identified learning platform into their mathematics curriculum. The following specific recommendations are provided:

• Implementation of the Integrated Learning Platform:

Schools are encouraged to adopt the integrated learning platform in mathematics classrooms, ensuring proper training for teachers on its effective utilization.

• Professional Development for Educators:

Develop and implement professional programs to train educators in the effective use of the integrated learning platform to address any challenges teachers may face during the transition.

• Monitoring and Evaluation:

Establish a monitoring and evaluation system to track the impact of the integrated learning platform on student performance over time.

• Resource Allocation:

Allocate sufficient resources, both financial and technical, to support the widespread implementation of the integrated learning platform.

By implementing these recommendations, educational institutions can harness the potential of the integrated learning platform and enhance student learning experiences and academic achievements in mathematics.

This example covers the components of a research recommendation, providing specific actions based on the research findings, identifying the target audience, and outlining practical steps for implementation.

Using AI in Research Recommendation Writing

Enhancing research recommendations is an ongoing endeavor that requires the integration of cutting-edge technologies, collaborative efforts, and ethical considerations. By embracing data-driven approaches and leveraging advanced technologies, the research community can create more effective and personalized recommendation systems. However, it is accompanied by several limitations. Therefore, it is essential to approach the use of AI in research with a critical mindset, and complement its capabilities with human expertise and judgment.

Here are some limitations of integrating AI in writing research recommendation and some ways on how to counter them.

1. Data Bias

AI systems rely heavily on data for training. If the training data is biased or incomplete, the AI model may produce biased results or recommendations.

How to tackle: Audit regularly the model’s performance to identify any discrepancies and adjust the training data and algorithms accordingly.

2. Lack of Understanding of Context:

AI models may struggle to understand the nuanced context of a particular research problem. They may misinterpret information, leading to inaccurate recommendations.

How to tackle: Use AI to characterize research articles and topics. Employ them to extract features like keywords, authorship patterns and content-based details.

3. Ethical Considerations:

AI models might stereotype certain concepts or generate recommendations that could have negative consequences for certain individuals or groups.

How to tackle: Incorporate user feedback mechanisms to reduce redundancies. Establish an ethics review process for AI models in research recommendation writing.

4. Lack of Creativity and Intuition:

AI may struggle with tasks that require a deep understanding of the underlying principles or the ability to think outside the box.

How to tackle: Hybrid approaches can be employed by integrating AI in data analysis and identifying patterns for accelerating the data interpretation process.

5. Interpretability:

Many AI models, especially complex deep learning models, lack transparency on how the model arrived at a particular recommendation.

How to tackle: Implement models like decision trees or linear models. Provide clear explanation of the model architecture, training process, and decision-making criteria.

6. Dynamic Nature of Research:

Research fields are dynamic, and new information is constantly emerging. AI models may struggle to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape and may not be able to adapt to new developments.

How to tackle: Establish a feedback loop for continuous improvement. Regularly update the recommendation system based on user feedback and emerging research trends.

The integration of AI in research recommendation writing holds great promise for advancing knowledge and streamlining the research process. However, navigating these concerns is pivotal in ensuring the responsible deployment of these technologies. Researchers need to understand the use of responsible use of AI in research and must be aware of the ethical considerations.

Exploring research recommendations plays a critical role in shaping the trajectory of scientific inquiry. It serves as a compass, guiding researchers toward more robust methodologies, collaborative endeavors, and innovative approaches. Embracing these suggestions not only enhances the quality of individual studies but also contributes to the collective advancement of human understanding.

Frequently Asked Questions

The purpose of recommendations in research is to provide practical and actionable suggestions based on the study's findings, guiding future actions, policies, or interventions in a specific field or context. Recommendations bridges the gap between research outcomes and their real-world application.

To make a research recommendation, analyze your findings, identify key insights, and propose specific, evidence-based actions. Include the relevance of the recommendations to the study's objectives and provide practical steps for implementation.

Begin a recommendation by succinctly summarizing the key findings of the research. Clearly state the purpose of the recommendation and its intended impact. Use a direct and actionable language to convey the suggested course of action.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Promoting Research

Graphical Abstracts Vs. Infographics: Best practices for using visual illustrations for increased research impact

Dr. Sarah Chen stared at her computer screen, her eyes staring at her recently published…

• Publishing Research

10 Tips to Prevent Research Papers From Being Retracted

Research paper retractions represent a critical event in the scientific community. When a published article…

• Industry News

Google Releases 2024 Scholar Metrics, Evaluates Impact of Scholarly Articles

Google has released its 2024 Scholar Metrics, assessing scholarly articles from 2019 to 2023. This…

• Career Corner
• Reporting Research

How to Create a Poster That Stands Out: Tips for a smooth poster presentation

It was the conference season. Judy was excited to present her first poster! She had…

• Diversity and Inclusion

6 Reasons Why There is a Decline in Higher Education Enrollment: Action plan to overcome this crisis

Over the past decade, colleges and universities across the globe have witnessed a concerning trend…

Academic Essay Writing Made Simple: 4 types and tips

How to Effectively Cite a PDF (APA, MLA, AMA, and Chicago Style)

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• AI in Academia
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

• How it works

How To Write Recommendations In A Research Study

Published by Alvin Nicolas at July 12th, 2024 , Revised On July 12, 2024

The ultimate goal of any research process is not just to gather knowledge, but to use that knowledge to make a positive impact. This is where recommendations come in.  A well-written recommendations section in your research study translates your findings into actionable steps and guides future research on the topic. 

This blog is your ultimate guide to understanding how to write recommendations in a research study. But before that, let’s see what is recommendation in research. 

What Is Recommendation In Research 

In a research study, the recommendation section refers to a suggested course of action based on the findings of your research . It acts as a bridge between the knowledge you gained and its practical implications. 

Recommendations take your research results and propose concrete steps on how to use them to address a problem or improve a situation. Moreover, you can suggest new avenues and guide future research in building upon your work. This will improve the credibility of your research. For studies that include real-world implications, recommendations are a great way to provide evidence-based suggestions for policymakers or practitioners to consider. 

Difference Between Research Recommendations and Implication

Research recommendations and implications often confuse researchers. They cannot easily differentiate between the two. Here is how they are different. 

Where To Add Recommendations 

Recommendations are mostly part of your conclusion and discussion sections. If you are writing a practical dissertation , you can include a separate section for your recommendations. 

Types of Research Recommendations

There are different forms of recommendations in research. Some of them include the following. 

How To Construct The Recommendations Section

There are different ways in which different scholars write the recommendations section. A general observation is a research question → conclusion → recommendation.

The following example will help you understand this better.

Research Question

How can the education of mothers impact the social skills of kindergarten children?

The role of mothers is a significant contributor towards the social skills of children. From an early age, kids tend to observe how their mother interacts with others and follow in her footsteps initially. Therefore, mothers should be educated and interact with good demeanour if they want their children to have excellent social skills.

Recommendation

The study revealed that a mother’s education plays an important role in building the social skills of children on kindergarten level. Future research could explore how the same continues in junior school level children.

How To Write Recommendations In Research

Now that you are familiar with the definition and types, here is a step-by-step guide on how to write a recommendation in research.

Step 1: Revisit Your Research Goals

Before doing anything else, you have to remind yourself of the objectives that you set out to achieve in your research. It allows you to match your recommendations directly to your research questions and see if you made any contribution to your goals.

Step 2: Analyse Your Findings

You have to examine your data and identify your key results. This analysis forms the foundation for your recommendations. Look for patterns and unexpected findings that might suggest new areas for other researchers to explore.

Step 3: Consider The Research Methods

Ask these questions from yourself: were the research methods effective? Is there any other way that would have been better to perform this research, or were there any limitations associated with the research methods?

Step 4: Prioritise Recommendations

You might have a lot of recommendations in mind, but all are not equal. You have to consider the impact and feasibility of each suggestion. Prioritise these recommendations, while remaining realistic about implementation.

Step 5: Write Actionable Statements

Do not be vague when crafting statements. Instead, you have to use clear and concise language that outlines specific actions. For example, if you want to say “improve education practices,” you could write “implement a teacher training program” for better clarity.

Step 6: Provide Evidence

You cannot just make suggestions out of thin air, and have to ground them in the evidence you have gathered through your research. Moreover, cite relevant data or findings from your study or previous literature to support your recommendations.

Step 7: Address Challenges

There are always some limitations related to the research at hand. As a researcher, it is your duty to highlight and address any challenges faced or what might occur in the future.

Tips For Writing The Perfect Recommendation In Research

Use these tips to write the perfect recommendation in your research.

• Be Concise – Write recommendations in a clear and concise language. Use one sentence statements to look more professional.
• Be Logical & Coherent – You can use lists and headings according to the requirements of your university.
• Tailor According To Your Readers – You have to aim your recommendations to a specific audience and colleagues in the field of study.
• Provide Specific Suggestions – Offer specific measures and solutions to the issues, and focus on actionable suggestions.
• Match Recommendations To Your Conclusion – You have to align your recommendations with your conclusion.
• Consider Limitations – Use critical thinking to see how limitations may impact the feasibility of your solutions.
• End With A Summary – You have to add a small conclusion to highlight suggestions and their impact.

Example Of Recommendation In Research

Context of the study:

This research studies how effective e-learning platforms are for adult language learners compared to traditional classroom instruction. The findings suggest that e-learning platforms can be just as effective as traditional classrooms in improving language proficiency.

Research Recommendation Sample

Language educators can incorporate e-learning tools into existing curriculums to provide learners with more flexibility. Additionally, they can develop training programs for educators on how to integrate e-learning platforms into their teaching practices.

E-learning platform developers should focus on e-learning platforms that are interactive and cater to different learning styles. They can also invest in features that promote learner autonomy and self-directed learning.

Future researchers can further explore the long-term effects of e-learning on language acquisition to provide insights into whether e-learning can support sustained language development.

Frequently Asked Questions

How to write recommendations in a research paper.

• Revisit your research goals
• Analyse your findings 
• Consider the research methods 
• Prioritise recommendations 
• Write actionable statements 
• Provide evidence 
• Address challenges

How to present recommendations in research?

• Be concise 
• Write logical and coherent 
• Match recommendations to conclusion 
• Ensure your recommendations are achievable

What to write in recommendation in research?

Your recommendation has to be concrete and specific and support the research with a clear rationale. Moreover, it should be connected directly to your research. Your recommendations, however, should not undermine your own work or use self-criticism. 

You May Also Like

Not sure how to start your dissertation and get it right the first time? Here are some tips and guidelines for you to kick start your dissertation project.

This brief introductory section aims to deal with the definitions of two paradigms, positivism and post-positivism, as well as their importance in research.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

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 Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

Published on 15 September 2022 by Tegan George .

Recommendations in research are a crucial component of your discussion section and the conclusion of your thesis , dissertation , or research paper .

As you conduct your research and analyse the data you collected , perhaps there are ideas or results that don’t quite fit the scope of your research topic . Or, maybe your results suggest that there are further implications of your results or the causal relationships between previously-studied variables than covered in extant research.

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

What should recommendations look like, building your research recommendation, how should your recommendations be written, recommendation in research example, frequently asked questions about recommendations.

Recommendations for future research should be:

• Concrete and specific
• Supported with a clear rationale
• Directly connected to your research

Overall, strive to highlight ways other researchers can reproduce or replicate your results to draw further conclusions, and suggest different directions that future research can take, if applicable.

Relatedly, when making these recommendations, avoid:

• Undermining your own work, but rather offer suggestions on how future studies can build upon it
• Suggesting recommendations actually needed to complete your argument, but rather ensure that your research stands alone on its own merits
• Using recommendations as a place for self-criticism, but rather as a natural extension point for your work

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

There are many different ways to frame recommendations, but the easiest is perhaps to follow the formula of research question   conclusion  recommendation. Here’s an example.

Conclusion An important condition for controlling many social skills is mastering language. If children have a better command of language, they can express themselves better and are better able to understand their peers. Opportunities to practice social skills are thus dependent on the development of language skills.

As a rule of thumb, try to limit yourself to only the most relevant future recommendations: ones that stem directly from your work. While you can have multiple recommendations for each research conclusion, it is also acceptable to have one recommendation that is connected to more than one conclusion.

These recommendations should be targeted at your audience, specifically toward peers or colleagues in your field that work on similar topics to yours. They can flow directly from any limitations you found while conducting your work, offering concrete and actionable possibilities for how future research can build on anything that your own work was unable to address at the time of your writing.

See below for a full research recommendation example that you can use as a template to write your own.

The current study can be interpreted as a first step in the research on COPD speech characteristics. However, the results of this study should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and the lack of details regarding the participants’ characteristics.

Future research could further examine the differences in speech characteristics between exacerbated COPD patients, stable COPD patients, and healthy controls. It could also contribute to a deeper understanding of the acoustic measurements suitable for e-health measurements.

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

While it may be tempting to present new arguments or evidence in your thesis or disseration conclusion , especially if you have a particularly striking argument you’d like to finish your analysis with, you shouldn’t. Theses and dissertations follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the discussion section and results section .) The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation should include the following:

• A restatement of your research question
• A summary of your key arguments and/or results
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

• Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion…”)
• Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g. “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

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.

George, T. (2022, September 15). How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/research-recommendations/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples, how to write a thesis or dissertation conclusion, how to write a results section | tips & examples.

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Cite sources with ease

How to Write Recommendations in a Research Paper Correctly and Appropriately

Updated 27 Aug 2024

Completing a research paper can be daunting, but it becomes more manageable if you delve deeper into the process. Academic papers adhere to specific formats that must be followed to ensure high-quality content.

The conclusion and recommendations sections are crucial components of a research paper. They mark the end of your research, leave a lasting impression on your readers, and should be approached with great care. No wonder many students search for information about how to write recommendations in research papers. Explore this comprehensive guide to infuse your content with thoughtfulness and coherence, thereby elevating the impact of your research paper. Crafting clear and actionable recommendations in a research paper is essential, and a personal statement writing service can provide the expertise needed to present your findings and suggestions convincingly.

Recommendations in a research paper: meaning and goals

Before you start learning how to write recommendations in a research paper, the first thing is to clarify the meaning of this term. It is a significant element in the research paper structure, as it is critical to your discussion section and conclusion. While conducting research and analyzing gathered data, you may come across ideas or results that only partially align with the scope of your research topic. Alternatively, your findings offer possible implications or causal relationships between the aspects not covered in existing research.

Based on your conclusions and findings, this section will provide practical solutions for further research. The particular goals of this section depend on the research nature and usually include the following:

• Providing strategies to address the issues considered in the paper;
• Delivering suggestions on how the investigation findings can be applied in practice;
• Identifying gaps in the subject area and suggesting ways to extend existing knowledge;
• Enhancing reliability and validity of the research findings. 

Where to put recommendations?

To better understand how to write recommendations in research, you should know where to insert them. These elements are typically added in the conclusion (a short version) and discussion sections. Still, if you’re doing research with a practical or business focus, you can also include your suggestions in an advisory report or separate section. This text part should be completed based on the research findings and evidence. It should be clear, specific, and actionable, targeted to the intended audience, such as researchers, practitioners, or policymakers.

Get plagiarism-free papers in just 3 hours

• Zero AI - 100% human-crafted content
• Tailored to your writing style
• Sourced from the latest, reliable sources

Guaranteed Turnitin success ✌️

Place an order

What should recommendations look like?

When providing your solutions for further research, it’s important to ensure they are specific, fully connected to your investigation, and supported by a comprehensible rationale. The essential goal is to show how other researchers can generate the same results to make conclusions and offer potential directions for future research. 

Recommendations should be clear and include actionable words. While completing this section, the writer should show a solution-oriented approach by highlighting the scope for future investigation. Using bullet points is a better way to ensure clarity instead of writing long paragraphs.

Look at the following recommendation in a research paper example:

It is recommended that company X should create and promote sugar-free biscuits along with their existing product range. The marketing department should focus on creating a positive and healthy image. 

Let’s rewrite this paragraph to make it clear and well-structured:

• The corporation has to introduce and promote sugar-free products;
• The company has to create a new positive image;
• The company has to launch an advertising campaign to show their products’ benefits for health.

When visiting the EduBirdie website, you’ll find many helpful tips on writing a research paper, ranging from completing a research paper conclusion to exploring examples of a well-thought-out recommendations section. Don’t miss your chance to improve your paper with the assistance from us and our friends at AI academic writing tools !

Structure of recommendations

Let’s consider the typical structure of this part. You’ll come across many various ways to organize it. The most common approach uses a simple formula with three elements: research question, conclusion, and recommendation. Now, you’ll see how this structure can be implemented.

Research question:

Which category of people is more prone to social exclusion? 

Conclusion:

The study found that individuals over 65 have a greater risk of being isolated from society.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the institutions dealing with overcoming social exclusion should focus on this particular group. 

In this example, the author delivers a suggestion based on the research findings (the risk of social isolation grows among people aged 65 and more). The measures to improve this situation are indicated (the organizations dealing with problems of social isolation should pay more attention to people over 65 years old).

How to write recommendations in research papers: essential guidelines

Look at some tips from EduBirdie research paper writing services to help you complete a flawless chapter for your papers.

• Be concise in your statements.  Ensure that your suggestions are written in clear and concise language, avoiding jargon or technical terms difficult to understand. Try to limit yourself to one-sentence statements to present your recommendation. Not only it can help with language learning overall, but will also look more professional.
• Organize your ideas logically and coherently . You may use lists or paragraphs depending on your institution's guidelines or field of study. Use headings and subheadings to structure your section for easy navigation.
• Provide specific and concrete suggestions.  Clearly state the issues you explore and offer specific measures and solutions. Your call to action and suggestions should be related to the issues mentioned in the previous sections. Focusing on the most relevant and actionable suggestions directly stemming from your research is crucial.
• Match recommendations to your conclusion.  Ensure that your suggestions logically align with your conclusions. Refrain from suggesting too many solutions. You can create one recommendation addressing several conclusions when you must provide numerous suggestions for every study conclusion.
• Ensure your solutions are achievable.  Your recommendations should be practical and feasible to implement. Suggest specific and actionable steps to effectively address the considered issues or gaps in the research, avoiding vague or impractical suggestions.
• Use a comprehensive approach.  Make sure your solutions cover all relevant areas within your research scope. Consider different contexts, stakeholders, and perspectives affected by the recommendations. Be thorough in identifying potential improvement areas and offering appropriate actions.
• Don’t add new information to this part of your paper.  Avoid introducing new issues or ideas to complete your argument when writing recommendations in a research paper. Your academic paper has to stand on its own merits. 
• Create content tailored to your readers.  Ensure that your recommendations are aimed at your audience, namely your colleagues in the field of study who work on similar topics. The ideas you provide in the paper should be based on limitations identified during research. They should offer concrete possibilities for further study to rely on areas your investigation could not cover when completed.
• Explain how your recommendations can solve the issues you explore.  Go beyond listing suggestions and provide a rationale for each, including why it is essential, how it handles the research problem, and what evidence or theory supports it. Use relevant literature citations to strengthen your content. Explain how the suggested solutions can effectively answer the research question. This can be done by adding the following:
• Ideas for improving the methodology or approach;
• Policy suggestions;
• Perspectives for future research.
• Don’t undermine your research contribution or criticize yourself.   Avoid criticizing yourself in this section. Instead, use it as a perfect opportunity to provide ideas on how future studies can build upon your findings, making them a natural extension point. 
• Acknowledge any limitations or constraints of your research.  Reflect on how these limitations may impact the feasibility or generalizability of your solutions. This demonstrates critical thinking and awareness of the limitations of your study.
• End this section with a summary.  Highlight the key suggestions and their potential impact in a short conclusion. Emphasize the significance of your ideas and their valuable contribution to the field.

Don’t forget to consult and adhere to the requirements and specific guidelines provided by your institution for this section.

How do the discussion and the conclusion sections differ in a research paper? 

The discussion usually entails a comprehensive analysis of the results, delving into the significance of your findings and providing contextualization using citations of relevant sources. On the other hand, the conclusion is typically more concise and general. It briefly considers the main research question and provides suggestions from your findings.

Can the research paper conclusion come with new arguments? 

Although adding fresh evidence or arguments in the conclusion might be tempting, especially if you have a compelling point, we don’t recommend doing it. Research papers, dissertations, or theses typically adhere to a formal structure. Exposing all your arguments and findings in the thesis body is crucial. It’s better to do it in the discussion and results chapters. The conclusion should serve as a summary and reflection of your evidence and arguments rather than a place to introduce new ideas.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Written by Steven Robinson

Steven Robinson is an academic writing expert with a degree in English literature. His expertise, patient approach, and support empower students to express ideas clearly. On EduBirdie's blog, he provides valuable writing guides on essays, research papers, and other intriguing topics. Enjoys chess in free time.

Related Blog Posts

Discover how to write a discussion section of a research paper.

When working on a research paper, one of the most important parts you must include is the discussion or the analytical section where you outline yo...

How to craft research objectives: guidelines & tips

In the ever-evolving landscape of academic study, having clear and well-defined research objectives is crucial for the success of any work. Study a...

How to Write a Research Paper in APA and MLA Format

Properly formatting a research paper in APA or MLA style is essential for several reasons. First, it ensures that your work adheres to the academic...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Research Implications & Recommendations

A Plain-Language Explainer With Examples + FREE Template

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | May 2024

The research implications and recommendations are closely related but distinctly different concepts that often trip students up. Here, we’ll unpack them using plain language and loads of examples , so that you can approach your project with confidence.

Overview: Implications & Recommendations

• What are research implications ?
• What are research recommendations ?
• Examples of implications and recommendations
• The “ Big 3 ” categories
• How to write the implications and recommendations
• Template sentences for both sections
• Key takeaways

Implications & Recommendations 101

Let’s start with the basics and define our terms.

At the simplest level, research implications refer to the possible effects or outcomes of a study’s findings. More specifically, they answer the question, “ What do these findings mean?” . In other words, the implications section is where you discuss the broader impact of your study’s findings on theory, practice and future research.

This discussion leads us to the recommendations section , which is where you’ll propose specific actions based on your study’s findings and answer the question, “ What should be done next?” . In other words, the recommendations are practical steps that stakeholders can take to address the key issues identified by your study.

In a nutshell, then, the research implications discuss the broader impact and significance of a study’s findings, while recommendations provide specific actions to take, based on those findings. So, while both of these components are deeply rooted in the findings of the study, they serve different functions within the write up.

Need a helping hand?

Examples: Implications & Recommendations

The distinction between research implications and research recommendations might still feel a bit conceptual, so let’s look at one or two practical examples:

Let’s assume that your study finds that interactive learning methods significantly improve student engagement compared to traditional lectures. In this case, one of your recommendations could be that schools incorporate more interactive learning techniques into their curriculums to enhance student engagement.

Let’s imagine that your study finds that patients who receive personalised care plans have better health outcomes than those with standard care plans. One of your recommendations might be that healthcare providers develop and implement personalised care plans for their patients.

Now, these are admittedly quite simplistic examples, but they demonstrate the difference (and connection ) between the research implications and the recommendations. Simply put, the implications are about the impact of the findings, while the recommendations are about proposed actions, based on the findings.

The “Big 3” Categories

Now that we’ve defined our terms, let’s dig a little deeper into the implications – specifically, the different types or categories of research implications that exist.

Broadly speaking, implications can be divided into three categories – theoretical implications, practical implications and implications for future research .

Theoretical implications relate to how your study’s findings contribute to or challenge existing theories. For example, if a study on social behaviour uncovers new patterns, it might suggest that modifications to current psychological theories are necessary.

Practical implications , on the other hand, focus on how your study’s findings can be applied in real-world settings. For example, if your study demonstrated the effectiveness of a new teaching method, this would imply that educators should consider adopting this method to improve learning outcomes.

Practical implications can also involve policy reconsiderations . For example, if a study reveals significant health benefits from a particular diet, an implication might be that public health guidelines be re-evaluated.

Last but not least, there are the implications for future research . As the name suggests, this category of implications highlights the research gaps or new questions raised by your study. For example, if your study finds mixed results regarding a relationship between two variables, it might imply the need for further investigation to clarify these findings.

To recap then, the three types of implications are the theoretical, the practical and the implications on future research. Regardless of the category, these implications feed into and shape the recommendations , laying the foundation for the actions you’ll propose.

How To Write The  Sections

Now that we’ve laid the foundations, it’s time to explore how to write up the implications and recommendations sections respectively.

Let’s start with the “ where ” before digging into the “ how ”. Typically, the implications will feature in the discussion section of your document, while the recommendations will be located in the conclusion . That said, layouts can vary between disciplines and institutions, so be sure to check with your university what their preferences are.

For the implications section, a common approach is to structure the write-up based on the three categories we looked at earlier – theoretical, practical and future research implications. In practical terms, this discussion will usually follow a fairly formulaic sentence structure – for example:

This research provides new insights into [theoretical aspect], indicating that…

The study’s outcomes highlight the potential benefits of adopting [specific practice] in..

This study raises several questions that warrant further investigation, such as…

Moving onto the recommendations section, you could again structure your recommendations using the three categories. Alternatively, you could structure the discussion per stakeholder group – for example, policymakers, organisations, researchers, etc.

Again, you’ll likely use a fairly formulaic sentence structure for this section. Here are some examples for your inspiration: 

Based on the findings, [specific group] should consider adopting [new method] to improve…

To address the issues identified, it is recommended that legislation should be introduced to…

Researchers should consider examining [specific variable] to build on the current study’s findings.

Remember, you can grab a copy of our tried and tested templates for both the discussion and conclusion sections over on the Grad Coach blog. You can find the links to those, as well as loads of other free resources, in the description 🙂

FAQs: Implications & Recommendations

How do i determine the implications of my study.

To do this, you’ll need to consider how your findings address gaps in the existing literature, how they could influence theory, practice, or policy, and the potential societal or economic impacts.

When thinking about your findings, it’s also a good idea to revisit your introduction chapter, where you would have discussed the potential significance of your study more broadly. This section can help spark some additional ideas about what your findings mean in relation to your original research aims. 

Should I discuss both positive and negative implications?

Absolutely. You’ll need to discuss both the positive and negative implications to provide a balanced view of how your findings affect the field and any limitations or potential downsides.

Can my research implications be speculative?

Yes and no. While implications are somewhat more speculative than recommendations and can suggest potential future outcomes, they should be grounded in your data and analysis. So, be careful to avoid overly speculative claims.

How do I formulate recommendations?

Ideally, you should base your recommendations on the limitations and implications of your study’s findings. So, consider what further research is needed, how policies could be adapted, or how practices could be improved – and make proposals in this respect.

How specific should my recommendations be?

Your recommendations should be as specific as possible, providing clear guidance on what actions or research should be taken next. As mentioned earlier, the implications can be relatively broad, but the recommendations should be very specific and actionable. Ideally, you should apply the SMART framework to your recommendations.

Can I recommend future research in my recommendations?

Absolutely. Highlighting areas where further research is needed is a key aspect of the recommendations section. Naturally, these recommendations should link to the respective section of your implications (i.e., implications for future research).

Wrapping Up: Key Takeaways

We’ve covered quite a bit of ground here, so let’s quickly recap.

• Research implications refer to the possible effects or outcomes of a study’s findings.
• The recommendations section, on the other hand, is where you’ll propose specific actions based on those findings.
• You can structure your implications section based on the three overarching categories – theoretical, practical and future research implications.
• You can carry this structure through to the recommendations as well, or you can group your recommendations by stakeholder.

Remember to grab a copy of our tried and tested free dissertation template, which covers both the implications and recommendations sections. If you’d like 1:1 help with your research project, be sure to check out our private coaching service, where we hold your hand throughout the research journey, step by step.

Psst... there’s more!

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

I am taking a Research Design and Statistical Methods class. I am wondering if I can get tutors to help me with my homework to understand more about research and statistics. I want to pass this class. I searched on YouTube and watched some videos but I still need more clarification.

Great examples. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

The Ultimate Guide to Crafting Impactful Recommendations in Research

Are you ready to take your research to the next level? Crafting impactful recommendations is the key to unlocking the full potential of your study. By providing clear, actionable suggestions based on your findings, you can bridge the gap between research and real-world application.

In this ultimate guide, we'll show you how to write recommendations that make a difference in your research report or paper.

You'll learn how to craft specific, actionable recommendations that connect seamlessly with your research findings. Whether you're a student, writer, teacher, or journalist, this guide will help you master the art of writing recommendations in research. Let's get started and make your research count!

Understanding the Purpose of Recommendations

Recommendations in research serve as a vital bridge between your findings and their real-world applications. They provide specific, action-oriented suggestions to guide future studies and decision-making processes. Let's dive into the key purposes of crafting effective recommendations:

Guiding Future Research

Research recommendations play a crucial role in steering scholars and researchers towards promising avenues of exploration. By highlighting gaps in current knowledge and proposing new research questions, recommendations help advance the field and drive innovation.

Influencing Decision-Making

Well-crafted recommendations have the power to shape policies, programs, and strategies across various domains, such as:

• Policy-making
• Product development
• Marketing strategies
• Medical practice

By providing clear, evidence-based suggestions, recommendations facilitate informed decision-making and improve outcomes.

Connecting Research to Practice

Recommendations act as a conduit for transferring knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, and stakeholders. They bridge the gap between academic findings and their practical applications, ensuring that research insights are effectively translated into real-world solutions.

Enhancing Research Impact

By crafting impactful recommendations, you can amplify the reach and influence of your research, attracting attention from peers, funding agencies, and decision-makers.

Addressing Limitations

Recommendations provide an opportunity to acknowledge and address the limitations of your study. By suggesting concrete and actionable possibilities for future research, you demonstrate a thorough understanding of your work's scope and potential areas for improvement.

Identifying Areas for Future Research

Discovering research gaps is a crucial step in crafting impactful recommendations. It involves reviewing existing studies and identifying unanswered questions or problems that warrant further investigation. Here are some strategies to help you identify areas for future research:

Explore Research Limitations

Take a close look at the limitations section of relevant studies. These limitations often provide valuable insights into potential areas for future research. Consider how addressing these limitations could enhance our understanding of the topic at hand.

Critically Analyze Discussion and Future Research Sections

When reading articles, pay special attention to the discussion and future research sections. These sections often highlight gaps in the current knowledge base and propose avenues for further exploration. Take note of any recurring themes or unanswered questions that emerge across multiple studies.

Utilize Targeted Search Terms

To streamline your search for research gaps, use targeted search terms such as "literature gap" or "future research" in combination with your subject keywords. This approach can help you quickly identify articles that explicitly discuss areas for future investigation.

Seek Guidance from Experts

Don't hesitate to reach out to your research advisor or other experts in your field. Their wealth of knowledge and experience can provide valuable insights into potential research gaps and emerging trends.

By employing these strategies, you'll be well-equipped to identify research gaps and craft recommendations that push the boundaries of current knowledge. Remember, the goal is to refine your research questions and focus your efforts on areas where more understanding is needed.

Structuring Your Recommendations

When it comes to structuring your recommendations, it's essential to keep them concise, organized, and tailored to your audience. Here are some key tips to help you craft impactful recommendations:

Prioritize and Organize

• Limit your recommendations to the most relevant and targeted suggestions for your peers or colleagues in the field.
• Place your recommendations at the end of the report, as they are often top of mind for readers.
• Write your recommendations in order of priority, with the most important ones for decision-makers coming first.

Use a Clear and Actionable Format

• Write recommendations in a clear, concise manner using actionable words derived from the data analyzed in your research.
• Use bullet points instead of long paragraphs for clarity and readability.
• Ensure that your recommendations are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely (SMART).

Connect Recommendations to Research

By following this simple formula, you can ensure that your recommendations are directly connected to your research and supported by a clear rationale.

Tailor to Your Audience

• Consider the needs and interests of your target audience when crafting your recommendations.
• Explain how your recommendations can solve the issues explored in your research.
• Acknowledge any limitations or constraints of your study that may impact the implementation of your recommendations.

Avoid Common Pitfalls

• Don't undermine your own work by suggesting incomplete or unnecessary recommendations.
• Avoid using recommendations as a place for self-criticism or introducing new information not covered in your research.
• Ensure that your recommendations are achievable and comprehensive, offering practical solutions for the issues considered in your paper.

By structuring your recommendations effectively, you can enhance the reliability and validity of your research findings, provide valuable strategies and suggestions for future research, and deliver impactful solutions to real-world problems.

Crafting Actionable and Specific Recommendations

Crafting actionable and specific recommendations is the key to ensuring your research findings have a real-world impact. Here are some essential tips to keep in mind:

Embrace Flexibility and Feasibility

Your recommendations should be open to discussion and new information, rather than being set in stone. Consider the following:

• Be realistic and considerate of your team's capabilities when making recommendations.
• Prioritize recommendations based on impact and reach, but be prepared to adjust based on team effort levels.
• Focus on solutions that require the fewest changes first, adopting an MVP (Minimum Viable Product) approach.

Provide Detailed and Justified Recommendations

To avoid vagueness and misinterpretation, ensure your recommendations are:

• Detailed, including photos, videos, or screenshots whenever possible.
• Justified based on research findings, providing alternatives when findings don't align with expectations or business goals.

Use this formula when writing recommendations:

Observed problem/pain point/unmet need + consequence + potential solution

Adopt a Solution-Oriented Approach

Foster Collaboration and Participation

• Promote staff education on current research and create strategies to encourage adoption of promising clinical protocols.
• Include representatives from the treatment community in the development of the research initiative and the review of proposals.
• Require active, early, and permanent participation of treatment staff in the development, implementation, and interpretation of the study.

Tailor Recommendations to the Opportunity

When writing recommendations for a specific opportunity or program:

• Highlight the strengths and qualifications of the researcher.
• Provide specific examples of their work and accomplishments.
• Explain how their research has contributed to the field.
• Emphasize the researcher's potential for future success and their unique contributions.

By following these guidelines, you'll craft actionable and specific recommendations that drive meaningful change and showcase the value of your research.

Connecting Recommendations with Research Findings

Connecting your recommendations with research findings is crucial for ensuring the credibility and impact of your suggestions. Here's how you can seamlessly link your recommendations to the evidence uncovered in your study:

Grounding Recommendations in Research

Your recommendations should be firmly rooted in the data and insights gathered during your research process. Avoid including measures or suggestions that were not discussed or supported by your study findings. This approach ensures that your recommendations are evidence-based and directly relevant to the research at hand.

Highlighting the Significance of Collaboration

Research collaborations offer a wealth of benefits that can enhance an agency's competitive position. Consider the following factors when discussing the importance of collaboration in your recommendations:

• Organizational Development: Participation in research collaborations depends on an agency's stage of development, compatibility with its mission and culture, and financial stability.
• Trust-Building: Long-term collaboration success often hinges on a history of increasing involvement and trust between partners.
• Infrastructure: A permanent infrastructure that facilitates long-term development is key to successful collaborative programs.

Emphasizing Commitment and Participation

Fostering Quality Improvement and Organizational Learning

In your recommendations, highlight the importance of enhancing quality improvement strategies and fostering organizational learning. Show sensitivity to the needs and constraints of community-based programs, as this understanding is crucial for effective collaboration and implementation.

Addressing Limitations and Implications

If not already addressed in the discussion section, your recommendations should mention the limitations of the study and their implications. Examples of limitations include:

• Sample size or composition
• Participant attrition
• Study duration

By acknowledging these limitations, you demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of your research and its potential impact.

By connecting your recommendations with research findings, you provide a solid foundation for your suggestions, emphasize the significance of collaboration, and showcase the potential for future research and practical applications.

Crafting impactful recommendations is a vital skill for any researcher looking to bridge the gap between their findings and real-world applications. By understanding the purpose of recommendations, identifying areas for future research, structuring your suggestions effectively, and connecting them to your research findings, you can unlock the full potential of your study. Remember to prioritize actionable, specific, and evidence-based recommendations that foster collaboration and drive meaningful change.

As you embark on your research journey, embrace the power of well-crafted recommendations to amplify the impact of your work. By following the guidelines outlined in this ultimate guide, you'll be well-equipped to write recommendations that resonate with your audience, inspire further investigation, and contribute to the advancement of your field. So go forth, make your research count, and let your recommendations be the catalyst for positive change.

Q: What are the steps to formulating recommendations in research? A: To formulate recommendations in research, you should first gain a thorough understanding of the research question. Review the existing literature to inform your recommendations and consider the research methods that were used. Identify which data collection techniques were employed and propose suitable data analysis methods. It's also essential to consider any limitations and ethical considerations of your research. Justify your recommendations clearly and finally, provide a summary of your recommendations.

Q: Why are recommendations significant in research studies? A: Recommendations play a crucial role in research as they form a key part of the analysis phase. They provide specific suggestions for interventions or strategies that address the problems and limitations discovered during the study. Recommendations are a direct response to the main findings derived from data collection and analysis, and they can guide future actions or research.

Q: Can you outline the seven steps involved in writing a research paper? A: Certainly. The seven steps to writing an excellent research paper include:

• Allowing yourself sufficient time to complete the paper.
• Defining the scope of your essay and crafting a clear thesis statement.
• Conducting a thorough yet focused search for relevant research materials.
• Reading the research materials carefully and taking detailed notes.
• Writing your paper based on the information you've gathered and analyzed.
• Editing your paper to ensure clarity, coherence, and correctness.
• Submitting your paper following the guidelines provided.

Q: What tips can help make a research paper more effective? A: To enhance the effectiveness of a research paper, plan for the extensive process ahead and understand your audience. Decide on the structure your research writing will take and describe your methodology clearly. Write in a straightforward and clear manner, avoiding the use of clichés or overly complex language.

Sign up for more like this.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What are Implications and Recommendations in Research? How to Write It, with Examples

Highly cited research articles often contain both implications and recommendations , but there is often some confusion around the difference between implications and recommendations in research. Implications of a study are the impact your research makes in your chosen area; they discuss how the findings of the study may be important to justify further exploration of your research topic. Research recommendations suggest future actions or subsequent steps supported by your research findings. It helps to improve your field of research or cross-disciplinary fields through future research or provides frameworks for decision-makers or policymakers. Recommendations are the action plan you propose based on the outcome.

In this article, we aim to simplify these concepts for researchers by providing key insights on the following:  

• what are implications in research 
• what is recommendation in research 
• differences between implications and recommendations 
• how to write implications in research 
• how to write recommendation in research 
• sample recommendation in research 

Table of Contents

What are implications in research

The implications in research explain what the findings of the study mean to researchers or to certain subgroups or populations beyond the basic interpretation of results. Even if your findings fail to bring radical or disruptive changes to existing ways of doing things, they might have important implications for future research studies. For example, your proposed method for operating remote-controlled robots could be more precise, efficient, or cheaper than existing methods, or the remote-controlled robot could be used in other application areas. This could enable more researchers to study a specific problem or open up new research opportunities.   

Implications in research inform how the findings, drawn from your results, may be important for and impact policy, practice, theory, and subsequent research. Implications may be theoretical or practical. 1  

• Practical implications are potential values of the study with practical or real outcomes . Determining the practical implications of several solutions can aid in identifying optimal solution results. For example, clinical research or research on classroom learning mostly has practical implications in research . If you developed a new teaching method, the implication would be how teachers can use that method based on your findings.  
• Theoretical implications in research constitute additions to existing theories or establish new theories. These types of implications in research characterize the ability of research to influence society in apparent ways. It is, at most, an educated guess (theoretical) about the possible implication of action and need not be as absolute as practical implications in research . If your study supported the tested theory, the theoretical implication would be that the theory can explain the investigated phenomenon. Else, your study may serve as a basis for modifying the theory. Theories may be partially supported as well, implying further study of the theory or necessary modifications are required.  

What are recommendations in research?

Recommendations in research can be considered an important segment of the analysis phase. Recommendations allow you to suggest specific interventions or strategies to address the issues and constraints identified through your study. It responds to key findings arrived at through data collection and analysis. A process of prioritization can help you narrow down important findings for which recommendations are developed.  

Recommendations in research examples

Recommendations in research may vary depending on the purpose or beneficiary as seen in the table below.  

Table: Recommendations in research examples based on purpose and beneficiary  

If you’re wondering how to make recommendations in research . You can use the simple  recommendation in research example below as a handy template.  

Table: Sample recommendation in research template  

Basic differences between implications and recommendations in research

Implications and recommendations in research are two important aspects of a research paper or your thesis or dissertation. Implications discuss the importance of the research findings, while recommendations offer specific actions to solve a problem. So, the basic difference between the two is in their function and the questions asked to achieve it. The following table highlights the main differences between implications and recommendations in research .  

Table: Differences between implications and recommendations in research  

Where do implications go in your research paper

Because the implications and recommendations of the research are based on study findings, both are usually written after the completion of a study. There is no specific section dedicated to implications in research ; they are usually integrated into the discussion section adding evidence as to why the results are meaningful and what they add to the field. Implications can be written after summarizing your main findings and before the recommendations and conclusion.   

Implications can also be presented in the conclusion section after a short summary of the study results.   

How to write implications in research

Implication means something that is inferred. The implications of your research are derived from the importance of your work and how it will impact future research. It is based on how previous studies have advanced your field and how your study can add to that.   

When figuring out how to write implications in research , a good strategy is to separate it into the different types of implications in research , such as social, political, technological, policy-related, or others. As mentioned earlier, the most frequently used are the theoretical and practical implications.   

Next, you need to ask, “Who will benefit the most from reading my paper?” Is it policymakers, physicians, the public, or other researchers? Once you know your target population, explain how your findings can help them.  

The implication section can include a paragraph or two that asserts the practical or managerial implications and links it to the study findings. A discussion can then follow, demonstrating that the findings can be practically implemented or how they will benefit a specific audience. The writer is given a specific degree of freedom when writing research implications , depending on the type of implication in research you want to discuss: practical or theoretical. Each is discussed differently, using different words or in separate sections. The implications can be based on how the findings in your study are similar or dissimilar to that in previous studies. Your study may reaffirm or disprove the results of other studies, which has important implications in research . You can also suggest future research directions in the light of your findings or require further research to confirm your findings, which are all crucial implications. Most importantly, ensure the implications in research are specific and that your tone reflects the strength of your findings without exaggerating your results.   

Implications in research can begin with the following specific sentence structures:  

• These findings suggest that…
• These results build on existing body of evidence of…
• These results should be considered when…
• While previous research focused on x, our results show that y…

What should recommendations in research look like?

Recommendations for future research should be:  

• Directly related to your research question or findings  
• Concrete and specific  
• Supported by a clear reasoning  

The recommendations in research can be based on the following factors:  

1. Beneficiary: A paper’s research contribution may be aimed at single or multiple beneficiaries, based on which recommendations can vary. For instance, if your research is about the quality of care in hospitals, the research recommendation to different beneficiaries might be as follows:  

• Nursing staff: Staff should undergo training to enhance their understanding of what quality of care entails.  
• Health science educators: Educators must design training modules that address quality-related issues in the hospital.  
• Hospital management: Develop policies that will increase staff participation in training related to health science.  

2. Limitations: The best way to figure out what to include in your research recommendations is to understand the limitations of your study. It could be based on factors that you have overlooked or could not consider in your present study. Accordingly, the researcher can recommend that other researchers approach the problem from a different perspective, dimension, or methodology. For example, research into the quality of care in hospitals can be based on quantitative data. The researcher can then recommend a qualitative study of factors influencing the quality of care, or they can suggest investigating the problem from the perspective of patients rather than the healthcare providers.   

3. Theory or Practice: Your recommendations in research could be implementation-oriented or further research-oriented.   

4. Your research: Research recommendations can be based on your topic, research objectives, literature review, and analysis, or evidence collected. For example, if your data points to the role of faculty involvement in developing effective programs, recommendations in research can include developing policies to increase faculty participation. Take a look at the evidence-based recommendation in research example s provided below.   

Table: Example of evidence-based research recommendation  

Avoid making the following mistakes when writing research recommendations :  

• Don’t undermine your own work: Recommendations in research should offer suggestions on how future studies can be built upon the current study as a natural extension of your work and not as an entirely new field of research.  
• Support your study arguments: Ensure that your research findings stand alone on their own merits to showcase the strength of your research paper.   

How to write recommendations in research

When writing research recommendations , your focus should be on highlighting what additional work can be done in that field. It gives direction to researchers, industries, or governments about changes or developments possible in this field. For example, recommendations in research can include practical and obtainable strategies offering suggestions to academia to address problems. It can also be a framework that helps government agencies in developing strategic or long-term plans for timely actions against disasters or aid nation-building.  

There are a few SMART 2 things to remember when writing recommendations in research. Your recommendations must be: 

• S pecific: Clearly state how challenges can be addressed for better outcomes and include an action plan that shows what can be achieved. 
• M easurable: Use verbs denoting measurable outcomes, such as identify, analyze, design, compute, assess, evaluate, revise, plan, etc., to strengthen recommendations in research .   
• A ttainable: Recommendations should offer a solution-oriented approach to problem-solving and must be written in a way that is easy to follow.  
• R elevant: Research recommendations should be reasonable, realistic, and result-based. Make sure to suggest future possibilities for your research field.  
• T imely: Time-based or time-sensitive recommendations in research help divide the action plan into long-term or short-term (immediate) goals. A timeline can also inform potential readers of what developments should occur over time.  

If you are wondering how many words to include in your research recommendation , a general rule of thumb would be to set aside 5% of the total word count for writing research recommendations . Finally, when writing the research implications and recommendations , stick to the facts and avoid overstating or over-generalizing the study findings. Both should be supported by evidence gathered through your data analysis.  

References:  

• Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.  Psychological bulletin ,  124 (2), 262.
• Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives.  Manag Rev ,  70 (11), 35-36.

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

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

Related Posts

Back to School – Lock-in All Access Pack for a Year at the Best Price

Journal Turnaround Time: Researcher.Life and Scholarly Intelligence Join Hands to Empower Researchers with Publication Time Insights 

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• How to formulate...

How to formulate research recommendations

• Related content
• Peer review
• Polly Brown ([email protected]) , publishing manager 1 ,
• Klara Brunnhuber , clinical editor 1 ,
• Kalipso Chalkidou , associate director, research and development 2 ,
• Iain Chalmers , director 3 ,
• Mike Clarke , director 4 ,
• Mark Fenton , editor 3 ,
• Carol Forbes , reviews manager 5 ,
• Julie Glanville , associate director/information service manager 5 ,
• Nicholas J Hicks , consultant in public health medicine 6 ,
• Janet Moody , identification and prioritisation manager 6 ,
• Sara Twaddle , director 7 ,
• Hazim Timimi , systems developer 8 ,
• Pamela Young , senior programme manager 6
• 1 BMJ Publishing Group, London WC1H 9JR,
• 2 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London WC1V 6NA,
• 3 Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments, James Lind Alliance Secretariat, James Lind Initiative, Oxford OX2 7LG,
• 4 UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford OX2 7LG,
• 5 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD,
• 6 National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 7PX,
• 7 Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Edinburgh EH2 1EN,
• 8 Update Software, Oxford OX2 7LG
• Correspondence to: PBrown
• Accepted 22 September 2006

“More research is needed” is a conclusion that fits most systematic reviews. But authors need to be more specific about what exactly is required

Long awaited reports of new research, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines are too often a disappointing anticlimax for those wishing to use them to direct future research. After many months or years of effort and intellectual energy put into these projects, authors miss the opportunity to identify unanswered questions and outstanding gaps in the evidence. Most reports contain only a less than helpful, general research recommendation. This means that the potential value of these recommendations is lost.

Current recommendations

In 2005, representatives of organisations commissioning and summarising research, including the BMJ Publishing Group, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the UK Cochrane Centre, met as members of the development group for the Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments (see bmj.com for details on all participating organisations). Our aim was to discuss the state of research recommendations within our organisations and to develop guidelines for improving the presentation of proposals for further research. All organisations had found weaknesses in the way researchers and authors of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines stated the need for further research. As part of the project, a member of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination under-took a rapid literature search to identify information on research recommendation models, which found some individual methods but no group initiatives to attempt to standardise recommendations.

Suggested format for research recommendations on the effects of treatments

Core elements.

E Evidence (What is the current state of the evidence?)

P Population (What is …

Log in using your username and password

BMA Member Log In

If you have a subscription to The BMJ, log in:

• Need to activate
• Log in via institution
• Log in via OpenAthens

Log in through your institution

Subscribe from £184 *.

Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.

* For online subscription

Access this article for 1 day for: £50 / $60/ €56 ( excludes VAT )

You can download a PDF version for your personal record.

Buy this article

Recommendation in Research

Ai generator.

A recommendation in research refers to the advice or suggestions provided by researchers at the conclusion of their study, aimed at addressing the gaps identified, enhancing future research , and applying findings in practical contexts. Recommendations are crucial as they guide stakeholders, including policymakers, practitioners, and fellow researchers, on how to utilize the research outcomes effectively. These suggestions are typically based on the evidence gathered during the study and are intended to improve practices, inform decision-making, and inspire further investigations to build on the existing knowledge.

What is Recommendation in Research?

A recommendation in research is a suggestion or course of action proposed by researchers based on their study’s findings. It aims to address identified gaps, enhance future research, and apply results in practical scenarios. Recommendations guide stakeholders, such as policymakers and fellow researchers, on utilizing the research effectively to improve practices, inform decisions, and inspire further studies.

Examples of Recommendations in Research

• Implement Comprehensive Training Programs : Ensure that employees receive ongoing training to keep up with technological advancements.
• Increase Funding for Renewable Energy Projects : Allocate more resources to develop sustainable energy solutions.
• Promote Interdisciplinary Research : Encourage collaboration across various fields to address complex global issues.
• Adopt Advanced Data Analytics : Utilize cutting-edge data analysis techniques to improve decision-making processes.
• Enhance Public Awareness Campaigns : Develop strategies to educate the public on critical health issues.
• Strengthen Cybersecurity Measures : Implement robust security protocols to protect sensitive information.
• Encourage Community Involvement : Foster greater community participation in local governance.
• Develop Inclusive Policies : Create policies that address the needs of diverse populations.
• Optimize Supply Chain Management : Improve logistics and supply chain efficiency to reduce costs.
• Support Mental Health Initiatives : Increase support for mental health programs and services.

Recommendation for Students in Research

Research is a crucial component of academic and professional development. Here are some key recommendations for students engaged in research to ensure success and meaningful contributions to their field:

1. Choose a Relevant and Interesting Topic

• Personal Interest: Select a topic that genuinely interests you.
• Relevance: Ensure the topic is relevant to your field of study.
• Scope: Make sure the topic is neither too broad nor too narrow.

2. Conduct a Thorough Literature Review

• Background Research: Review existing literature to understand the current state of knowledge.
• Identify Gaps: Identify gaps in the existing research that your study can address.
• Theoretical Framework: Build a strong theoretical foundation for your research.

3. Develop a Clear Research Plan

• Objectives: Define clear and achievable research objectives.
• Methodology: Choose appropriate research methods and techniques.
• Timeline: Create a realistic timeline with milestones for completing each stage of the research.

4. Use Reliable and Valid Sources

• Academic Journals: Prefer peer-reviewed journals for sourcing information.
• Primary Sources: Whenever possible, use primary sources to gather data.
• Citation Management: Use citation management tools to organize your references.

5. Ensure Ethical Conduct

• Informed Consent: Obtain informed consent from participants if your research involves human subjects.
• Data Privacy: Ensure the confidentiality and privacy of your data.
• Integrity: Maintain honesty and transparency in your research process.

6. Develop Strong Analytical Skills

• Critical Thinking: Develop the ability to critically analyze data and sources.
• Statistical Analysis: Gain proficiency in statistical methods if your research involves quantitative data.
• Qualitative Analysis: Learn methods for analyzing qualitative data, such as thematic analysis.

7. Seek Feedback and Collaboration

• Mentorship: Seek guidance from your research advisor or mentor regularly.
• Peer Review: Engage with peers for feedback and constructive criticism.
• Collaboration: Collaborate with other researchers to enhance the quality of your study.

8. Maintain Clear and Consistent Documentation

• Research Journal: Keep a detailed journal of your research process, observations, and reflections.
• Data Management: Organize your data systematically for easy retrieval and analysis.
• Progress Reports: Regularly update your progress and adjust your plan as needed.

9. Communicate Your Findings Effectively

• Writing Skills: Develop strong academic writing skills to present your findings clearly.
• Presentations: Learn to create and deliver effective presentations of your research.
• Publication: Aim to publish your research in reputable academic journals or conferences.

10. Stay Updated and Continue Learning

• Current Trends: Stay updated with the latest developments in your field.
• Professional Development: Attend workshops, seminars, and conferences to enhance your knowledge and skills.
• Networking: Build a professional network with other researchers and professionals in your field.

Types of Recommendation in Research

Recommendations in research are crucial as they provide actionable insights based on the study’s findings. Here are the primary types of recommendations commonly found in research:

1. Practical Recommendations

Practical recommendations offer actionable advice that can be implemented in real-world settings. These are particularly useful for practitioners and policymakers.

• Implementation Strategies: Suggest ways to apply research findings in practice.
• Policy Changes: Recommend modifications to existing policies or the creation of new policies.
• Best Practices: Identify effective practices and procedures based on research results.

2. Theoretical Recommendations

Theoretical recommendations are aimed at advancing academic knowledge and understanding. They often suggest directions for future research or adjustments to existing theories.

• Theory Development: Propose new theories or modifications to existing ones based on research findings.
• Conceptual Frameworks: Suggest new conceptual models or frameworks.
• Research Hypotheses: Recommend specific hypotheses for future testing.

3. Methodological Recommendations

Methodological recommendations focus on the research process itself. They offer suggestions for improving research design, data collection, and analysis techniques.

• Research Design: Advise on more effective or innovative research designs.
• Data Collection Methods: Recommend better or alternative methods for data collection.
• Analytical Techniques: Suggest advanced or more appropriate analytical techniques.

4. Policy Recommendations

Policy recommendations are directed towards governmental or organizational bodies. They aim to influence policy-making processes based on research evidence.

• Legislative Changes: Recommend changes to laws or regulations.
• Organizational Policies: Suggest adjustments to organizational policies and procedures.
• Public Health Initiatives: Propose new public health strategies or interventions.

5. Educational Recommendations

Educational recommendations are targeted at educational institutions, educators, and curriculum developers. They aim to improve educational practices and outcomes.

• Curriculum Development: Suggest changes or additions to curricula.
• Teaching Methods: Recommend effective teaching strategies and methods.
• Educational Programs: Propose new programs or enhancements to existing ones.

Recommendation for Future Researchers

Future researchers can benefit from insights and guidance to enhance the quality and impact of their studies. Here are some key recommendations:

1. Explore Unanswered Questions

• Identify Gaps: Focus on gaps highlighted in previous research to build on existing knowledge.
• New Areas: Investigate emerging areas or under-researched topics within your field.

2. Improve Methodological Rigor

• Innovative Methods: Incorporate innovative research methodologies and techniques.
• Replication Studies: Conduct replication studies to verify and validate findings from prior research.
• Mixed Methods: Utilize mixed methods approaches to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem.

3. Ensure Ethical Conduct

• Ethical Guidelines: Adhere to ethical guidelines and standards throughout the research process.
• Informed Consent: Ensure that participants provide informed consent and understand their rights.
• Data Privacy: Protect the confidentiality and privacy of participants’ data.

4. Enhance Data Quality

• Robust Data Collection: Use robust data collection methods to ensure accuracy and reliability.
• Triangulation: Employ triangulation by using multiple data sources or methods to strengthen findings.
• Longitudinal Studies: Consider conducting longitudinal studies to observe changes over time.

5. Collaborate and Network

• Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Work with researchers from different disciplines to gain diverse perspectives.
• International Partnerships: Form partnerships with international researchers to broaden the scope and impact of your study.
• Professional Networks: Join professional organizations and attend conferences to stay updated and connected.

What is the Purpose of Recommendation in Research

Recommendations in research are essential for guiding future actions based on the study’s findings. Here are the main purposes of including recommendations in research:

1. Guiding Future Research

• Identify Gaps: Point out areas where more research is needed.
• Suggest Topics: Recommend specific topics or questions for future studies.
• Encourage Validation: Suggest replicating the study in different settings to confirm results.

2. Informing Policy and Practice

• Policy Changes: Provide evidence-based suggestions for improving or creating policies.
• Best Practices: Offer practical advice for professionals to improve their work.
• Implementation: Suggest ways to apply the research findings in real-world situations.

3. Enhancing Academic Knowledge

• Theoretical Contributions: Help develop or refine theories based on the research findings.
• Stimulate Discussion: Encourage further academic debate and inquiry.

4. Improving Research Methods

• Methodology: Recommend better or alternative research methods.
• Data Collection: Suggest more effective ways to gather data.
• Analysis Techniques: Propose improved methods for analyzing data.

5. Solving Practical Problems

• Actionable Solutions: Offer practical solutions to problems identified in the research.
• Resource Allocation: Guide organizations on how to use resources more effectively.
• Strategic Planning: Assist in planning future actions based on the research insights.

How to Write Research Recommendations?

Writing research recommendations involves providing actionable advice based on the findings of your study. Here are steps and tips to help you write effective research recommendations:

1. Review Your Findings

• Summarize Key Findings: Begin by summarizing the most important findings of your research.
• Highlight Significant Results: Focus on results that have significant implications for future research, policy, or practice.

2. Align Recommendations with Objectives

• Reflect on Objectives: Ensure that your recommendations align with the original objectives of your study.
• Address Research Questions: Directly address the research questions or hypotheses you set out to explore.

3. Be Specific and Actionable

• Concrete Actions: Provide specific actions that stakeholders can take.
• Clear Guidance: Offer clear and practical steps rather than vague suggestions.

4. Prioritize Recommendations

• Importance: Rank recommendations based on their importance and feasibility.
• Immediate vs. Long-Term: Distinguish between recommendations that can be implemented immediately and those that are long-term.

5. Consider Different Audiences

• Tailor Recommendations: Adapt recommendations to different audiences such as policymakers, practitioners, researchers, or the general public.
• Relevant Language: Use language and terms that are relevant and understandable to each audience.

6. Support with Evidence

• Link to Findings: Base your recommendations on the evidence from your research.
• Cite Data: Use data and examples from your study to justify each recommendation.

7. Address Limitations

• Acknowledge Constraints: Recognize any limitations in your study and how they might affect your recommendations.
• Suggest Improvements: Provide suggestions for how future research can address these limitations.

8. Highlight Benefits

• Positive Outcomes: Emphasize the potential benefits of implementing your recommendations.
• Impact: Discuss the impact your recommendations could have on the field, policy, or practice.

9. Be Realistic

• Feasibility: Ensure that your recommendations are realistic and achievable.
• Resources: Consider the resources required to implement your recommendations and whether they are available.

10. Review and Revise

• Proofread: Carefully review your recommendations for clarity, coherence, and correctness.
• Feedback: Seek feedback from peers or advisors to refine your recommendations.

FAQ’s

Why are recommendations important in research.

Recommendations provide practical applications of research findings, guiding stakeholders in implementing changes or further investigations.

How do you write a good research recommendation?

A good research recommendation is specific, actionable, and directly linked to the study’s conclusions and data.

What should be included in a research recommendation?

Include the action to be taken, the rationale behind it, and its expected impact or benefits.

Can recommendations suggest further research?

Yes, recommendations often suggest areas for further study to address limitations or explore new questions.

How should recommendations be structured in a research paper?

Recommendations should follow the conclusion section, clearly numbered or bullet-pointed for easy reading.

What is the difference between conclusions and recommendations?

Conclusions summarize the findings, while recommendations propose actions based on those findings.

Who benefits from research recommendations?

Policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and other stakeholders can benefit from research recommendations.

How many recommendations should a research paper have?

The number of recommendations varies but should be concise and focused, usually between three to five key suggestions.

Can recommendations be generalized to other contexts?

Recommendations should be context-specific but can sometimes be adapted for broader application.

What language should be used in writing recommendations?

Use clear, precise, and direct language to ensure recommendations are easily understood and actionable.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Transcription Service for Your Academic Paper

Start Transcription now

Editing & Proofreading for Your Research Paper

Get it proofread now

Online Printing & Binding with Free Express Delivery

Configure binding now

• Academic essay overview
• The writing process
• Structuring academic essays
• Types of academic essays
• Academic writing overview
• Sentence structure
• Academic writing process
• Improving your academic writing
• Titles and headings
• APA style overview
• APA citation & referencing
• APA structure & sections
• Citation & referencing
• Structure and sections
• APA examples overview
• Commonly used citations
• Other examples
• British English vs. American English
• Chicago style overview
• Chicago citation & referencing
• Chicago structure & sections
• Chicago style examples
• Citing sources overview
• Citation format
• Citation examples
• College essay overview
• Application
• How to write a college essay
• Types of college essays
• Commonly confused words
• Definitions
• Dissertation overview
• Dissertation structure & sections
• Dissertation writing process
• Graduate school overview
• Application & admission
• Study abroad
• Master degree
• Harvard referencing overview
• Language rules overview
• Grammatical rules & structures
• Parts of speech
• Punctuation
• Methodology overview
• Analyzing data
• Experiments
• Observations
• Inductive vs. Deductive
• Qualitative vs. Quantitative
• Types of validity
• Types of reliability
• Sampling methods
• Theories & Concepts
• Types of research studies
• Types of variables
• MLA style overview
• MLA examples
• MLA citation & referencing
• MLA structure & sections
• Plagiarism overview
• Plagiarism checker
• Types of plagiarism
• Printing production overview
• Research bias overview
• Types of research bias
• Example sections
• Types of research papers
• Research process overview
• Problem statement
• Research proposal
• Research topic
• Statistics overview
• Levels of measurment
• Frequency distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Measures of variability
• Hypothesis testing
• Parameters & test statistics
• Types of distributions
• Correlation
• Effect size
• Hypothesis testing assumptions
• Types of ANOVAs
• Types of chi-square
• Statistical data
• Statistical models
• Spelling mistakes
• Tips overview
• Academic writing tips
• Dissertation tips
• Sources tips
• Working with sources overview
• Evaluating sources
• Finding sources
• Including sources
• Types of sources

Your Step to Success

Transcription Service for Your Paper

Printing & Binding with 3D Live Preview

Dissertation Recommendations — How To Write Them

How do you like this article cancel reply.

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

Recommendations are crucial to your paper because they suggest solutions to your research problems. You can include recommendations in the discussion sections of your writing and briefly in the conclusions of your dissertation , thesis, or research paper . This article discusses dissertation recommendations, their purpose, and how to write one.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• 1 Dissertation Recommendations — In a Nutshell
• 2 Definition: Dissertation recommendations
• 3 How to write dissertation recommendations
• 4 Dissertation recommendations based on your findings
• 5 Purpose of dissertation recommendations

Dissertation Recommendations — In a Nutshell

• Dissertation recommendations are an important aspect of your research paper.
• They should be specific, measurable, and have the potential of future possibilities.
• Additionally, these recommendations should offer practical insights and suggestions for solving real-life problems.

When making your recommendations, please ensure the following:

• Your recommendations are an extension of your work instead of a basis for self-criticism
• Your research stands independently instead of suggesting recommendations that will complete it
• Your dissertation recommendations offer insights into how future research can build upon it instead of undermining your research

Definition: Dissertation recommendations

Dissertation recommendations are the actionable insights and suggestions presented after you get your research findings. These suggestions are usually based on what you find and help to guide future studies or practical applications. It’s best to place your dissertation recommendations at the conclusion.

Printing Your Thesis With BachelorPrint

• High-quality bindings with customizable embossing
• 3D live preview to check your work before ordering
• Free express delivery

Configure your binding now!

to the print shop

How to write dissertation recommendations

When writing your academic paper, you can frame dissertation recommendations using one of the following methods:

Use the problem: In this approach, you should address the issues highlighted in your research.

Offer solutions: You can offer some practical solutions to the problems revealed in your research.

Use a theory: Here, you can base your recommendations on your study’s theoretical approach.

Here are some helpful tips for writing dissertation recommendations that you should incorporate when drafting a research paper:

• Avoid general or vague recommendations
• Be specific and concrete
• Offer measurable insights   Ensure your suggestions are practical and implementable
• Avoid focusing on theoretical concepts or new findings but on future possibilities

“Based on the study’s outcomes, it’s recommended that businesses and organizations develop mental health well-being frameworks to reduce workplace stress. This training should be mandatory for all employees and conducted on a monthly basis.”

Dissertation recommendations based on your findings

After analysing your findings, you can divide your dissertation recommendations into two subheadings as discussed below:

What can be done?

This section highlights the steps you can use when conducting the research. You may also include any steps needed to address the issues highlighted in your research question. For instance, if the study reveals a lack of emotional connection between employees, implementing dynamic awareness training or sit-downs could be recommended.

Is further research needed?

This section highlights the benefits of further studies that will help build on your research findings. For instance, if your research found less data on employee mental well-being, your dissertation recommendations could suggest future studies.

Purpose of dissertation recommendations

Note: Dissertation recommendations have the following purposes:

• Provide guidance and improve the quality of further studies based on your research findings
• Offer insights, call to action, or suggest other studies
• Highlight specific, clear, and realistic suggestions for future studies

When writing your dissertation recommendations, always remember to keep them specific, measurable, and clear. You should also ensure that a comprehensible rationale supports these recommendations. Additionally, your requests should always be directly linked to your research and offer suggestions from that angle.

Note that your suggestions should always focus on future possibilities and not on present new findings or theoretical concepts. This is because future researchers may use your results to draw further conclusions and gather new insights from your work.

Can I include new arguments in the conclusion of a dissertation

Dissertations follow a more formal structure; hence, you can only present new arguments in the conclusion. Use your dissertation’s concluding part as a summary of your points or to provide recommendations.

How is the conclusion different from the discussion sections?

The discussion section describes a detailed account of your findings, while the conclusion answers the research question and highlights some recommendations.

What shouldn't I include in the dissertation recommendations?

Avoid concluding with weak statements like “there are good insights from both ends…”, generic phrases like “in conclusion…” or evidence that you failed to mention in the discussion or results section.

Bachelor Print is the most amazing company ever to print or bind academic work...

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.

• External Media

Individual Privacy Preferences

Cookie Details Privacy Policy Imprint

Here you will find an overview of all cookies used. You can give your consent to whole categories or display further information and select certain cookies.

Accept all Save

Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.

Show Cookie Information Hide Cookie Information

Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us to understand how our visitors use our website.

Content from video platforms and social media platforms is blocked by default. If External Media cookies are accepted, access to those contents no longer requires manual consent.

Privacy Policy Imprint

Implications or Recommendations in Research: What's the Difference?

• Peer Review

High-quality research articles that get many citations contain both implications and recommendations. Implications are the impact your research makes, whereas recommendations are specific actions that can then be taken based on your findings, such as for more research or for policymaking.

Updated on August 23, 2022

That seems clear enough, but the two are commonly confused.

This confusion is especially true if you come from a so-called high-context culture in which information is often implied based on the situation, as in many Asian cultures. High-context cultures are different from low-context cultures where information is more direct and explicit (as in North America and many European cultures).

Let's set these two straight in a low-context way; i.e., we'll be specific and direct! This is the best way to be in English academic writing because you're writing for the world.

Implications and recommendations in a research article

The standard format of STEM research articles is what's called IMRaD:

• Introduction
• Discussion/conclusions

Some journals call for a separate conclusions section, while others have the conclusions as the last part of the discussion. You'll write these four (or five) sections in the same sequence, though, no matter the journal.

The discussion section is typically where you restate your results and how well they confirmed your hypotheses. Give readers the answer to the questions for which they're looking to you for an answer.

At this point, many researchers assume their paper is finished. After all, aren't the results the most important part? As you might have guessed, no, you're not quite done yet.

The discussion/conclusions section is where to say what happened and what should now happen

The discussion/conclusions section of every good scientific article should contain the implications and recommendations.

The implications, first of all, are the impact your results have on your specific field. A high-impact, highly cited article will also broaden the scope here and provide implications to other fields. This is what makes research cross-disciplinary.

Recommendations, however, are suggestions to improve your field based on your results.

These two aspects help the reader understand your broader content: How and why your work is important to the world. They also tell the reader what can be changed in the future based on your results.

These aspects are what editors are looking for when selecting papers for peer review.

Implications and recommendations are, thus, written at the end of the discussion section, and before the concluding paragraph. They help to “wrap up” your paper. Once your reader understands what you found, the next logical step is what those results mean and what should come next.

Then they can take the baton, in the form of your work, and run with it. That gets you cited and extends your impact!

The order of implications and recommendations also matters. Both are written after you've summarized your main findings in the discussion section. Then, those results are interpreted based on ongoing work in the field. After this, the implications are stated, followed by the recommendations.

Writing an academic research paper is a bit like running a race. Finish strong, with your most important conclusion (recommendation) at the end. Leave readers with an understanding of your work's importance. Avoid generic, obvious phrases like "more research is needed to fully address this issue." Be specific.

The main differences between implications and recommendations (table)

Now let's dig a bit deeper into actually how to write these parts.

What are implications?

Research implications tell us how and why your results are important for the field at large. They help answer the question of “what does it mean?” Implications tell us how your work contributes to your field and what it adds to it. They're used when you want to tell your peers why your research is important for ongoing theory, practice, policymaking, and for future research.

Crucially, your implications must be evidence-based. This means they must be derived from the results in the paper.

Implications are written after you've summarized your main findings in the discussion section. They come before the recommendations and before the concluding paragraph. There is no specific section dedicated to implications. They must be integrated into your discussion so that the reader understands why the results are meaningful and what they add to the field.

A good strategy is to separate your implications into types. Implications can be social, political, technological, related to policies, or others, depending on your topic. The most frequently used types are theoretical and practical. Theoretical implications relate to how your findings connect to other theories or ideas in your field, while practical implications are related to what we can do with the results.

Key features of implications

• State the impact your research makes
• Helps us understand why your results are important
• Must be evidence-based
• Written in the discussion, before recommendations
• Can be theoretical, practical, or other (social, political, etc.)

Examples of implications

Let's take a look at some examples of research results below with their implications.

The result : one study found that learning items over time improves memory more than cramming material in a bunch of information at once .

The implications : This result suggests memory is better when studying is spread out over time, which could be due to memory consolidation processes.

The result : an intervention study found that mindfulness helps improve mental health if you have anxiety.

The implications : This result has implications for the role of executive functions on anxiety.

The result : a study found that musical learning helps language learning in children .

The implications : these findings suggest that language and music may work together to aid development.

What are recommendations?

As noted above, explaining how your results contribute to the real world is an important part of a successful article.

Likewise, stating how your findings can be used to improve something in future research is equally important. This brings us to the recommendations.

Research recommendations are suggestions and solutions you give for certain situations based on your results. Once the reader understands what your results mean with the implications, the next question they need to know is "what's next?"

Recommendations are calls to action on ways certain things in the field can be improved in the future based on your results. Recommendations are used when you want to convey that something different should be done based on what your analyses revealed.

Similar to implications, recommendations are also evidence-based. This means that your recommendations to the field must be drawn directly from your results.

The goal of the recommendations is to make clear, specific, and realistic suggestions to future researchers before they conduct a similar experiment. No matter what area your research is in, there will always be further research to do. Try to think about what would be helpful for other researchers to know before starting their work.

Recommendations are also written in the discussion section. They come after the implications and before the concluding paragraphs. Similar to the implications, there is usually no specific section dedicated to the recommendations. However, depending on how many solutions you want to suggest to the field, they may be written as a subsection.

Key features of recommendations

• Statements about what can be done differently in the field based on your findings
• Must be realistic and specific
• Written in the discussion, after implications and before conclusions
• Related to both your field and, preferably, a wider context to the research

Examples of recommendations

Here are some research results and their recommendations.

A meta-analysis found that actively recalling material from your memory is better than simply re-reading it .

• The recommendation: Based on these findings, teachers and other educators should encourage students to practice active recall strategies.

A medical intervention found that daily exercise helps prevent cardiovascular disease .

• The recommendation: Based on these results, physicians are recommended to encourage patients to exercise and walk regularly. Also recommended is to encourage more walking through public health offices in communities.

A study found that many research articles do not contain the sample sizes needed to statistically confirm their findings .

The recommendation: To improve the current state of the field, researchers should consider doing power analysis based on their experiment's design.

What else is important about implications and recommendations?

When writing recommendations and implications, be careful not to overstate the impact of your results. It can be tempting for researchers to inflate the importance of their findings and make grandiose statements about what their work means.

Remember that implications and recommendations must be coming directly from your results. Therefore, they must be straightforward, realistic, and plausible.

Another good thing to remember is to make sure the implications and recommendations are stated clearly and separately. Do not attach them to the endings of other paragraphs just to add them in. Use similar example phrases as those listed in the table when starting your sentences to clearly indicate when it's an implication and when it's a recommendation.

When your peers, or brand-new readers, read your paper, they shouldn't have to hunt through your discussion to find the implications and recommendations. They should be clear, visible, and understandable on their own.

That'll get you cited more, and you'll make a greater contribution to your area of science while extending the life and impact of your work.

The AJE Team

See our "Privacy Policy"

How to write recommendations in a research paper

Many students put in a lot of effort and write a good report however they are not able to give proper recommendations. Recommendations in the research paper should be included in your research. As a researcher, you display a deep understanding of the topic of research. Therefore you should be able to give recommendations. Here are a few tips that will help you to give appropriate recommendations. 

Recommendations in the research paper should be the objective of the research. Therefore at least one of your objectives of the paper is to provide recommendations to the parties associated or the parties that will benefit from your research. For example, to encourage higher employee engagement HR department should make strategies that invest in the well-being of employees. Additionally, the HR department should also collect regular feedback through online surveys.

Recommendations in the research paper should come from your review and analysis For example It was observed that coaches interviewed were associated with the club were working with the club from the past 2-3 years only. This shows that the attrition rate of coaches is high and therefore clubs should work on reducing the turnover of coaches.

Recommendations in the research paper should also come from the data you have analysed. For example, the research found that people over 65 years of age are at greater risk of social isolation. Therefore, it is recommended that policies that are made for combating social isolation should target this specific group.

Recommendations in the research paper should also come from observation. For example, it is observed that Lenovo’s income is stable and gross revenue has displayed a negative turn. Therefore the company should analyse its marketing and branding strategy.

Recommendations in the research paper should be written in the order of priority. The most important recommendations for decision-makers should come first. However, if the recommendations are of equal importance then it should come in the sequence in which the topic is approached in the research. 

Recommendations in a research paper if associated with different categories then you should categorize them. For example, you have separate recommendations for policymakers, educators, and administrators then you can categorize the recommendations. 

Recommendations in the research paper should come purely from your research. For example, you have written research on the impact on HR strategies on motivation. However, nowhere you have discussed Reward and recognition. Then you should not give recommendations for using rewards and recognition measures to boost employee motivation.

The use of bullet points offers better clarity rather than using long paragraphs. For example this paragraph “ It is recommended  that Britannia Biscuit should launch and promote sugar-free options apart from the existing product range. Promotion efforts should be directed at creating a fresh and healthy image. A campaign that conveys a sense of health and vitality to the consumer while enjoying biscuit  is recommended” can be written as:

• The company should launch and promote sugar-free options
• The company should work towards creating s fresh and healthy image
• The company should run a campaign to convey its healthy image

The inclusion of an action plan along with recommendation adds more weightage to your recommendation. Recommendations should be clear and conscience and written using actionable words. Recommendations should display a solution-oriented approach and in some cases should highlight the scope for further research. 

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.)

Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation.

Chapter 9 conclusions and recommendations for future research.

• How well have we achieved our original aim and objectives?

The initially stated overarching aim of this research was to identify the contextual factors and mechanisms that are regularly associated with effective and cost-effective public involvement in research. While recognising the limitations of our analysis, we believe we have largely achieved this in our revised theory of public involvement in research set out in Chapter 8 . We have developed and tested this theory of public involvement in research in eight diverse case studies; this has highlighted important contextual factors, in particular PI leadership, which had not previously been prominent in the literature. We have identified how this critical contextual factor shapes key mechanisms of public involvement, including the identification of a senior lead for involvement, resource allocation for involvement and facilitation of research partners. These mechanisms then lead to specific outcomes in improving the quality of research, notably recruitment strategies and materials and data collection tools and methods. We have identified a ‘virtuous circle’ of feedback to research partners on their contribution leading to their improved confidence and motivation, which facilitates their continued contribution. Following feedback from the HS&DR Board on our original application we did not seek to assess the cost-effectiveness of different mechanisms of public involvement but we did cost the different types of public involvement as discussed in Chapter 7 . A key finding is that many research projects undercost public involvement.

In our original proposal we emphasised our desire to include case studies involving young people and families with children in the research process. We recruited two studies involving parents of young children aged under 5 years, and two projects involving ‘older’ young people in the 18- to 25-years age group. We recognise that in doing this we missed studies involving children and young people aged under 18 years; in principle we would have liked to have included studies involving such children and young people, but, given the resources at our disposal and the additional resource, ethical and governance issues this would have entailed, we regretfully concluded that this would not be feasible for our study. In terms of the four studies with parental and young persons’ involvement that we did include, we have not done a separate analysis of their data, but the themes emerging from those case studies were consistent with our other case studies and contributed to our overall analysis.

In terms of the initial objectives, we successfully recruited the sample of eight diverse case studies and collected and analysed data from them (objective 1). As intended, we identified the outcomes of involvement from multiple stakeholders‘ perspectives, although we did not get as many research partners‘ perspectives as we would have liked – see limitations below (objective 2). It was more difficult than expected to track the impact of public involvement from project inception through to completion (objective 3), as all of our projects turned out to have longer time scales than our own. Even to track involvement over a stage of a case study research project proved difficult, as the research usually did not fall into neatly staged time periods and one study had no involvement activity over the study period.

Nevertheless, we were able to track seven of the eight case studies prospectively and in real time over time periods of up to 9 months, giving us an unusual window on involvement processes that have previously mainly been observed retrospectively. We were successful in comparing the contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes associated with public involvement from different stakeholders‘ perspectives and costing the different mechanisms for public involvement (objective 4). We only partly achieved our final objective of undertaking a consensus exercise among stakeholders to assess the merits of the realist evaluation approach and our approach to the measurement and valuation of economic costs of public involvement in research (objective 5). A final consensus event was held, where very useful discussion and amendment of our theory of public involvement took place, and the economic approach was discussed and helpfully critiqued by participants. However, as our earlier discussions developed more fully than expected, we decided to let them continue rather than interrupt them in order to run the final exercise to assess the merits of the realist evaluation approach. We did, however, test our analysis with all our case study participants by sending a draft of this final report for comment. We received a number of helpful comments and corrections but no disagreement with our overall analysis.

• What were the limitations of our study?

Realist evaluation is a relatively new approach and we recognise that there were a number of limitations to our study. We sought to follow the approach recommended by Pawson, but we acknowledge that we were not always able to do so. In particular, our theory of public involvement in research evolved over time and initially was not as tightly framed in terms of a testable hypothesis as Pawson recommends. In his latest book Pawson strongly recommends that outcomes should be measured with quantitative data, 17 but we did not do so; we were not aware of the existence of quantitative data or tools that would enable us to collect such data to answer our research questions. Even in terms of qualitative data, we did not capture as much information on outcomes as we initially envisaged. There were several reasons for this. The most important was that capturing outcomes in public involvement is easier the more operational the focus of involvement, and more difficult the more strategic the involvement. Thus, it was relatively easy to see the impact of a patient panel on the redesign of a recruitment leaflet but harder to capture the impact of research partners in a multidisciplinary team discussion of research design.

We also found it was sometimes more difficult to engage research partners as participants in our research than researchers or research managers. On reflection this is not surprising. Research partners are generally motivated to take part in research relevant to their lived experience of a health condition or situation, whereas our research was quite detached from their lived experience; in addition people had many constraints on their time, so getting involved in our research as well as their own was likely to be a burden too far for some. Researchers clearly also face significant time pressures but they had a more direct interest in our research, as they are obliged to engage with public involvement to satisfy research funders such as the NIHR. Moreover, researchers were being paid by their employers for their time during interviews with us, while research partners were not paid by us and usually not paid by their research teams. Whatever the reasons, we had less response from research partners than researchers or research managers, particularly for the third round of data collection; thus we have fewer data on outcomes from research partners‘ perspectives and we need to be aware of a possible selection bias towards more engaged research partners. Such a bias could have implications for our findings; for example payment might have been a more important motivating factor for less engaged advisory group members.

There were a number of practical difficulties we encountered. One challenge was when to recruit the case studies. We recruited four of our eight case studies prior to the full application, but this was more than 1 year before our project started and 15 months or more before data collection began. In this intervening period, we found that the time scales of some of the case studies were no longer ideal for our project and we faced the choice of whether to continue with them, although this timing was not ideal, or seek at a late moment to recruit alternative ones. One of our case studies ultimately undertook no involvement activity over the study period, so we obtained fewer data from it, and it contributed relatively little to our analysis. Similarly, one of the four case studies we recruited later experienced some delays itself in beginning and so we had a more limited period for data collection than initially envisaged. Research governance approvals took much longer than expected, particularly as we had to take three of our research partners, who were going to collect data within NHS projects, through the research passport process, which essentially truncated our data collection period from 1 year to 9 months. Even if we had had the full year initially envisaged for data collection, our conclusion with hindsight was that this was insufficiently long. To compare initial plans and intentions for involvement with the reality of what actually happened required a longer time period than a year for most of our case studies.

In the light of the importance we have placed on the commitment of PIs, there is an issue of potential selection bias in the recruitment of our sample. As our sampling strategy explicitly involved a networking approach to PIs of projects where we thought some significant public involvement was taking place, we were likely (as we did) to recruit enthusiasts and, at worst, those non-committed who were at least open to the potential value of public involvement. There were, unsurprisingly, no highly sceptical PIs in our sample. We have no data therefore on how public involvement may work in research where the PI is sceptical but may feel compelled to undertake involvement because of funder requirements or other factors.

• What would we do differently next time?

If we were to design this study again, there are a number of changes we would make. Most importantly we would go for a longer time period to be able to capture involvement through the whole research process from initial design through to dissemination. We would seek to recruit far more potential case studies in principle, so that we had greater choice of which to proceed with once our study began in earnest. We would include case studies from the application stage to capture the important early involvement of research partners in the initial design period. It might be preferable to research a smaller number of case studies, allowing a more in-depth ethnographic approach. Although challenging, it would be very informative to seek to sample sceptical PIs. This might require a brief screening exercise of a larger group of PIs on their attitudes to and experience of public involvement.

The economic evaluation was challenging in a number of ways, particularly in seeking to obtain completed resource logs from case study research partners. Having a 2-week data collection period was also problematic in a field such as public involvement, where activity may be very episodic and infrequent. Thus, collecting economic data alongside other case study data in a more integrated way, and particularly with interviews and more ethnographic observation of case study activities, might be advantageous. The new budgeting tool developed by INVOLVE and the MHRN may provide a useful resource for future economic evaluations. 23

We have learned much from the involvement of research partners in our research team and, although many aspects of our approach worked well, there are some things we would do differently in future. Even though we included substantial resources for research partner involvement in all aspects of our study, we underestimated how time-consuming such full involvement would be. We were perhaps overambitious in trying to ensure such full involvement with the number of research partners and the number and complexity of the case studies. We were also perhaps naive in expecting all the research partners to play the same role in the team; different research partners came with different experiences and skills, and, like most of our case studies, we might have been better to be less prescriptive and allow the roles to develop more organically within the project.

• Implications for research practice and funding

If one of the objectives of R&D policy is to increase the extent and effectiveness of public involvement in research, then a key implication of this research is the importance of influencing PIs to value public involvement in research or to delegate to other senior colleagues in leading on involvement in their research. Training is unlikely to be the key mechanism here; senior researchers are much more likely to be influenced by peers or by their personal experience of the benefits of public involvement. Early career researchers may be shaped by training but again peer learning and culture may be more influential. For those researchers sceptical or agnostic about public involvement, the requirement of funders is a key factor that is likely to make them engage with the involvement agenda. Therefore, funders need to scrutinise the track record of research teams on public involvement to ascertain whether there is any evidence of commitment or leadership on involvement.

One of the findings of the economic analysis was that PIs have consistently underestimated the costs of public involvement in their grant applications. Clearly the field will benefit from the guidance and budgeting tool recently disseminated by MHRN and INVOLVE. It was also notable that there was a degree of variation in the real costs of public involvement and that effective involvement is not necessarily costly. Different models of involvement incur different costs and researchers need to be made aware of the costs and benefits of these different options.

One methodological lesson we learned was the impact that conducting this research had on some participants’ reflection on the impact of public involvement. Particularly for research staff, the questions we asked sometimes made them reflect upon what they were doing and change aspects of their approach to involvement. Thus, the more the NIHR and other funders can build reporting, audit and other forms of evaluation on the impact of public involvement directly into their processes with PIs, the more likely such questioning might stimulate similar reflection.

• Recommendations for further research

There are a number of gaps in our knowledge around public involvement in research that follow from our findings, and would benefit from further research, including realist evaluation to extend and further test the theory we have developed here:

• In-depth exploration of how PIs become committed to public involvement and how to influence agnostic or sceptical PIs would be very helpful. Further research might compare, for example, training with peer-influencing strategies in engendering PI commitment. Research could explore the leadership role of other research team members, including research partners, and how collective leadership might support effective public involvement.
• More methodological work is needed on how to robustly capture the impact and outcomes of public involvement in research (building as well on the PiiAF work of Popay et al. 51 ), including further economic analysis and exploration of impact when research partners are integral to research teams.
• Research to develop approaches and carry out a full cost–benefit analysis of public involvement in research would be beneficial. Although methodologically challenging, it would be very useful to conduct some longer-term studies which sought to quantify the impact of public involvement on such key indicators as participant recruitment and retention in clinical trials.
• It would also be helpful to capture qualitatively the experiences and perspectives of research partners who have had mixed or negative experiences, since they may be less likely than enthusiasts to volunteer to participate in studies of involvement in research such as ours. Similarly, further research might explore the (relatively rare) experiences of marginalised and seldom-heard groups involved in research.
• Payment for public involvement in research remains a contested issue with strongly held positions for and against; it would be helpful to further explore the value research partners and researchers place on payment and its effectiveness for enhancing involvement in and impact on research.
• A final relatively narrow but important question that we identified after data collection had finished is: what is the impact of the long periods of relative non-involvement following initial periods of more intense involvement for research partners in some types of research, particularly clinical trials?

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License .

• Cite this Page Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.) Chapter 9, Conclusions and recommendations for future research.
• PDF version of this title (4.3M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

• Conclusions and recommendations for future research - Public involvement in rese... Conclusions and recommendations for future research - Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Conducting Biosocial Surveys: Collecting, Storing, Accessing, and Protecting Biospecimens and Biodata (2010)

Chapter: 5 findings, conclusions, and recommendations, 5 findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

A s the preceding chapters have made clear, incorporating biological specimens into social science surveys holds great scientific potential, but also adds a variety of complications to the tasks of both individual researchers and institutions. These complications arise in a number of areas, including collecting, storing, using, and distributing biospecimens; sharing data while protecting privacy; obtaining informed consent from participants; and engaging with Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Any effort to make such research easier and more effective will need to address the issues in these areas.

In considering its recommendations, the panel found it useful to think of two categories: (1) recommendations that apply to individual investigators, and (2) recommendations that are addressed to the National Institute on Aging (NIA) or other institutions, particularly funding agencies. Researchers who wish to collect biological specimens with social science data will need to develop new skills in a variety of areas, such as the logistics of specimen storage and management, the development of more diverse informed consent forms, and ways of dealing with the disclosure risks associated with sharing biogenetic data. At the same time, NIA and other funding agencies must provide researchers the tools they need to succeed. These tools include such things as biorepositories for maintaining and distributing specimens, better guidance on informed consent policies, and better ways to share data without risking confidentiality.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING EXPERTISE

Although working with biological specimens will be new and unfamiliar to many social scientists, it is an area in which biomedical researchers have a great deal of expertise and experience. Many existing documents describe recommended procedures and laboratory practices for the handling of biospecimens. These documents provide an excellent starting point for any social scientist who is interested in adding biospecimens to survey research.

Recommendation 1: Social scientists who are planning to add biological specimens to their survey research should familiarize themselves with existing best practices for the collection, storage, use, and distribution of biospecimens. First and foremost, the design of the protocol for collec tion must ensure the safety of both participants and survey staff (data and specimen collectors and handlers).

Although existing best-practice documents were not developed with social science surveys in mind, their guidelines have been field-tested and approved by numerous IRBs and ethical oversight committees. The most useful best-practice documents are updated frequently to reflect growing knowledge and changing opinions about the best ways to collect, store, use, and distribute biological specimens. At the same time, however, many issues arising from the inclusion of biospecimens in social science surveys are not fully addressed in the best-practice documents intended for biomedical researchers. For guidance on these issues, it will be necessary to seek out information aimed more specifically at researchers at the intersection of social science and biomedicine.

COLLECTING, STORING, USING, AND DISTRIBUTING BIOSPECIMENS

As described in Chapter 2 , the collection, storage, use, and distribution of biospecimens and biodata are tasks that are likely to be unfamiliar to many social scientists and that raise a number of issues with which even specialists are still grappling. For example, which biospecimens in a repository should be shared, given that in most cases the amount of each specimen is limited? And given that the available technology for cost-efficient analysis of biospecimens, particularly genetic analysis, is rapidly improving, how much of any specimen should be used for immediate research and analysis, and how much should be stored for analysis at a later date? Collecting, storing, using, and distributing biological specimens also present significant practical and financial challenges for social scientists. Many of the questions they must address, such as exactly what should be held, where it should be held, and what should be shared or distributed, have not yet been resolved.

Developing Data Sharing Plans

An important decision concerns who has access to any leftover biospecimens. This is a problem more for biospecimens than for biodata because in most cases, biospecimens can be exhausted. Should access be determined according to the principle of first funded, first served? Should there be a formal application process for reviewing the scientific merits of a particular investigation? For studies that involve international collaboration, should foreign investigators have access? And how exactly should these decisions be made? Recognizing that some proposed analyses may lie beyond the competence of the original investigators, as well as the possibility that principal investigators may have a conflict of interest in deciding how to use any remaining biospecimens, one option is for a principal investigator to assemble a small scientific committee to judge the merits of each application, including the relevance of the proposed study to the parent study and the capacities of the investigators. Such committees should publish their review criteria to help prospective applicants. A potential problem with such an approach, however, is that many projects may not have adequate funding to carry out such tasks.

Recommendation 2: Early in the planning process, principal investigators who will be collecting biospecimens as part of a social science survey should develop a complete data sharing plan.

This plan should spell out the criteria for allowing other researchers to use (and therefore deplete) the available stock of biospecimens, as well as to gain access to any data derived therefrom. To avoid any appearance of self-interest, a project might empower an external advisory board to make decisions about access to its data. The data sharing plan should also include provisions for the storage and retrieval of biospecimens and clarify how the succession of responsibility for and control of the biospecimens will be handled at the conclusion of the project.

Recommendation 3: NIA (or preferably the National Institutes of Health [NIH]) should publish guidelines for principal investigators containing a list of points that need to be considered for an acceptable data sharing plan. In addition to staff review, Scientific Review Panels should read and comment on all proposed data sharing plans. In much the same way as an unacceptable human subjects plan, an inadequate data sharing plan should hold up an otherwise acceptable proposal.

Supporting Social Scientists in the Storage of Biospecimens

The panel believes that many social scientists who decide to add the collection of biospecimens to their surveys may be ill equipped to provide for the storage and distribution of the specimens.

Conclusion: The issues related to the storage and distribution of biospecimens are too complex and involve too many hidden costs to assume that social scientists without suitable knowledge, experience, and resources can handle them without assistance.

Investigators should therefore have the option of delegating the storage and distribution of biospecimens collected as part of social science surveys to a centralized biorepository. Depending on the circumstances, a project might choose to utilize such a facility for immediate use, long-term or archival storage, or not at all.

Recommendation 4: NIA and other relevant funding agencies should support at least one central facility for the storage and distribution of biospecimens collected as part of the research they support.

PROTECTING PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: SHARING DIGITAL REPRESENTATIONS OF BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL DATA

Several different types of data must be kept confidential: survey data, data derived from biospecimens, and all administrative and operational data. In the discussion of protecting confidentiality and privacy, this report has focused on biodata, but the panel believes it is important to protect all the data collected from survey participants. For many participants, for example, data on wealth, earnings, or sexual behavior can be as or more sensitive than genetic data.

Conclusion: Although biodata tend to receive more attention in discussions of privacy and confidentiality, social science and operational data can be sensitive in their own right and deserve similar attention in such discussions.

Protecting the participants in a social science survey that collects biospecimens requires securing the data, but data are most valuable when they are made available to researchers as widely as possible. Thus there is an inherent tension between the desire to protect the privacy of the participants and the desire to derive as much scientific value from the data as possible, particularly since the costs of data collection and analysis are so high. The following recommendations regarding confidentiality are made in the spirit of balancing these equally important needs.

Genomic data present a particular challenge. Several researchers have demonstrated that it is possible to identify individuals with even modest amounts of such data. When combined with social science data, genomic data may pose an even greater risk to confidentiality. It is difficult to know how much or which genomic data, when combined with social science data, could become critical identifiers in the future. Although the problem is most significant with genomic data, similar challenges can arise with other kinds of data derived from biospecimens.

Conclusion: Unrestricted distribution of genetic and other biodata risks violating promises of confidentiality made to research participants.

There are two basic approaches to protecting confidentiality: restricting data and restricting access. Restricting data—for example, by stripping individual and spatial identifiers and modifying the data to make it difficult or impossible to trace them back to their source—usually makes it possible to release social science data widely. In the case of biodata, however, there is no answer to how little data is required to make a participant uniquely identifiable. Consequently, any release of biodata must be carefully managed to protect confidentiality.

Recommendation 5: No individual-level data containing uniquely identify ing variables, such as genomic data, should be publicly released without explicit informed consent.

Recommendation 6: Genomic data and other individual-level data con taining uniquely identifying variables that are stored or in active use by investigators on their institutional or personal computers should be encrypted at all times.

Even if specific identifying variables, such as names and addresses, are stripped from data, it is still often possible to identify the individuals associated with the data by other means, such as using the variables that remain (age, sex, marital status, family income, etc.) to zero in on possible candidates. In the case of biodata that do not uniquely identify individuals and can change with time, such as blood pressure and physical measurements, it may be possible to share the data with no more protection than stripping identifying variables. Even these data, however, if known to intruders, can increase identification disclosure risk when combined with enough other data. With sufficient characteristics to match, intruders can uniquely identify individuals in shared data if given access to another data source that contains the same information plus identifiers.

Conclusion: Even nonunique biodata, if combined with social science data, may pose a serious risk of reidentification.

In the case of high-dimensional genomic data, standard disclosure limitation techniques, such as data perturbation, are not effective with respect to preserving the utility of the data because they involve such extreme alterations that they would severely distort analyses aimed at determining gene–gene and gene–environment interactions. Standard disclosure limitation methods could be used to generate public-use data sets that would enable low-dimensional analyses involving genes, for example, one gene at a time. However, with several such public releases, it may be possible for a key match to be used to construct a data set with higher-dimensional genomic data.

Conclusion: At present, no data restriction strategy has been demonstrated to protect confidentiality while preserving the usefulness of the data for drawing inferences involving high-dimensional interactions among genomic and social science variables, which are increasingly the target of research. Providing public-use genomic data requires such intense data masking to protect confidentiality that it would distort the high-dimensional analyses that could result in ground-breaking research progress.

Recommendation 7: Both rich genomic data acquired for research and sensitive and potentially identifiable social science data that do not change (or change very little) with time should be shared only under restricted circumstances, such as licensing and (actual or virtual) data enclaves.

As discussed in Chapter 3 , the four basic ways to restrict access to data are licensing, remote execution centers, data enclaves, and virtual data enclaves. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. 1 Licensing, for example, is the least restrictive for a researcher in terms of access to the data, but the licensing process itself can be lengthy and burdensome. Thus it would be useful if the licensing process could be facilitated.

Recommendation 8: NIA (or preferably NIH) should develop new stan dards and procedures for licensing confidential data in ways that will maximize timely access while maintaining security and that can be used by data repositories and by projects that distribute data.

Ways to improve the other approaches to restricted access are needed as well. For example, improving the convenience and availability of virtual data enclaves could increase the use of combined social science and biodata without

a significant increase in risk to confidentiality. The panel notes that much of the discussion of the confidentiality risk posed by the various approaches is theoretical; no one has a clear idea of just what disclosure risks are associated with the various ways of sharing data. It is important to learn more about these disclosure risks for a variety of reasons—determining how to minimize the risks, for instance, or knowing which approaches to sharing data pose the least risk. It would also be useful to be able to describe disclosure risks more accurately to survey participants.

Recommendation 9: NIA and other funding agencies should assess the strength of confidentiality protections through periodic expert audits of confidentiality and computer security. Willingness to participate in such audits should be a condition for receipt of NIA support. Beyond enforce ment, the purpose of such audits would be to identify challenges and solutions.

Evaluating risks and applying protection methods, whether they involve restricted access or restricted data, is a complex process requiring expertise in disclosure protection methods that exceeds what individual principal investigators and their institutions usually possess. Currently, not enough is known to be able to represent these risks either fully or accurately. The NIH requirement for data sharing necessitates a large investment of resources to anticipate which variables are potentially available to intruders and to alter data in ways that reduce disclosure risks while maintaining the utility of the data. Such resources are better spent by principal investigators on collecting and analyzing the data.

Recommendation 10: NIH should consider funding Centers of Excellence to explore new ways of protecting digital representations of data and to assist principal investigators wishing to share data with others. NIH should also support research on disclosure risks and limitations.

Principal investigators could send digital data to these centers, which would organize and manage any restricted access or restricted data policies or provide advisory services to investigators. NIH would maintain the authority to penalize those who violated any confidentiality agreements, for example, by denying them or their home institution NIH funding. Models for these centers include the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) and its projects supported by NIH and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the UK data sharing archive. The centers would alleviate the burden of data sharing as mandated of principal investigators by NIH and place it in expert hands. However, excellence in the design of data access and control systems

is likely to require intimate knowledge of each specific data resource, so data producers should be involved in the systems’ development.

INFORMED CONSENT

As described in Chapter 4 , informed consent is a complex subject involving many issues that are still being debated; the growing power of genetic analysis techniques and bioinformatics has only added to this complexity. Given the rapid pace of advances in scientific knowledge and in the technology used to analyze biological materials, it is impossible to predict what information might be gleaned from biological specimens just a few years hence; accordingly, it is impossible, even in theory, to talk about perfectly informed consent. The best one can hope for is relatively well-informed consent from a study’s participants, but knowing precisely what that means is difficult. Determining the scope of informed consent adds another layer of complexity. Will new analyses be covered under the existing consent, for example? There are no clear guidelines on such questions, yet specific details on the scope of consent will likely affect an IRB’s reaction to a study proposal.

What Individual Researchers Need to Know and Do Regarding Informed Consent

To be sure, there is a wide range of views about the practicality of providing adequate protection to participants while proceeding with the scientific enterprise, from assertions that it is simply not possible to provide adequate protection to offers of numerous procedural safeguards but no iron-clad guarantees. This report takes the latter position—that investigators should do their best to communicate adequately and accurately with participants, to provide procedural safeguards to the extent possible, and not to promise what is not possible. 2 Social science researchers need to know that adding the collection of biospecimens to social science surveys changes the nature of informed consent. Informed consent for a traditional social science survey may entail little more than reading a short script over the phone and asking whether the participant is willing to continue; obtaining informed consent for the collection and use of biospecimens and biodata is generally a much more involved process.

Conclusion: Social scientists should be made aware that the process of obtaining informed consent for the use of biospecimens and biodata typically differs from social science norms.

If participants are to provide truly informed consent to taking part in any study, they must be given a certain minimum amount of information. They should be told, for example, what the purpose of the study is, how it is to be carried out, and what participants’ roles are. In addition, because of the unique risks associated with providing biospecimens, participants in a social science survey that involves the collection of such specimens should be provided with other types of information as well. In particular, they should be given detail on the storage and use of the specimens that relates to those risks and can assist them in determining whether to take part in the study.

Recommendation 11: In designing a consent form for the collection of biospecimens, in addition to those elements that are common to social science and biomedical research, investigators should ensure that certain other information is provided to participants:

how long researchers intend to retain their biospecimens and the genomic and other biodata that may be derived from them;

both the risks associated with genomic data and the limits of what they can reveal;

which other researchers will have access to their specimens, to the data derived therefrom, and to information collected in a survey questionnaire;

the limits on researchers’ ability to maintain confidentiality;

any potential limits on participants’ ability to withdraw their speci mens or data from the research;

the penalties 3 that may be imposed on researchers for various types of breaches of confidentiality; and

what plans have been put in place to return to them any medically relevant findings.

Researchers who fail to properly plan for and handle all of these issues before proceeding with a study are in essence compromising assurances under informed consent. The literature on informed consent emphasizes the importance of ensuring that participants understand reasonably well what they are consenting to. This understanding cannot be taken for granted, particularly as it pertains to the use of biological specimens and the data derived therefrom.

While it is not possible to guarantee that participants have a complete understanding of the scientific uses of their specimens or all the possible risks of their participation, they should be able to make a relatively well-informed decision about whether to take part in the study. Thus the ability of various participants to understand the research and the informed consent process must be considered. Even impaired individuals may be able to participate in research if their interests are protected and they can do so only through proxy consent. 4

Recommendation 12: NIA should locate and publicize positive examples of the documentation of consent processes for the collection of biospeci mens. In particular, these examples should take into account the special needs of certain individuals, such as those with sensory problems and the cognitively impaired.

Participants in a biosocial survey are likely to have different levels of comfort concerning how their biospecimens and data will be used. Some may be willing to provide only answers to questions, for example, while others may both answer questions and provide specimens. Among those who provide specimens, some may be willing for the specimens to be used only for the current study, while others may consent to their use in future studies. One effective way to deal with these different comfort levels is to offer a tiered approach to consent that allows participants to determine just how their specimens and data will be used. Tiers might include participating in the survey, providing specimens for genetic and/or nongenetic analysis in a particular study, and allowing the specimens and data to be stored for future uses (genetic and/or nongenetic). For those participants who are willing to have their specimens and data used in future studies, researchers should tell them what sort of approval will be obtained for such use. For example, an IRB may demand reconsent, in which case participants may have to be contacted again before their specimens and data can be used. Ideally, researchers should design their consent forms to avoid the possibility that an IRB will demand a costly or infeasible reconsent process.

Recommendation 13: Researchers should consider adopting a tiered approach to obtaining consent. Participants who are willing to have their specimens and data used in future studies should be informed about the process that will be used to obtain approval for such uses.

What Institutions Should Do Regarding Informed Consent

Because the details of informed consent vary from study to study, individual investigators must bear ultimate responsibility for determining the details of informed consent for any particular study. Thus researchers must understand the various issues and concerns surrounding informed consent and be prepared to make decisions about the appropriate approach for their research in consultation with staff of survey organizations. These decisions should be addressed in the training of survey interviewers. As noted above, however, the issues surrounding informed consent are complex and not completely resolved, and researchers have few options for learning about informed consent as it applies to social science studies that collect biospecimens. Thus it makes sense for agencies funding this research, the Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP), or other appropriate organizations (for example, Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research [PRIM&R]) to provide opportunities for such learning, taking into account the fact that the issues arising in biosocial research do not arise in the standard informed consent situations encountered in social science research. It should also be made clear that the researchers’ institution is usually deemed (e.g., in the courts) to bear much of the responsibility for informed consent.

Recommendation 14: NIA, OHRP, and other appropriate organizations should sponsor training programs, create training modules, and hold informational workshops on informed consent for investigators, staff of survey organizations, including field staff, administrators, and mem bers of IRBs who oversee surveys that collect social science data and biospecimens.

The Return of Medically Relevant Information

An issue related to informed consent is how much information to provide to survey participants once their biological specimens have been analyzed and in particular, how to deal with medically relevant information that may arise from the analysis. What, for example, should a researcher do if a survey participant is found to have a genetic disease that does not appear until later in life? Should the participant be notified? Should participants be asked as part of the initial interview whether they wish to be notified about such a discovery? At this time, there are no generally agreed-upon answers to such questions, but researchers should expect to have to deal with these issues as they analyze the data derived from biological specimens.

Recommendation 15: NIH should direct investigators to formulate a plan in advance concerning the return of any medically relevant findings to

survey participants and to implement that plan in the design and conduct of their informed consent procedures.

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS

Investigators seeking IRB approval for biosocial research face a number of challenges. Few IRBs are familiar with both social and biological science; thus, investigators may find themselves trying to justify standard social science protocols to a biologically oriented IRB or explaining standard biological protocols to an IRB that is used to dealing with social science—or sometimes both. Researchers can expect these obstacles, which arise from the interdisciplinary nature of their work, to be exacerbated by a number of other factors that are characteristic of IRBs in general (see Chapter 4 ).

Recommendation 16: In institutions that have separate biomedical and social science IRBs, mechanisms should be created for sharing expertise during the review of biosocial protocols. 5

What Individual Researchers Need to Do Regarding IRBs

Because the collection of biospecimens as part of social science surveys is still relatively unfamiliar to many IRBs, researchers planning such a study can expect their interactions with the IRB overseeing the research to involve a certain learning curve. The IRB may need extra time to become familiar and comfortable with the proposed practices of the survey, and conversely, the researchers will need time to learn what the IRB will require. Thus it will be advantageous if researchers conducting such studies plan from the beginning to devote additional time to working with their IRBs.

Recommendation 17: Investigators considering collecting biospecimens as part of a social science survey should consult with their IRBs early and often.

What Research Agencies Should Do Regarding IRBs

One way to improve the IRB process would be to give members of IRBs an opportunity to learn more about biosocial research and the risks it entails.

This could be done by individual institutions, but it would be more effective if a national funding agency took the lead (see Recommendation 14).

It is the panel’s hope that its recommendations will support the incorporation of social science and biological data into empirical models, allowing researchers to better document the linkages among social, behavioral, and biological processes that affect health and other measures of well-being while avoiding or minimizing many of the challenges that may arise. Implementing these recommendations will require the combined efforts of both individual investigators and the agencies that support them.

This page intentionally left blank.

Recent years have seen a growing tendency for social scientists to collect biological specimens such as blood, urine, and saliva as part of large-scale household surveys. By combining biological and social data, scientists are opening up new fields of inquiry and are able for the first time to address many new questions and connections. But including biospecimens in social surveys also adds a great deal of complexity and cost to the investigator's task. Along with the usual concerns about informed consent, privacy issues, and the best ways to collect, store, and share data, researchers now face a variety of issues that are much less familiar or that appear in a new light.

In particular, collecting and storing human biological materials for use in social science research raises additional legal, ethical, and social issues, as well as practical issues related to the storage, retrieval, and sharing of data. For example, acquiring biological data and linking them to social science databases requires a more complex informed consent process, the development of a biorepository, the establishment of data sharing policies, and the creation of a process for deciding how the data are going to be shared and used for secondary analysis—all of which add cost to a survey and require additional time and attention from the investigators. These issues also are likely to be unfamiliar to social scientists who have not worked with biological specimens in the past. Adding to the attraction of collecting biospecimens but also to the complexity of sharing and protecting the data is the fact that this is an era of incredibly rapid gains in our understanding of complex biological and physiological phenomena. Thus the tradeoffs between the risks and opportunities of expanding access to research data are constantly changing.

Conducting Biosocial Surveys offers findings and recommendations concerning the best approaches to the collection, storage, use, and sharing of biospecimens gathered in social science surveys and the digital representations of biological data derived therefrom. It is aimed at researchers interested in carrying out such surveys, their institutions, and their funding agencies.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Encyclopedia

Writing with artificial intelligence.

• Recommendation Reports
• © 2023 by Joseph M. Moxley - Professor of English - USF , Julie Staggers - Washington State University

Table of Contents

Recommendation reports are texts that advise audiences about the best ways to solve a problem. Recommendation reports are a type of formal report that is widely used across disciplines and professions. Subject Matter Experts aim to make recommendations based on the best available theory, research and practice.

Different disciplines and professions have different research methods for assessing knowledge claims and defining knowledge . Thus, there is no one perfect way to write a recommendation report.

As always, when composing—especially when you’re planning your report—it’s strategic to focus on your audience, rhetorical analysis, and rhetorical reasoning. At center, keep the focus on what you want your audience to feel, think, and do.

While writers, speakers, and knowledge workers . . . may choose a variety of ways to organize their reports, below are some fairly traditional sections to formal recommendations reports:

• Letter of transmittal
• Problem Definition
• Potential solutions to the problem
• Empirical Research Methods used to investigate the problem
• Recommendations
• List of Illustrations

Report Body

Note: your specific rhetorical context will determine what headings you use in your Recommendation Report. That said, the following sections are fairly typical for this genre, and they are required, as appropriate, for this assignment.

Report back matter

Collect material for the appendices as you go. The report back matter will include:

• Bibliography, which is sometimes referred to as Works Cited or References (Use a citation format appropriate for your field (APA, MLA, Chicago, IEEE, etc.)
• Appendices, if necessary (e.g., letters of support, financial projections)

Formatting and design

Employ a professional writing style throughout, including:

• Page layout: Appropriate to audience, purpose, and context. 8.5 x 11 with 1-inch margins is a fail-safe default.
• Typography: Choose business-friendly fonts appropriate to your audience, purpose, and context; Arial for headers and Times New Roman for body text is a safe, neutral default.
• Headings and subheadings: Use a numbered heading and subheading system, formatted using the Styles function on your word processor.
• Bulleted and numbered lists: Use lists that are formatted correctly using the list buttons on your word processor with a blank line before the first bullet and after the last bullet
• Graphics and figures: Support data findings and arguments with appropriate visuals – charts, tables, graphics;  Include numbered titles and captions
• Page numbering: use lower-case Roman numerals for pages before the table of contents, Arabic numerals; no page number on the TOC.

Additional Resources

• Final Reports by Angela Eward-Mangione   and Katherine McGee
• Professional Writing Style

Brevity - Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence - How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow - How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity - Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style - The DNA of Powerful Writing

Recommended

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Structured Revision – How to Revise Your Work

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Authority & Credibility – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Research, Speech & Writing

Citation Guide – Learn How to Cite Sources in Academic and Professional Writing

Page Design – How to Design Messages for Maximum Impact

Suggested edits.

• Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
• Your full name
• Your email address *
• Page URL needing edits *
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Other Topics:

Citation - Definition - Introduction to Citation in Academic & Professional Writing

• Joseph M. Moxley

Explore the different ways to cite sources in academic and professional writing, including in-text (Parenthetical), numerical, and note citations.

Collaboration - What is the Role of Collaboration in Academic & Professional Writing?

Collaboration refers to the act of working with others or AI to solve problems, coauthor texts, and develop products and services. Collaboration is a highly prized workplace competency in academic...

Genre may reference a type of writing, art, or musical composition; socially-agreed upon expectations about how writers and speakers should respond to particular rhetorical situations; the cultural values; the epistemological assumptions...

Grammar refers to the rules that inform how people and discourse communities use language (e.g., written or spoken English, body language, or visual language) to communicate. Learn about the rhetorical...

Information Literacy - Discerning Quality Information from Noise

Information Literacy refers to the competencies associated with locating, evaluating, using, and archiving information. In order to thrive, much less survive in a global information economy — an economy where information functions as a...

Mindset refers to a person or community’s way of feeling, thinking, and acting about a topic. The mindsets you hold, consciously or subconsciously, shape how you feel, think, and act–and...

Rhetoric: Exploring Its Definition and Impact on Modern Communication

Learn about rhetoric and rhetorical practices (e.g., rhetorical analysis, rhetorical reasoning,  rhetorical situation, and rhetorical stance) so that you can strategically manage how you compose and subsequently produce a text...

Style, most simply, refers to how you say something as opposed to what you say. The style of your writing matters because audiences are unlikely to read your work or...

The Writing Process - Research on Composing

The writing process refers to everything you do in order to complete a writing project. Over the last six decades, researchers have studied and theorized about how writers go about...

Writing Studies

Writing studies refers to an interdisciplinary community of scholars and researchers who study writing. Writing studies also refers to an academic, interdisciplinary discipline – a subject of study. Students in...

Featured Articles

• Open access
• Published: 02 September 2024

Factors influencing the choice of pediatric resident: program directors perspective in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study

• Abdulrahman Alhaqbani 1 , 2 ,
• Sulaiman Alayed 1 , 2 ,
• Khaled Almutairi 1 , 2 ,
• Rayan Alotaibi 1 , 2 ,
• Fahad Aljuraibah 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Khaled Alsager 1 , 2 , 3 &
• Hamad Alkhalaf 1 , 2 , 3  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  956 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Pediatrics is one of the most important medical specialties in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) KSA) since it serves a large population. Therefore, the pediatrics residency program is considered one of the most important and competitive programs. Obtaining acceptance in Saudi programs depends mainly on the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS) score, then the applicant enrolls to do the interviews with the training centers in the accepted region. This study aimed to evaluate the factors used by pediatric program directors (PD) in accepting applicants in their pediatric residency program in KSA.

In this cross-sectional study, an online questionnaire consisting of 49 items was distributed among 76 current and former pediatric PDs in KSA. Participants were selected via non-probability convenience sampling. Data were collected and analyzed using the Social Sciences Statistical Package (SPSS version 26).

Of the sample of PD studied, males represented 77.6%, while females represented 22.4%. Most of the PDs were over 50 years old. Most of them were former pediatric PDs (71.1%). The current study found that the Saudi Medical Licensing Exam was the most important factor [3.87 (0.89)] followed by services and electives [3.86 (0.65)], research [3.84 (0.83)], interview [3.77 (0.89)], GPA [3.50 (0.62)], and letter of recommendation [3.39 (0.76)].

Conclusions

For those interested in pediatrics residency programs in KSA, this study recommends that seeking a high Saudi Medical Licensing Exam (SMLE) score, taking pediatric elective rotations during internship, and acquiring excellent basic knowledge in research were the most important aspects of pediatrics residency selection from the pediatrics PD’s perspective.

Peer Review reports

Pediatrics is one of the most important medical specialties in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) KSA) since it serves a large population. In 2021, the General Authority of Statistics estimated the number of children in the KSA to be approximately 8.5 million, which represents 25 of the total population [ 1 ]. Due to the high demand, the Pediatric Residency Program is considered one of the most competitive and demanding programs. Globally, pediatrics was one of the top three specialties in the number of applicants in the United States in the last 6 years [ 2 ]. In addition, in KSA there were more than 1000 residents enrolled in the pediatric program in 2017 [ 3 ]. Pediatrics contains approximately 13 subspecialties in which residents train during their residency [ 4 ]. The Pediatric Residency Program in KSA is supervised by the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS) and there are approximately 40 approved centers in KSA [ 5 ].

The application process consists of two phases that begin by ranking the desired specialties with the desired cities through the SCFHS system. Acceptance is based on the SCFHS score, which consists of 50% on the Saudi Medical Licensing Exam (SMLE) score, 30% on the grade point average (GPA), and 20% on the portfolio points (divided between research activity, post-graduate academic degree, community volunteering activities, strong interest in the specialty, being currently in a job as a health practitioner and having an experience of six months in the chosen specialty). After being accepted in the program, the applicant needs to do interviews in all the training centers within the accepted region [ 6 , 7 , 8 ].

The scope of this study is pointed toward the interview phase in which the applicant is to be interviewed by a committee consisting of consultants mostly chaired by the program directors (PDs). There are multiple aspects of residency enrollment, for instance: GPA in medical school, performance during rotation in the field, research publications, interview performance, letters of recommendation, and much more. At the local level, there were few studies in plastic surgery, urology, and emergency medicine that discussed the perspective of PD, and there were varying results [ 6 , 7 , 8 ].

To the best of our knowledge, there are no such studies in the pediatric field. The purpose of this study was to pinpoint the most important factors in the curriculum vitae (CV) of the applicants and their relative importance from the perspective of pediatric PD to accept new pediatric residents into the program, which will be helpful for future applicants interested in pediatrics.

Materials and methods

Study design, setting and population.

This is a cross-sectional study of online surveys. Currently, there are about 40 pediatric program centers in KSA that are divided according to regions: 11 in the Central Region, 15 in the Western Region, 11 in the Eastern Region, and 3 in the Southern Region. This research included current and former pediatric PDs in the approved centers by SCFHS. PDs of other specialties were excluded from the study.

Sample size and sampling technique

Considering a total of 40 pediatric program centers in KSA with 40 current directors, the 40 current directors and about 60 accessible former directors were approached and asked to participate in the study. The final sample that was included in the study was 76 PDs (22 current PDs and 54 former PDs) yielding a 76% total response rate and 55% for the current PDs. The study participants were selected using a non-probability convenience sample where data was collected through an online questionnaire filled by PD who agreed to join the study.

Data collection methods, instrument used and measurements

Data were collected using an electronic online questionnaire that was sent to PD of the SCFHS pediatric programs. The questionnaire consisted of 49 items aimed at assessing the most important qualities of pediatric residency program applicants from the perspective of pediatric PD, which was the main outcome variable. The questionnaire started with 6 questions regarding demographic data such as gender of the PD, current or former PD, duration of work as a PD, and the place where the PD worked. The next part included 43 items on a 5-Likert agreement scale regarding the assessment of the PDs’ degree of agreement to the qualifications of pediatric residents, ranging from one for ‘ strongly disagree’ to five for ‘strongly agree’ . Thirty items were subdivided into six domains/subcategories and 13 items covered miscellaneous points. The domains included GPA domain (seven items), SMLE domain (three items), research domain (seven items), the interview domain (three items), service and electives domain (working as a service resident and/or had an elective rotation in pediatrics during the internship) (six items) , letter of recommendation (LOR) domain (four items). For the sake of comparison of different domains among different groups and overall mean was calculated for each domain by dividing the sum of the means of domain items by the number of items in the domain.

Data management and analysis plan

The Social Sciences Statistical Package (SPSS version 26) was used for data entry and analysis. Frequency and percentage were used for categorical data such as gender and subspeciality/general. Mean and standard deviation for numerical data such as score of the important qualities and age. For quantitative data, independent sample t test and one-way ANOVA were used for normally distributed data, while Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for skewed data to test for significant differences between the different categories on the Likert scale. The test was considered significant if the p -value was less than 0.05.

The results were divided into several sections: sociodemographic data, the overall ranking of the influencing factors for selection, the ranking of the influencing factors based on the PDs’ demographic data, the details of each domain, and other miscellaneous factors.

Sociodemographic data of the participants

A total of 76 participants were involved in this study; 59 (77.6%) were males and 17 (22.4%) were female respondents. 29 (38.2%) of the participants were over 50 years of age. Additionally, 54 (71.1%) were former pediatric PDs, while only 22 (28.9%) were currently working as PDs. Most of the respondents had been working for 2–4 years as PDs and most of them were working in the central region. Moreover, most of the directors were employed in the Ministry of Health 23 (30.3%), followed by 22 (28.9%) in Military Institutions, 17 (22.4%) in University Hospitals and only 7 (9.2%) worked in the private sector. (Table  1 )

Overall ranking of the influencing factors for selection

The SMLE score was the most important factor [mean (SD): 3.87 (0.89)] followed by services and electives [3.86 (0.65)], research [3.84 (0.83)], interview [3.77 (0.89)], GPA [3.50 (0.62)], and LOR [3.39 (0.76)]. (Tables  2 and 3 ).

The influencing factors of selection per domains

This study found that obtaining a high GPA [3.88 (0.97)] and gaining awards or honors [3.83 (1.06)] were the factors of highest rating used by PDs in the the GPA domain. Furthermore, in the SMLE domain, having a high SMLE score [3.83 (1.03)] and having a high pediatric SMLE score [4.07 (0.93)] were the most influential factors. Regarding the research domain, PDs considered having a good basic knowledge in research [3.96 (0.84)] and a publication in pediatrics [3.92 (1.00)] to be higher than the other factors. Compared to other factors in the interview domain, dressing well [3.99 (1.09)] was the highest rated. Furthermore, taking pediatric elective rotations during the internship [4.16 (0.95)] and having a good reputation and performance [4.39 (0.87)] had the highest mean in the service and elective domain. Last, the quality of language and content of the recommendation letter [3.57 (0.99)] were the most valued factors in the LOR domain. Other factors of each domain showed low to intermediate levels of importance. (Table  2 )

Miscellaneous factors such as gender, age, marital status and other factors

Several factors had a high mean, such as the level of English proficiency [3.88 (0.82)], having the intention to serve back in a peripheral region that is still in need of qualified pediatricians [3.76 (0.96)], and having many community services and volunteer activities [3.62 (0.88)]. Other factors showed lower means. (Table  4 )

In line with the findings presented in Table  4 ; Fig.  1 displays the agreement rates for male and female PDs regarding the different items. Male PDs reported highest agreement to candidate’s English language proficiency (72.9%) and his intention to serve back in peripheral areas (62.7%). However, female PDs gave their highest agreement ratings for gender equality in the program (70.6%) followed by English language proficiency, intending to serve back in peripheral regions and community and volunteering services (64.7% for each). Females were more than males to prefer applicants from the same region (58.5% vs. 42.4%) and single applicants (35.3% vs. 22%), they were also more to accept applicants with chronic conditions (35.3% vs. 28.8%).

Agreement rates of different items for all, male and female PDs

Ranking of the influencing factors based on the PDs’ demographic data

In this study, male PDs ranked the SMLE score [3.88 (0.89)] and research activity [3.88 (0.86)] as the most important factors, whereas female PDs preferred the interview process [4.14 (0.64)]. Furthermore, junior PDs (≤ 45 years) ranked services and electives [3.92 (0.67)] as the most important factor. On the other hand, senior PDs (> 45 years) ranked the SMLE score [3.91 (0.89)] as the most important factor. Research experience [3.95 (0.66)] was the most important factor for current PDs, whereas former PDs preferred the SMLE score [3.86 (0.91)]. Furthermore, in terms of the importance of factors based on the region of PD, the PDs of the central region believe that the SMLE score is the most important factor [3.95 (0.79)]. On the other hand, Western Region PDs consider services and electives as the first one in importance [3.89 (0.54)] and eastern region PDs think that the interview is the most significant factor [3.78 (1.02)]. (Table  3 )

The present study evaluated the factors used by former and current pediatric PDs in accepting applicants for Pediatric Residency Programs in KSA to provide comprehensive guidance for undergraduate medical students and medical interns.

The main study findings

In the current study, except for the miscellaneous factors, all overall domains’ ratings of importance fell at an above average level of importance according to PDs’ perspectives. The most important domains were the SMLE score, followed by Services and Electives, Research and Interview domains.

Interpretation of the main findings

The first and most important factor in the current study was the SMLE score which was unique to this study in contrast to the emergency medicine (EM) PDs study in which the SMLE score ranked 9th and the Urology PDs study in which the SMLE score ranked 6th. This could be attributed to the SMLE score accounting for 50% of the total SCFHS score. In EM study, the most important factors were performance in the interview, EM electives, oral or poster presentation on events [ 8 ]. In the Urology PDs study, the most influential factors were performance during rotation at the respondent’s center, publications in Urology, Urology electives [ 7 ]. The second and third most important factors in the current study were slightly similar to the results of the other studies in terms of importance which signifies how electives and research activities can influence the choice of applicants since they have been in the top three of importance across different specialties [ 7 , 8 ].

When comparing some aspects of different domains this study tackled, the results found that candidate’s academic performance was an important eligibility factor from PDs’ perspective. This is noticed in the rating of candidate GPA in the GPA domain and the high pediatric SMLE score in the SMLE domain. This was in accordance with a similar Canadian study examining anesthesia PD perspectives regarding candidate selection [ 9 ]. The PDs in our study further emphasized the importance of academic knowledge prior to acceptance in the Interview domain where they valued candidates showing good pediatric knowledge during the interview.

The interview domain ranked fourth in this study, but was the domain of highest rated by female PDs. A study in the United States assessing importance selection criteria for pediatric emergency highlighted the interview as the most important aspect for choice than the candidate academic prior academic performance [ 10 ]. This difference may be because the Interview are needed to reveal personality traits and personal characteristics that suit the medical specialty the applicant applies for. PDs may believe that emergency department physicians should have certain personality traits [ 11 ] different from those dealing with pediatric patients in the wards or outpatient clinics that could only be revealed during the interview. This is further emphasized by the results of the EM study [ 8 ] that showed that the most important factor was the performance in the interview. In addition, Ross and Leichner [ 12 ] in a study published in 1984 reported that personal interviews were highlighted as an important factor for the selection of psychiatrists residents.

The current study findings also showed that the most important aspect in the Interview domain was dressing well. In contrast, the urology study showed that “appearance during the interview” ranked 15th [ 7 ]. How physicians dress had been previously studied as an important factor for building trust and gaining the patients’ confidence [ 13 ].

With Services and Electives ranking the second most important aspect considered by PDs. This finding should be clearly communicated to prospective candidates to encourage them to participate in elective pediatric activities prior to application to improve their chance of acceptance. In line with this point, having a good reputation and performance during rotation ranked the first and most important factor for candidate selection across all domains. This was in line with the findings of the urology study which ranked it as the most important aspect [ 7 ] and the pediatric emergency study conducted in the United States [ 10 ]. This fact should be highlighted to all prospective applicants to consider that PDs from different specialties believe that previous good reputation of the applicant is an important selection criteria.

Coming after the candidate’s GPA, winning awards or honors was one of the most influential factors in the GPA domain, but the ED study did not show the same significance and ranked it 13th out of 15 in the importance list [ 8 ].

Having good research knowledge was one of the most important domains valued by PDs in our study, having good basic knowledge in research and previously published research were the most influential aspects of the choice among applicants. This was correlated with previous studies in the United States [ 10 , 14 ] that reported that candidates with good research potential were important factors to assess candidates. This was also similar to the study conducted on plastic surgery PDs in KSA showing that ‘showing evidence of knowledge in the basics of medical research’ was the third most important factor [ 6 ]. Good knowledge and research skills are important for advancement in the medical career. It helps physicians develop and apply better management procedures and updated management options for their patients [ 14 ].

Such finding highlights the importance of improving the candidate’s research skills prior to their clinical involvement. Improving research skills of applicants should start in their undergraduate stage where medical curriculum ought to continuously be updated to improve students’ research skills and publication skills.

Regarding the LOR, it can have a great impact on the acceptance of the applicant, especially if it was from a well-known author to the PDs, because many PDs believe that they can predict the performance of the applicant based on the LOR [ 15 ]. The current study showed that a well-written LOR with good quality language is one of the important aspects for selection. It has been previously recommended with well written reference by previous studies as an important aspect for candidate selection [ 9 , 10 ]. In the ER study, the language of the recommendation ranked 4th out of 6, which does not show high significance [ 8 ]. This study also showed that least important aspect perceived across all domains was having multiple recommendations. It was not considered a very important factor that could improve the chances of the applicant.

In this study, there are some interesting results of directors’ preferences regarding applicants’ traits and social life. A higher number of PDs believe in equal gender distribution resembling the ER and plastic surgery studies that concluded that gender has no role in the applicant’s acceptance. Although the exact reason was not collected in the survey, the most likely explanation is due to logistical reasons, for example: the availability of on-call rooms and lounges. Furthermore, the applicant’s English language proficiency and serving back in a peripheral region showed a remarkably high rank among other factors, shedding some light on the importance of these factor to be further evaluated. Finally, the applicant’s presence on social media platforms is one of the factors evaluated by the PDs, which showed a low mean for both the content of social media accounts and being active. This result is almost consistent with the ER study, where the social media account was at the bottom of the priority list as one of the least crucial factors [ 6 , 8 ].

Looking from another perspective by assessing the significant differences in the importance of factors based on the demographic data of the PDs. Regarding the gender of the PDs, there was no significant difference across all factors except for the LOR, in which the female PDs believed it to be more important than male PDs. There was also a significant difference in the importance of LOR between junior PDs who preferred it more than senior PDs. No significant differences were found in the importance of the remaining factors between the current and previous PD. To our best knowledge, there are no studies that have studied the association between the PDs’ demographic characteristics (such as age and gender) the reported factors, making the findings mentioned above unique to this study.

Strengths and limitations

Despite the important findings reported by this study, it still has a few limitations. Firstly, despite the high number of participants compared to other studies, the majority were former PDs which can be postulated that they are not fully updated about the latest regulations related to the application process or the continuous change of the selection criteria. Also, other members of the Pediatric Program, not only PDs, could have been involved in the study to gain a more comprehensive image. Secondly, the geographic distribution of the PDs was not equal, e.g. the Southern Region was represented by only one participant. Finally, using of online survey and nonrandom sampling method limit the generalizability of the study findings.

SMLE score, services and electives, and research potential were the most important factors considered by Pediatric PDs for selection of candidates. Variability of the opinions and the points of selection that could vary by personal or demographic factors call for constructing a unified standardized form for valid selection criteria to guide PDs, ultimately contributing to improving the pediatric residency selection process in KSA and ensuring that the best candidates become future pediatricians. Policies should also be improved to help prospective candidates to join elective activities. These findings can help prospective applicants to improve their qualifications and training experience as well as to self-analyze their points of strengths and weaknesses to expand their chance of acceptance. Further in depths qualitative studies are needed to understand the PDs’ views, perspectives and experiences and factors standing behind their perceptions and choices. Similar studies are needed for other specialties with an emphasis on including comparison of the factors based on the PDs demographic and personal characteristics.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Curriculum vitae

Emergency medicine

Grade point average

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Letter of recommendation

• Program directors

Saudi Commission for Health Specialties

Saudi Medical Licensing Exam

General Authority for Statistics. Population estimates in the midyear of 2021 Riyadh General Authority for Statistics; [cited 2024 February 20th]. https://www.stats.gov.sa/sites/default/files/POP SEM2021E.pdf

Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Statistics Washington ERAS. DC: Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC); 2022 [cited 2024 February 20th]. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/data/eras-statistics-data

AlSohime F. Research involvement and obstacles among trainees enrolled in a pediatric residency program in Saudi Arabia. Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2018;5(3):88–91.

Article   Google Scholar  

AlEnezi S, AlHarbi A. Saudi Board pediatric curriculum 2014 [cited 2024 February 20th]. https://scfhs.org.sa/sites/default/files/2022-01/Pediatric Curricula.pdf

Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS). Training programs: applying to postgraduate programs 2022 [cited 2024 February 19th]. https://scfhs.org.sa/en/training?tid=29&dtid=43&title_op=contains&title_po_prog=&page=16

Mardan QNMS, Alamari NA, Alzahrani HM, Almarghoub MA, Al Saud NA, Alqahtani MS. The ideal applicant to the Saudi plastic surgery residency program. Plast Reconstr Surg Global Open. 2021;9(2).

Alyami FA, Almuhaideb MA, Alzahrani MA, Althunayan AM, Almannie RM. Survey of Saudi urology program directors: what do you look for in a candidate? Urol Annals. 2021;13(3):272.

Alhalimi AA, Almulhim KN. The ideal applicant to emergency medicine residency programs in Saudi Arabia; Program directors’ view. Front Emerg Med. 2022;6(4):e50–e.

Google Scholar  

Niburski K, Buu N. Criteria for selection to anesthesia residency programs: a survey of Canadian anesthesia program directors. Can Med Educ J. 2021;12(4):89–97.

Poirier MP, Pruitt CW. Factors used by pediatric emergency medicine program directors to select their fellows. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2003;19(3):157–61.

Hunter MM, Patocka C. What are the personality types among emergency medicine physicians? Cureus. 2021;13(5):e14959.

Ross CA, Leichner P. Criteria for selecting residents: a reassessment. Can J Psychiatry. 1984;29(8):681–6.

Rehman SU, Nietert PJ, Cope DW, Kilpatrick AO. What to wear today? Effect of doctor’s attire on the trust and confidence of patients. Am J Med. 2005;118(11):1279–86.

Benzon HA, De Oliveira GS Jr, Jagannathan N, Suresh S. Selection of subspecialty fellows in anesthesia for pediatric anesthesia: a national survey of program directors in the United States. Pediatr Anesth. 2015;25(5):487–91.

Marwan Y, Waly F, Algarni N, Addar A, Saran N, Snell L. The role of letters of recommendation in the selection process of surgical residents in Canada: a national survey of program directors. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(4):762–7.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the program directors for participating in our study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abdulrahman Alhaqbani, Sulaiman Alayed, Khaled Almutairi, Rayan Alotaibi, Fahad Aljuraibah, Khaled Alsager & Hamad Alkhalaf

King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Department of Pediatrics, Ministry of the National Guard - Health affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Fahad Aljuraibah, Khaled Alsager & Hamad Alkhalaf

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AA generated the research idea. All authors participated in modifying the survey and writing the proposal and the manuscript. HA was responsible for data collection. AA, SA were responsible for the data analysis. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamad Alkhalaf .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of KAIMRC (King Abdullah International Medical Research Center), and the institutional review board (IRB) number was (IRB/2169/22). Informed consent was obtained from all the participants.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Alhaqbani, A., Alayed, S., Almutairi, K. et al. Factors influencing the choice of pediatric resident: program directors perspective in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ 24 , 956 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05926-w

Download citation

Received : 21 October 2023

Accepted : 19 August 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05926-w

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

• Pediatric program
• Influencing factors
• Saudi Arabia

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]

The University of Chicago The Law School

Innovation clinic—significant achievements for 2023-24.

The Innovation Clinic continued its track record of success during the 2023-2024 school year, facing unprecedented demand for our pro bono services as our reputation for providing high caliber transactional and regulatory representation spread. The overwhelming number of assistance requests we received from the University of Chicago, City of Chicago, and even national startup and venture capital communities enabled our students to cherry-pick the most interesting, pedagogically valuable assignments offered to them. Our focus on serving startups, rather than all small- to medium-sized businesses, and our specialization in the needs and considerations that these companies have, which differ substantially from the needs of more traditional small businesses, has proven to be a strong differentiator for the program both in terms of business development and prospective and current student interest, as has our further focus on tackling idiosyncratic, complex regulatory challenges for first-of-their kind startups. We are also beginning to enjoy more long-term relationships with clients who repeatedly engage us for multiple projects over the course of a year or more as their legal needs develop.

This year’s twelve students completed over twenty projects and represented clients in a very broad range of industries: mental health and wellbeing, content creation, medical education, biotech and drug discovery, chemistry, food and beverage, art, personal finance, renewable energy, fintech, consumer products and services, artificial intelligence (“AI”), and others. The matters that the students handled gave them an unparalleled view into the emerging companies and venture capital space, at a level of complexity and agency that most junior lawyers will not experience until several years into their careers.

Representative Engagements

While the Innovation Clinic’s engagements are highly confidential and cannot be described in detail, a high-level description of a representative sample of projects undertaken by the Innovation Clinic this year includes:

Transactional/Commercial Work

• A previous client developing a symptom-tracking wellness app for chronic disease sufferers engaged the Innovation Clinic again, this time to restructure its cap table by moving one founder’s interest in the company to a foreign holding company and subjecting the holding company to appropriate protections in favor of the startup.
• Another client with whom the Innovation Clinic had already worked several times engaged us for several new projects, including (1) restructuring their cap table and issuing equity to an additional, new founder, (2) drafting several different forms of license agreements that the company could use when generating content for the platform, covering situations in which the company would license existing content from other providers, jointly develop new content together with contractors or specialists that would then be jointly owned by all creators, or commission contractors to make content solely owned by the company, (3) drafting simple agreements for future equity (“Safes”) for the company to use in its seed stage fundraising round, and (4) drafting terms of service and a privacy policy for the platform.
• Yet another repeat client, an internet platform that supports independent artists by creating short films featuring the artists to promote their work and facilitates sales of the artists’ art through its platform, retained us this year to draft a form of independent contractor agreement that could be used when the company hires artists to be featured in content that the company’s Fortune 500 brand partners commission from the company, and to create capsule art collections that could be sold by these Fortune 500 brand partners in conjunction with the content promotion.
• We worked with a platform using AI to accelerate the Investigational New Drug (IND) approval and application process to draft a form of license agreement for use with its customers and an NDA for prospective investors.
• A novel personal finance platform for young, high-earning individuals engaged the Innovation Clinic to form an entity for the platform, including helping the founders to negotiate a deal among them with respect to roles and equity, terms that the equity would be subject to, and other post-incorporation matters, as well as to draft terms of service and a privacy policy for the platform.
• Students also formed an entity for a biotech therapeutics company founded by University of Chicago faculty members and an AI-powered legal billing management platform founded by University of Chicago students.
• A founder the Innovation Clinic had represented in connection with one venture engaged us on behalf of his other venture team to draft an equity incentive plan for the company as well as other required implementing documentation. His venture with which we previously worked also engaged us this year to draft Safes to be used with over twenty investors in a seed financing round.

More information regarding other types of transactional projects that we typically take on can be found here .

Regulatory Research and Advice

• A team of Innovation Clinic students invested a substantial portion of our regulatory time this year performing highly detailed and complicated research into public utilities laws of several states to advise a groundbreaking renewable energy technology company as to how its product might be regulated in these states and its clearest path to market. This project involved a review of not only the relevant state statutes but also an analysis of the interplay between state and federal statutes as it relates to public utilities law, the administrative codes of the relevant state executive branch agencies, and binding and non-binding administrative orders, decisions and guidance from such agencies in other contexts that could shed light on how such states would regulate this never-before-seen product that their laws clearly never contemplated could exist. The highly varied approach to utilities regulation in all states examined led to a nuanced set of analysis and recommendations for the client.
• In another significant research project, a separate team of Innovation Clinic students undertook a comprehensive review of all settlement orders and court decisions related to actions brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for violations of the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, as well as selected relevant settlement orders, court decisions, and other formal and informal guidance documents related to actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission for violations of the prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, to assemble a playbook for a fintech company regarding compliance. This playbook, which distilled very complicated, voluminous legal decisions and concepts into a series of bullet points with clear, easy-to-follow rules and best practices, designed to be distributed to non-lawyers in many different facets of this business, covered all aspects of operations that could subject a company like this one to liability under the laws examined, including with respect to asset purchase transactions, marketing and consumer onboarding, usage of certain terms of art in advertising, disclosure requirements, fee structures, communications with customers, legal documentation requirements, customer service and support, debt collection practices, arrangements with third parties who act on the company’s behalf, and more.

Miscellaneous

• Last year’s students built upon the Innovation Clinic’s progress in shaping the rules promulgated by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) pursuant to the Corporate Transparency Act to create a client alert summarizing the final rule, its impact on startups, and what startups need to know in order to comply. When FinCEN issued additional guidance with respect to that final rule and changed portions of the final rule including timelines for compliance, this year’s students updated the alert, then distributed it to current and former clients to notify them of the need to comply. The final bulletin is available here .
• In furtherance of that work, additional Innovation Clinic students this year analyzed the impact of the final rule not just on the Innovation Clinic’s clients but also its impact on the Innovation Clinic, and how the Innovation Clinic should change its practices to ensure compliance and minimize risk to the Innovation Clinic. This also involved putting together a comprehensive filing guide for companies that are ready to file their certificates of incorporation to show them procedurally how to do so and explain the choices they must make during the filing process, so that the Innovation Clinic would not be involved in directing or controlling the filings and thus would not be considered a “company applicant” on any client’s Corporate Transparency Act filings with FinCEN.
• The Innovation Clinic also began producing thought leadership pieces regarding AI, leveraging our distinct and uniquely University of Chicago expertise in structuring early-stage companies and analyzing complex regulatory issues with a law and economics lens to add our voice to those speaking on this important topic. One student wrote about whether non-profits are really the most desirable form of entity for mitigating risks associated with AI development, and another team of students prepared an analysis of the EU’s AI Act, comparing it to the Executive Order on AI from President Biden, and recommended a path forward for an AI regulatory environment in the United States. Both pieces can be found here , with more to come!

Innovation Trek

Thanks to another generous gift from Douglas Clark, ’89, and managing partner of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, we were able to operationalize the second Innovation Trek over Spring Break 2024. The Innovation Trek provides University of Chicago Law School students with a rare opportunity to explore the innovation and venture capital ecosystem in its epicenter, Silicon Valley. The program enables participating students to learn from business and legal experts in a variety of different industries and roles within the ecosystem to see how the law and economics principles that students learn about in the classroom play out in the real world, and facilitates meaningful connections between alumni, students, and other speakers who are leaders in their fields. This year, we took twenty-three students (as opposed to twelve during the first Trek) and expanded the offering to include not just Innovation Clinic students but also interested students from our JD/MBA Program and Doctoroff Business Leadership Program. We also enjoyed four jam-packed days in Silicon Valley, expanding the trip from the two and a half days that we spent in the Bay Area during our 2022 Trek.

The substantive sessions of the Trek were varied and impactful, and enabled in no small part thanks to substantial contributions from numerous alumni of the Law School. Students were fortunate to visit Coinbase’s Mountain View headquarters to learn from legal leaders at the company on all things Coinbase, crypto, and in-house, Plug & Play Tech Center’s Sunnyvale location to learn more about its investment thesis and accelerator programming, and Google’s Moonshot Factory, X, where we heard from lawyers at a number of different Alphabet companies about their lives as in-house counsel and the varied roles that in-house lawyers can have. We were also hosted by Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati and Fenwick & West LLP where we held sessions featuring lawyers from those firms, alumni from within and outside of those firms, and non-lawyer industry experts on topics such as artificial intelligence, climate tech and renewables, intellectual property, biotech, investing in Silicon Valley, and growth stage companies, and general advice on career trajectories and strategies. We further held a young alumni roundtable, where our students got to speak with alumni who graduated in the past five years for intimate, candid discussions about life as junior associates. In total, our students heard from more than forty speakers, including over twenty University of Chicago alumni from various divisions.

The Trek didn’t stop with education, though. Throughout the week students also had the opportunity to network with speakers to learn more from them outside the confines of panel presentations and to grow their networks. We had a networking dinner with Kirkland & Ellis, a closing dinner with all Trek participants, and for the first time hosted an event for admitted students, Trek participants, and alumni to come together to share experiences and recruit the next generation of Law School students. Several speakers and students stayed in touch following the Trek, and this resulted not just in meaningful relationships but also in employment for some students who attended.

More information on the purposes of the Trek is available here , the full itinerary is available here , and one student participant’s story describing her reflections on and descriptions of her experience on the Trek is available here .

The Innovation Clinic is grateful to all of its clients for continuing to provide its students with challenging, high-quality legal work, and to the many alumni who engage with us for providing an irreplaceable client pipeline and for sharing their time and energy with our students. Our clients are breaking the mold and bringing innovations to market that will improve the lives of people around the world in numerous ways. We are glad to aid in their success in any way that we can. We look forward to another productive year in 2024-2025!