Taking a complexity perspective.
The first paper in this series 17 outlines aspects of complexity associated with complex interventions and health systems that can potentially be explored by different types of evidence, including synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Petticrew et al 17 distinguish between a complex interventions perspective and a complex systems perspective. A complex interventions perspective defines interventions as having “implicit conceptual boundaries, representing a flexible, but common set of practices, often linked by an explicit or implicit theory about how they work”. A complex systems perspective differs in that “ complexity arises from the relationships and interactions between a system’s agents (eg, people, or groups that interact with each other and their environment), and its context. A system perspective conceives the intervention as being part of the system, and emphasises changes and interconnections within the system itself”. Aspects of complexity associated with implementation of complex interventions in health systems that could potentially be addressed with a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence are summarised in table 2 . Another paper in the series outlines criteria used in a new evidence to decision framework for making decisions about complex interventions implemented in complex systems, against which the need for quantitative and qualitative evidence can be mapped. 16 A further paper 18 that explores how context is dealt with in guidelines and reviews taking a complexity perspective also recommends using both quantitative and qualitative evidence to better understand context as a source of complexity. Mixed-method syntheses of quantitative and qualitative evidence can also help with understanding of whether there has been theory failure and or implementation failure. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group provide additional guidance on exploring implementation and theory failure that can be adapted to address aspects of complexity of complex interventions when implemented in health systems. 19
Health-system complexity-related questions that a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence could address (derived from Petticrew et al 17 )
Aspect of complexity of interest | Examples of potential research question(s) that a synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence could address | Types of studies or data that could contribute to a review of qualitative and quantitative evidence |
What ‘is’ the system? How can it be described? | What are the main influences on the health problem? How are they created and maintained? How do these influences interconnect? Where might one intervene in the system? | Quantitative: previous systematic reviews of the causes of the problem); epidemiological studies (eg, cohort studies examining risk factors of obesity); network analysis studies showing the nature of social and other systems Qualitative data: theoretical papers; policy documents |
Interactions of interventions with context and adaptation | Qualitative: (1) eg, qualitative studies; case studies Quantitative: (2) trials or other effectiveness studies from different contexts; multicentre trials, with stratified reporting of findings; other quantitative studies that provide evidence of moderating effects of context | |
System adaptivity (how does the system change?) | (How) does the system change when the intervention is introduced? Which aspects of the system are affected? Does this potentiate or dampen its effects? | Quantitative: longitudinal data; possibly historical data; effectiveness studies providing evidence of differential effects across different contexts; system modelling (eg, agent-based modelling) Qualitative: qualitative studies; case studies |
Emergent properties | What are the effects (anticipated and unanticipated) which follow from this system change? | Quantitative: prospective quantitative evaluations; retrospective studies (eg, case–control studies, surveys) may also help identify less common effects; dose–response evaluations of impacts at aggregate level in individual studies or across studies included with systematic reviews (see suggested examples) Qualitative: qualitative studies |
Positive (reinforcing) and negative (balancing) feedback loops | What explains change in the effectiveness of the intervention over time? Are the effects of an intervention are damped/suppressed by other aspects of the system (eg, contextual influences?) | Quantitative: studies of moderators of effectiveness; long-term longitudinal studies Qualitative: studies of factors that enable or inhibit implementation of interventions |
Multiple (health and non-health) outcomes | What changes in processes and outcomes follow the introduction of this system change? At what levels in the system are they experienced? | Quantitative: studies tracking change in the system over time Qualitative: studies exploring effects of the change in individuals, families, communities (including equity considerations and factors that affect engagement and participation in change) |
It may not be apparent which aspects of complexity or which elements of the complex intervention or health system can be explored in a guideline process, or whether combining qualitative and quantitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis will be useful, until the available evidence is scoped and mapped. 17 20 A more extensive lead in phase is typically required to scope the available evidence, engage with stakeholders and to refine the review parameters and questions that can then be mapped against potential review designs and methods of synthesis. 20 At the scoping stage, it is also common to decide on a theoretical perspective 21 or undertake further work to refine a theoretical perspective. 22 This is also the stage to begin articulating the programme theory of the complex intervention that may be further developed to refine an understanding of complexity and show how the intervention is implemented in and impacts on the wider health system. 17 23 24 In practice, this process can be lengthy, iterative and fluid with multiple revisions to the review scope, often developing and adapting a logic model 17 as the available evidence becomes known and the potential to incorporate different types of review designs and syntheses of quantitative and qualitative evidence becomes better understood. 25 Further questions, propositions or hypotheses may emerge as the reviews progress and therefore the protocols generally need to be developed iteratively over time rather than a priori.
Following a scoping exercise and definition of key questions, the next step in the guideline development process is to identify existing or commission new systematic reviews to locate and summarise the best available evidence in relation to each question. For example, case study 2, ‘Optimising health worker roles for maternal and newborn health through task shifting’, included quantitative reviews that did and did not take an additional complexity perspective, and qualitative evidence syntheses that were able to explain how specific elements of complexity impacted on intervention outcomes within the wider health system. Further understanding of health system complexity was facilitated through the conduct of additional country-level case studies that contributed to an overall understanding of what worked and what happened when lay health worker interventions were implemented. See table 1 online supplementary file 2 .
There are a few existing examples, which we draw on in this paper, but integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis is relatively uncommon in a guideline process. Box 2 includes a set of key questions that guideline developers and review authors contemplating combining quantitative and qualitative evidence in mixed-methods design might ask. Subsequent sections provide more information and signposting to further reading to help address these key questions.
Compound questions requiring both quantitative and qualitative evidence?
Questions requiring mixed-methods studies?
Separate quantitative and qualitative questions?
Separate quantitative and qualitative research studies?
Related quantitative and qualitative research studies?
Mixed-methods studies?
Quantitative unpublished data and/or qualitative unpublished data, eg, narrative survey data?
Throughout the review?
Following separate reviews?
At the question point?
At the synthesis point?
At the evidence to recommendations stage?
Or a combination?
Narrative synthesis or summary?
Quantitising approach, eg, frequency analysis?
Qualitising approach, eg, thematic synthesis?
Tabulation?
Logic model?
Conceptual model/framework?
Graphical approach?
Petticrew et al 17 define the different aspects of complexity and examples of complexity-related questions that can potentially be explored in guidelines and systematic reviews taking a complexity perspective. Relevant aspects of complexity outlined by Petticrew et al 17 are summarised in table 2 below, together with the corresponding questions that could be addressed in a synthesis combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. Importantly, the aspects of complexity and their associated concepts of interest have however yet to be translated fully in primary health research or systematic reviews. There are few known examples where selected complexity concepts have been used to analyse or reanalyse a primary intervention study. Most notable is Chandler et al 26 who specifically set out to identify and translate a set of relevant complexity theory concepts for application in health systems research. Chandler then reanalysed a trial process evaluation using selected complexity theory concepts to better understand the complex causal pathway in the health system that explains some aspects of complexity in table 2 .
Rehfeuss et al 16 also recommends upfront consideration of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision criteria when planning a guideline and formulating questions. The criteria reflect WHO norms and values and take account of a complexity perspective. The framework can be used by guideline development groups as a menu to decide which criteria to prioritise, and which study types and synthesis methods can be used to collect evidence for each criterion. Many of the criteria and their related questions can be addressed using a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence: the balance of benefits and harms, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, societal implications and feasibility (see table 3 ). Similar aspects in the DECIDE framework 15 could also be addressed using synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence.
Integrate evidence to decision framework criteria, example questions and types of studies to potentially address these questions (derived from Rehfeuss et al 16 )
Domains of the WHO-INTEGRATE EtD framework | Examples of potential research question(s) that a synthesis of qualitative and/or quantitative evidence could address | Types of studies that could contribute to a review of qualitative and quantitative evidence |
Balance of benefits and harms | To what extent do patients/beneficiaries different health outcomes? | Qualitative: studies of views and experiences Quantitative: Questionnaire surveys |
Human rights and sociocultural acceptability | Is the intervention to patients/beneficiaries as well as to those implementing it? To what extent do patients/beneficiaries different non-health outcomes? How does the intervention affect an individual’s, population group’s or organisation’s , that is, their ability to make a competent, informed and voluntary decision? | Qualitative: discourse analysis, qualitative studies (ideally longitudinal to examine changes over time) Quantitative: pro et contra analysis, discrete choice experiments, longitudinal quantitative studies (to examine changes over time), cross-sectional studies Mixed-method studies; case studies |
Health equity, equality and non-discrimination | How is the intervention for individuals, households or communities? How —in terms of physical as well as informational access—is the intervention across different population groups? | Qualitative: studies of views and experiences Quantitative: cross-sectional or longitudinal observational studies, discrete choice experiments, health expenditure studies; health system barrier studies, cross-sectional or longitudinal observational studies, discrete choice experiments, ethical analysis, GIS-based studies |
Societal implications | What is the of the intervention: are there features of the intervention that increase or reduce stigma and that lead to social consequences? Does the intervention enhance or limit social goals, such as education, social cohesion and the attainment of various human rights beyond health? Does it change social norms at individual or population level? What is the of the intervention? Does it contribute to or limit the achievement of goals to protect the environment and efforts to mitigate or adapt to climate change? | Qualitative: studies of views and experiences Quantitative: RCTs, quasi-experimental studies, comparative observational studies, longitudinal implementation studies, case studies, power analyses, environmental impact assessments, modelling studies |
Feasibility and health system considerations | Are there any that impact on implementation of the intervention? How might , such as past decisions and strategic considerations, positively or negatively impact the implementation of the intervention? How does the intervention ? Is it likely to fit well or not, is it likely to impact on it in positive or negative ways? How does the intervention interact with the need for and usage of the existing , at national and subnational levels? How does the intervention interact with the need for and usage of the as well as other relevant infrastructure, at national and subnational levels? | Non-research: policy and regulatory frameworks Qualitative: studies of views and experiences Mixed-method: health systems research, situation analysis, case studies Quantitative: cross-sectional studies |
GIS, Geographical Information System; RCT, randomised controlled trial.
Questions can serve as an ‘anchor’ by articulating the specific aspects of complexity to be explored (eg, Is successful implementation of the intervention context dependent?). 27 Anchor questions such as “How does intervention x impact on socioeconomic inequalities in health behaviour/outcome x” are the kind of health system question that requires a synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative evidence and hence a mixed-method synthesis. Quantitative evidence can quantify the difference in effect, but does not answer the question of how . The ‘how’ question can be partly answered with quantitative and qualitative evidence. For example, quantitative evidence may reveal where socioeconomic status and inequality emerges in the health system (an emergent property) by exploring questions such as “ Does patterning emerge during uptake because fewer people from certain groups come into contact with an intervention in the first place? ” or “ are people from certain backgrounds more likely to drop out, or to maintain effects beyond an intervention differently? ” Qualitative evidence may help understand the reasons behind all of these mechanisms. Alternatively, questions can act as ‘compasses’ where a question sets out a starting point from which to explore further and to potentially ask further questions or develop propositions or hypotheses to explore through a complexity perspective (eg, What factors enhance or hinder implementation?). 27 Other papers in this series provide further guidance on developing questions for qualitative evidence syntheses and guidance on question formulation. 14 28
For anchor and compass questions, additional application of a theory (eg, complexity theory) can help focus evidence synthesis and presentation to explore and explain complexity issues. 17 21 Development of a review specific logic model(s) can help to further refine an initial understanding of any complexity-related issues of interest associated with a specific intervention, and if appropriate the health system or section of the health system within which to contextualise the review question and analyse data. 17 23–25 Specific tools are available to help clarify context and complex interventions. 17 18
If a complexity perspective, and certain criteria within evidence to decision frameworks, is deemed relevant and desirable by guideline developers, it is only possible to pursue a complexity perspective if the evidence is available. Careful scoping using knowledge maps or scoping reviews will help inform development of questions that are answerable with available evidence. 20 If evidence of effect is not available, then a different approach to develop questions leading to a more general narrative understanding of what happened when complex interventions were implemented in a health system will be required (such as in case study 3—risk communication guideline). This should not mean that the original questions developed for which no evidence was found when scoping the literature were not important. An important function of creating a knowledge map is also to identify gaps to inform a future research agenda.
Table 2 and online supplementary files 1–3 outline examples of questions in the three case studies, which were all ‘COMPASS’ questions for the qualitative evidence syntheses.
The shift towards integration of qualitative and quantitative evidence in primary research has, in recent years, begun to be mirrored within research synthesis. 29–31 The natural extension to undertaking quantitative or qualitative reviews has been the development of methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence within reviews, and within the guideline process using evidence to decision-frameworks. Advocating the integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence assumes a complementarity between research methodologies, and a need for both types of evidence to inform policy and practice. Below, we briefly outline the current designs for integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence within a mixed-method review or synthesis.
One of the early approaches to integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence detailed by Sandelowski et al 32 advocated three basic review designs: segregated, integrated and contingent designs, which have been further developed by Heyvaert et al 33 ( box 3 ).
Segregated design.
Conventional separate distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches based on the assumption they are different entities and should be treated separately; can be distinguished from each other; their findings warrant separate analyses and syntheses. Ultimately, the separate synthesis results can themselves be synthesised.
The methodological differences between qualitative and quantitative studies are minimised as both are viewed as producing findings that can be readily synthesised into one another because they address the same research purposed and questions. Transformation involves either turning qualitative data into quantitative (quantitising) or quantitative findings are turned into qualitative (qualitising) to facilitate their integration.
Takes a cyclical approach to synthesis, with the findings from one synthesis informing the focus of the next synthesis, until all the research objectives have been addressed. Studies are not necessarily grouped and categorised as qualitative or quantitative.
A recent review of more than 400 systematic reviews 34 combining quantitative and qualitative evidence identified two main synthesis designs—convergent and sequential. In a convergent design, qualitative and quantitative evidence is collated and analysed in a parallel or complementary manner, whereas in a sequential synthesis, the collation and analysis of quantitative and qualitative evidence takes place in a sequence with one synthesis informing the other ( box 4 ). 6 These designs can be seen to build on the work of Sandelowski et al , 32 35 particularly in relation to the transformation of data from qualitative to quantitative (and vice versa) and the sequential synthesis design, with a cyclical approach to reviewing that evokes Sandelowski’s contingent design.
Convergent synthesis design.
Qualitative and quantitative research is collected and analysed at the same time in a parallel or complementary manner. Integration can occur at three points:
a. Data-based convergent synthesis design
All included studies are analysed using the same methods and results presented together. As only one synthesis method is used, data transformation occurs (qualitised or quantised). Usually addressed one review question.
b. Results-based convergent synthesis design
Qualitative and quantitative data are analysed and presented separately but integrated using a further synthesis method; eg, narratively, tables, matrices or reanalysing evidence. The results of both syntheses are combined in a third synthesis. Usually addresses an overall review question with subquestions.
c. Parallel-results convergent synthesis design
Qualitative and quantitative data are analysed and presented separately with integration occurring in the interpretation of results in the discussion section. Usually addresses two or more complimentary review questions.
A two-phase approach, data collection and analysis of one type of evidence (eg, qualitative), occurs after and is informed by the collection and analysis of the other type (eg, quantitative). Usually addresses an overall question with subquestions with both syntheses complementing each other.
The three case studies ( table 1 , online supplementary files 1–3 ) illustrate the diverse combination of review designs and synthesis methods that were considered the most appropriate for specific guidelines.
In this section, we draw on examples where specific review designs and methods have been or can be used to explore selected aspects of complexity in guidelines or systematic reviews. We also identify other review methods that could potentially be used to explore aspects of complexity. Of particular note, we could not find any specific examples of systematic methods to synthesise highly diverse research designs as advocated by Petticrew et al 17 and summarised in tables 2 and 3 . For example, we could not find examples of methods to synthesise qualitative studies, case studies, quantitative longitudinal data, possibly historical data, effectiveness studies providing evidence of differential effects across different contexts, and system modelling studies (eg, agent-based modelling) to explore system adaptivity.
There are different ways that quantitative and qualitative evidence can be integrated into a review and then into a guideline development process. In practice, some methods enable integration of different types of evidence in a single synthesis, while in other methods, the single systematic review may include a series of stand-alone reviews or syntheses that are then combined in a cross-study synthesis. Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of different review designs and methods and guidance on their applicability for a guideline process. Designs and methods that have already been used in WHO guideline development are described in part A of the table. Part B outlines a design and method that can be used in a guideline process, and part C covers those that have the potential to integrate quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method evidence in a single review design (such as meta-narrative reviews and Bayesian syntheses), but their application in a guideline context has yet to be demonstrated.
Depending on the review design (see boxes 3 and 4 ), integration can potentially take place at a review team and design level, and more commonly at several key points of the review or guideline process. The following sections outline potential points of integration and associated practical considerations when integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in guideline development.
In a guideline process, it is common for syntheses of quantitative and qualitative evidence to be done separately by different teams and then to integrate the evidence. A practical consideration relates to the organisation, composition and expertise of the review teams and ways of working. If the quantitative and qualitative reviews are being conducted separately and then brought together by the same team members, who are equally comfortable operating within both paradigms, then a consistent approach across both paradigms becomes possible. If, however, a team is being split between the quantitative and qualitative reviews, then the strengths of specialisation can be harnessed, for example, in quality assessment or synthesis. Optimally, at least one, if not more, of the team members should be involved in both quantitative and qualitative reviews to offer the possibility of making connexions throughout the review and not simply at re-agreed junctures. This mirrors O’Cathain’s conclusion that mixed-methods primary research tends to work only when there is a principal investigator who values and is able to oversee integration. 9 10 While the above decisions have been articulated in the context of two types of evidence, variously quantitative and qualitative, they equally apply when considering how to handle studies reporting a mixed-method study design, where data are usually disaggregated into quantitative and qualitative for the purposes of synthesis (see case study 3—risk communication in humanitarian disasters).
Clearly specified key question(s), derived from a scoping or consultation exercise, will make it clear if quantitative and qualitative evidence is required in a guideline development process and which aspects will be addressed by which types of evidence. For the remaining stages of the process, as documented below, a review team faces challenges as to whether to handle each type of evidence separately, regardless of whether sequentially or in parallel, with a view to joining the two products on completion or to attempt integration throughout the review process. In each case, the underlying choice is of efficiencies and potential comparability vs sensitivity to the underlying paradigm.
Once key questions are clearly defined, the guideline development group typically needs to consider whether to conduct a single sensitive search to address all potential subtopics (lumping) or whether to conduct specific searches for each subtopic (splitting). 36 A related consideration is whether to search separately for qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method evidence ‘streams’ or whether to conduct a single search and then identify specific study types at the subsequent sifting stage. These two considerations often mean a trade-off between a single search process involving very large numbers of records or a more protracted search process retrieving smaller numbers of records. Both approaches have advantages and choice may depend on the respective availability of resources for searching and sifting.
Closely related to decisions around searching are considerations relating to screening and selecting studies for inclusion in a systematic review. An important consideration here is whether the review team will screen records for all review types, regardless of their subsequent involvement (‘altruistic sifting’), or specialise in screening for the study type with which they are most familiar. The risk of missing relevant reports might be minimised by whole team screening for empirical reports in the first instance and then coding them for a specific quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods report at a subsequent stage.
Within a guideline process, review teams may be more limited in their choice of instruments to assess methodological limitations of primary studies as there are mandatory requirements to use the Cochrane risk of bias tool 37 to feed into Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) 38 or to select from a small pool of qualitative appraisal instruments in order to apply GRADE; Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) 39 to assess the overall certainty or confidence in findings. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group has recently issued guidance on the selection of appraisal instruments and core assessment criteria. 40 The Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool, which is currently undergoing further development, offers a single quality assessment instrument for quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies. 41 Other options include using corresponding instruments from within the same ‘stable’, for example, using different Critical Appraisal Skills Programme instruments. 42 While using instruments developed by the same team or organisation may achieve a degree of epistemological consonance, benefits may come more from consistency of approach and reporting rather than from a shared view of quality. Alternatively, a more paradigm-sensitive approach would involve selecting the best instrument for each respective review while deferring challenges from later heterogeneity of reporting.
The way in which data and evidence are extracted from primary research studies for review will be influenced by the type of integrated synthesis being undertaken and the review purpose. Initially, decisions need to be made regarding the nature and type of data and evidence that are to be extracted from the included studies. Method-specific reporting guidelines 43 44 provide a good template as to what quantitative and qualitative data it is potentially possible to extract from different types of method-specific study reports, although in practice reporting quality varies. Online supplementary file 5 provides a hypothetical example of the different types of studies from which quantitative and qualitative evidence could potentially be extracted for synthesis.
The decisions around what data or evidence to extract will be guided by how ‘integrated’ the mixed-method review will be. For those reviews where the quantitative and qualitative findings of studies are synthesised separately and integrated at the point of findings (eg, segregated or contingent approaches or sequential synthesis design), separate data extraction approaches will likely be used.
Where integration occurs during the process of the review (eg, integrated approach or convergent synthesis design), an integrated approach to data extraction may be considered, depending on the purpose of the review. This may involve the use of a data extraction framework, the choice of which needs to be congruent with the approach to synthesis chosen for the review. 40 45 The integrative or theoretical framework may be decided on a priori if a pre-developed theoretical or conceptual framework is available in the literature. 27 The development of a framework may alternatively arise from the reading of the included studies, in relation to the purpose of the review, early in the process. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group provide further guidance on extraction of qualitative data, including use of software. 40
Relatively few synthesis methods start off being integrated from the beginning, and these methods have generally been subject to less testing and evaluation particularly in a guideline context (see table 1 ). A review design that started off being integrated from the beginning may be suitable for some guideline contexts (such as in case study 3—risk communication in humanitarian disasters—where there was little evidence of effect), but in general if there are sufficient trials then a separate systematic review and meta-analysis will be required for a guideline. Other papers in this series offer guidance on methods for synthesising quantitative 46 and qualitative evidence 14 in reviews that take a complexity perspective. Further guidance on integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in a systematic review is provided by the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. 19 27 29 40 47
It is highly likely (unless there are well-designed process evaluations) that the primary studies may not themselves seek to address the complexity-related questions required for a guideline process. In which case, review authors will need to configure the available evidence and transform the evidence through the synthesis process to produce explanations, propositions and hypotheses (ie, findings) that were not obvious at primary study level. It is important that guideline commissioners, developers and review authors are aware that specific methods are intended to produce a type of finding with a specific purpose (such as developing new theory in the case of meta-ethnography). 48 Case study 1 (antenatal care guideline) provides an example of how a meta-ethnography was used to develop a new theory as an end product, 48 49 as well as framework synthesis which produced descriptive and explanatory findings that were more easily incorporated into the guideline process. 27 The definitions ( box 5 ) may be helpful when defining the different types of findings.
Descriptive findings —qualitative evidence-driven translated descriptive themes that do not move beyond the primary studies.
Explanatory findings —may either be at a descriptive or theoretical level. At the descriptive level, qualitative evidence is used to explain phenomena observed in quantitative results, such as why implementation failed in specific circumstances. At the theoretical level, the transformed and interpreted findings that go beyond the primary studies can be used to explain the descriptive findings. The latter description is generally the accepted definition in the wider qualitative community.
Hypothetical or theoretical finding —qualitative evidence-driven transformed themes (or lines of argument) that go beyond the primary studies. Although similar, Thomas and Harden 56 make a distinction in the purposes between two types of theoretical findings: analytical themes and the product of meta-ethnographies, third-order interpretations. 48
Analytical themes are a product of interrogating descriptive themes by placing the synthesis within an external theoretical framework (such as the review question and subquestions) and are considered more appropriate when a specific review question is being addressed (eg, in a guideline or to inform policy). 56
Third-order interpretations come from translating studies into one another while preserving the original context and are more appropriate when a body of literature is being explored in and of itself with broader or emergent review questions. 48
A critical element of guideline development is the formulation of recommendations by the Guideline Development Group, and EtD frameworks help to facilitate this process. 16 The EtD framework can also be used as a mechanism to integrate and display quantitative and qualitative evidence and findings mapped against the EtD framework domains with hyperlinks to more detailed evidence summaries from contributing reviews (see table 1 ). It is commonly the EtD framework that enables the findings of the separate quantitative and qualitative reviews to be brought together in a guideline process. Specific challenges when populating the DECIDE evidence to decision framework 15 were noted in case study 3 (risk communication in humanitarian disasters) as there was an absence of intervention effect data and the interventions to communicate public health risks were context specific and varied. These problems would not, however, have been addressed by substitution of the DECIDE framework with the new INTEGRATE 16 evidence to decision framework. A d ifferent type of EtD framework needs to be developed for reviews that do not include sufficient evidence of intervention effect.
Mixed-method review and synthesis methods are generally the least developed of all systematic review methods. It is acknowledged that methods for combining quantitative and qualitative evidence are generally poorly articulated. 29 50 There are however some fairly well-established methods for using qualitative evidence to explore aspects of complexity (such as contextual, implementation and outcome complexity), which can be combined with evidence of effect (see sections A and B of table 1 ). 14 There are good examples of systematic reviews that use these methods to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence, and examples of guideline recommendations that were informed by evidence from both quantitative and qualitative reviews (eg, case studies 1–3). With the exception of case study 3 (risk communication), the quantitative and qualitative reviews for these specific guidelines have been conducted separately, and the findings subsequently brought together in an EtD framework to inform recommendations.
Other mixed-method review designs have potential to contribute to understanding of complex interventions and to explore aspects of wider health systems complexity but have not been sufficiently developed and tested for this specific purpose, or used in a guideline process (section C of table 1 ). Some methods such as meta-narrative reviews also explore different questions to those usually asked in a guideline process. Methods for processing (eg, quality appraisal) and synthesising the highly diverse evidence suggested in tables 2 and 3 that are required to explore specific aspects of health systems complexity (such as system adaptivity) and to populate some sections of the INTEGRATE EtD framework remain underdeveloped or in need of development.
In addition to the required methodological development mentioned above, there is no GRADE approach 38 for assessing confidence in findings developed from combined quantitative and qualitative evidence. Another paper in this series outlines how to deal with complexity and grading different types of quantitative evidence, 51 and the GRADE CERQual approach for qualitative findings is described elsewhere, 39 but both these approaches are applied to method-specific and not mixed-method findings. An unofficial adaptation of GRADE was used in the risk communication guideline that reported mixed-method findings. Nor is there a reporting guideline for mixed-method reviews, 47 and for now reports will need to conform to the relevant reporting requirements of the respective method-specific guideline. There is a need to further adapt and test DECIDE, 15 WHO-INTEGRATE 16 and other types of evidence to decision frameworks to accommodate evidence from mixed-method syntheses which do not set out to determine the statistical effects of interventions and in circumstances where there are no trials.
When conducting quantitative and qualitative reviews that will subsequently be combined, there are specific considerations for managing and integrating the different types of evidence throughout the review process. We have summarised different options for combining qualitative and quantitative evidence in mixed-method syntheses that guideline developers and systematic reviewers can choose from, as well as outlining the opportunities to integrate evidence at different stages of the review and guideline development process.
Review commissioners, authors and guideline developers generally have less experience of combining qualitative and evidence in mixed-methods reviews. In particular, there is a relatively small group of reviewers who are skilled at undertaking fully integrated mixed-method reviews. Commissioning additional qualitative and mixed-method reviews creates an additional cost. Large complex mixed-method reviews generally take more time to complete. Careful consideration needs to be given as to which guidelines would benefit most from additional qualitative and mixed-method syntheses. More training is required to develop capacity and there is a need to develop processes for preparing the guideline panel to consider and use mixed-method evidence in their decision-making.
This paper has presented how qualitative and quantitative evidence, combined in mixed-method reviews, can help understand aspects of complex interventions and the systems within which they are implemented. There are further opportunities to use these methods, and to further develop the methods, to look more widely at additional aspects of complexity. There is a range of review designs and synthesis methods to choose from depending on the question being asked or the questions that may emerge during the conduct of the synthesis. Additional methods need to be developed (or existing methods further adapted) in order to synthesise the full range of diverse evidence that is desirable to explore the complexity-related questions when complex interventions are implemented into health systems. We encourage review commissioners and authors, and guideline developers to consider using mixed-methods reviews and synthesis in guidelines and to report on their usefulness in the guideline development process.
Handling editor: Soumyadeep Bhaumik
Contributors: JN, AB, GM, KF, ÖT and ES drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to paper development and writing and agreed the final manuscript. Anayda Portela and Susan Norris from WHO managed the series. Helen Smith was series Editor. We thank all those who provided feedback on various iterations.
Funding: Funding provided by the World Health Organization Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health through grants received from the United States Agency for International Development and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.
Disclaimer: ÖT is a staff member of WHO. The author alone is responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of WHO.
Competing interests: No financial interests declared. JN, AB and ÖT have an intellectual interest in GRADE CERQual; and JN has an intellectual interest in the iCAT_SR tool.
Patient consent: Not required.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.
Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
This example of a quantitative research paper is designed to help students and other r esearchers who are learning how to write about their work. The reported research obs erves the behaviour of restaurant customers, and example paragraphs are combined with instructions for logical argumentation. Authors are encouraged to observe a traditional structure for organising quantitative research papers, to formulate research que stions, working hypotheses and investigative tools, to report results accurately and thor oughly, and to present thoughtful interpretation and logical discussion of evidence.
Journal of Foodservice
Christina Fjellström
Rohit Taraporewala
Noor Mustafa
FAST FOOD OBESITY 16
Princess Moon Galindez
Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing
Tajulurrus mohammad
Food industry, the world over, is witnessing unprecedented increase in the number of multinational enterprises. These multinational enterprises, when deciding to expand their operations to a new country, have to make a choice between following uniform business strategies as in their home country or modify their strategies to suit the host country socioeconomic and political environment. Given the economic cost of modification of business strategies, the choice has widespread implications for the sustainability of multinational enterprises. The present paper argues that this decision-making is particularly critical in the case of multinational food enterprises because of large scale variability in food habits across countries and even within a country. Drawing from case studies of three multinational food enterprises in India, the paper points out that, in order to operate successfully in their host countries, the multinational food enterprises must adopt Glocalized strategies in marketing, product development, advertisement etc.
Modern China Series,North American Business Press
Robert Tian
Food is an important aspect of social culture and has a close relationship with economic development. The Chinese food culture has the characteristics of inheritability and development, and throughout the history of Chinese food culture, it has maintained its momentum of development since its primitive society. Neither the change of dynasty nor the change of social system has had a profound influence on it, and the philosophy of supplying enough food to people and food being the top priority was very popular. Eating was a top priority for people in China. Long ago, Confucius said that the desire for food and sex is part of human nature. As such, in the Chinese culture food became the priority. Because of the attention to diet, Chinese people would, when they had leisure time or abundant raw materials, work out a variety of food. Chinese cooking is flexible, which is characterized by saying that there is no fixed taste and what is delicious is valued. The beauty of food is one of the important roots of Chinese aesthetics, which inspires people with the stimulation of eating. Triggering art inspiration is the inevitable result of Chinese food culture pursuing complete and beautiful color, fragrance, taste, shape, and utensils. It makes food culture a comprehensive art containing multiple cultural connotations of diet, diet mentality, beautiful utensils and etiquette, food enjoyment and eating. Chinese foods have not only exquisite craftsmanship and rich nutrition, but also elegant and graceful names, which are literary and romantic, poetic and fancy. Food functions to not only satiate people’s hunger; it has also become an integral aspect of life enjoyment, which represents an essential component of food anthropology. Food anthropologists stress that changes in people’s eating habits not only depend on the local food culture, which may be specific to a given region, but also varies with economic development in different regions. Food anthropology, as a sub branch of applied anthropology, adapts anthropological theories and methods to study food industry, food culture, food consumption and food commerce. Seminal work in this regard has been provided by scholars and consultants in the field of food anthropology. This book describes the anthropological studies on Chinese foodways, outlines the Chinese food anthropology basic theories and methods. Anthropology in China is still at its development stage in China, while food anthropology is just at its initial stages of development. Nevertheless, China’s economic and social development, especially in ethnic minority regions in Western China, needs the theoretical guidance of some disciplines, including food anthropology, economic anthropology and business anthropology. At the same time, it has provided opportunities to develop food anthropology with the Chinese characteristics. Therefore, when Chinese scholars are learning and adopting Western food anthropology theories and methodologies, they must innovate and develop the related theories and methodologies with Chinese characteristics, so that they can better serve the well-off of the entire society.
MUHAMMAD IMAD UD DIN
City & Community
Petra Kuppinger
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Golden Arches East: McDonald's in East …
Anuththara Wanaguru
Adrian Paul Padilla
Freya Higgins-Desbiolles , Gayathri Wijesinghe
Jeroen Struben
Harris Solomon
Divina Seming
AIMS Agriculture and Food
Giuseppe Sortino , Pietro Columba
Emmanuel Marillier
Anshul Garg
American Journal of Public Health
Janelle Gunn
Łukasz Korus
Asmaliyana Ghani
Denise Mainville
Dayangku Nurul Asyiqin
The 18 th Annual …
Anil Bilgihan
Celyrah B Castillo
Asian Journal of Tourism Research
Kathleen M Adams
A list of foundational research papers that every aspiring and practicing quant should read., why research papers.
Unlike many other disciplines within the umbrella of finance, quantitative finance tends to be very academic in nature . This means that a majority of the modern techniques and practices used within this field have arisen from innovations in research labs at universities and other academic institutions. Therefore, reading research papers that have been published by the premier quantitative finance universities is a worthwhile pursuit.
If you're just interested in finding out the most recent quant research papers that have been published you can find a great list of them on arxiv or srrn . However, if you're looking for a curated list of some of the most important quant finance research papers to start, that's what we'll cover in this article. We'll share the most seminal papers in the field, including those that introduced the French Fama model all the way to the Black Scholes model.
This paper covers the remarkable events that unfolded during the week of August 6th that shook up the hedge fund industry. During this week, many quantitative hedge funds experienced unprecedented losses, which could be attributed to their use of long/short equity strategies (the use of short-selling). During this week, there was hypothesized to be a sudden liquidation of a series of quantitative portfolios which in return caused increased pressure on the long/short strategies. Further research of this event revealed that systemic risk associated with the quant industry may be increasing over recent years.
In this paper, Fama reveals how leveraging size and book-to-market equity can capture the cross-sectional variation in average stock returns. This is demonstrated through the use of multiple linear regressions, which highlight that stock risks are multidimensional. The significance of this is that it can be leveraged by investors to understand how varying characteristics can be used to estimate a stock's expected return.
In this paper, Fama reveals a new financial model that aims to be an improvement on the three-factor model introduced in 1993. This model aims to capture size, value, quality, profitability, and investment patterns in average stock returns . The overall model not only better explains stock return but also decreases the unexplained variance of the predictions. While the model is an improvement over its predecessor, its minor flaw is that it fails to capture the low average returns on small stocks. Overall, this paper was very important because it gave future quants a framework for approaching average return modeling.
The Sharpe ratio is a popular metric used to evaluate the performance of a portfolio. In essence, the Sharpe ratio compares the return on investment with its underlying risk. In this paper, Lo analyzes the statistical distribution of Sharpe ratios to see whether they are being measured accurately. In doing so, Lo finds that the annual Sharpe ratio for a hedge fund can be overstated by as much as 65 percent because of autocorrelation with monthly returns. Furthermore, adjusting the calculation of the Sharpe ratio can significantly alter the rankings of various portfolio strategies.
This paper showcases one of the preliminary attempts at portfolio optimization . In it, Almgren and Chriss highlight the execution of portfolio transactions that aim to minimize volatility risk and transaction costs that arise from market impact. Portfolio transactions refer to transactions that move a portfolio from a given state to a new state over a defined period of time. This strategy is also commonly associated with minimizing Value at Risk (VAR) and maximizing the expected revenue of trading.
This paper first introduced the famous Black-Scholes model - a mathematical model for estimating the underlying price of an option based on other investment instruments and factors. The idea for this model comes from the observation that if options are being correctly priced, it should not be possible for long/short positions to be profitable. The model takes in five inputs: strike price, current stock price, time to expiration, risk-free rate, and volatility.
This paper introduced the GARCH model - a volatility estimator that factors in periods of high, low, open, and close prices in historical time series. One of the great aspects of this model is that it allows the user to factor in more real-world context when predicting the expected return for a financial instrument. Not only has this model been demonstrated to improve the accuracy of predictions in comparison to classical estimators, but has also been shown to have the smallest variance in its predictions.
Thanks for reading this article! You can check out our blog for more articles on quantitative finance topics. Also, if you're currently looking for jobs in quantitative finance make sure to check out OpenQuant .
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
Published on September 24, 2022 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on March 27, 2023.
The introduction to a research paper is where you set up your topic and approach for the reader. It has several key goals:
The introduction looks slightly different depending on whether your paper presents the results of original empirical research or constructs an argument by engaging with a variety of sources.
Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes
Step 1: introduce your topic, step 2: describe the background, step 3: establish your research problem, step 4: specify your objective(s), step 5: map out your paper, research paper introduction examples, frequently asked questions about the research paper introduction.
The first job of the introduction is to tell the reader what your topic is and why it’s interesting or important. This is generally accomplished with a strong opening hook.
The hook is a striking opening sentence that clearly conveys the relevance of your topic. Think of an interesting fact or statistic, a strong statement, a question, or a brief anecdote that will get the reader wondering about your topic.
For example, the following could be an effective hook for an argumentative paper about the environmental impact of cattle farming:
A more empirical paper investigating the relationship of Instagram use with body image issues in adolescent girls might use the following hook:
Don’t feel that your hook necessarily has to be deeply impressive or creative. Clarity and relevance are still more important than catchiness. The key thing is to guide the reader into your topic and situate your ideas.
The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:
This part of the introduction differs depending on what approach your paper is taking.
In a more argumentative paper, you’ll explore some general background here. In a more empirical paper, this is the place to review previous research and establish how yours fits in.
After you’ve caught your reader’s attention, specify a bit more, providing context and narrowing down your topic.
Provide only the most relevant background information. The introduction isn’t the place to get too in-depth; if more background is essential to your paper, it can appear in the body .
For a paper describing original research, you’ll instead provide an overview of the most relevant research that has already been conducted. This is a sort of miniature literature review —a sketch of the current state of research into your topic, boiled down to a few sentences.
This should be informed by genuine engagement with the literature. Your search can be less extensive than in a full literature review, but a clear sense of the relevant research is crucial to inform your own work.
Begin by establishing the kinds of research that have been done, and end with limitations or gaps in the research that you intend to respond to.
The next step is to clarify how your own research fits in and what problem it addresses.
In an argumentative research paper, you can simply state the problem you intend to discuss, and what is original or important about your argument.
In an empirical research paper, try to lead into the problem on the basis of your discussion of the literature. Think in terms of these questions:
You can make the connection between your problem and the existing research using phrases like the following.
Although has been studied in detail, insufficient attention has been paid to . | You will address a previously overlooked aspect of your topic. |
The implications of study deserve to be explored further. | You will build on something suggested by a previous study, exploring it in greater depth. |
It is generally assumed that . However, this paper suggests that … | You will depart from the consensus on your topic, establishing a new position. |
Now you’ll get into the specifics of what you intend to find out or express in your research paper.
The way you frame your research objectives varies. An argumentative paper presents a thesis statement, while an empirical paper generally poses a research question (sometimes with a hypothesis as to the answer).
The thesis statement expresses the position that the rest of the paper will present evidence and arguments for. It can be presented in one or two sentences, and should state your position clearly and directly, without providing specific arguments for it at this point.
The research question is the question you want to answer in an empirical research paper.
Present your research question clearly and directly, with a minimum of discussion at this point. The rest of the paper will be taken up with discussing and investigating this question; here you just need to express it.
A research question can be framed either directly or indirectly.
If your research involved testing hypotheses , these should be stated along with your research question. They are usually presented in the past tense, since the hypothesis will already have been tested by the time you are writing up your paper.
For example, the following hypothesis might respond to the research question above:
The final part of the introduction is often dedicated to a brief overview of the rest of the paper.
In a paper structured using the standard scientific “introduction, methods, results, discussion” format, this isn’t always necessary. But if your paper is structured in a less predictable way, it’s important to describe the shape of it for the reader.
If included, the overview should be concise, direct, and written in the present tense.
Full examples of research paper introductions are shown in the tabs below: one for an argumentative paper, the other for an empirical paper.
Are cows responsible for climate change? A recent study (RIVM, 2019) shows that cattle farmers account for two thirds of agricultural nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands. These emissions result from nitrogen in manure, which can degrade into ammonia and enter the atmosphere. The study’s calculations show that agriculture is the main source of nitrogen pollution, accounting for 46% of the country’s total emissions. By comparison, road traffic and households are responsible for 6.1% each, the industrial sector for 1%. While efforts are being made to mitigate these emissions, policymakers are reluctant to reckon with the scale of the problem. The approach presented here is a radical one, but commensurate with the issue. This paper argues that the Dutch government must stimulate and subsidize livestock farmers, especially cattle farmers, to transition to sustainable vegetable farming. It first establishes the inadequacy of current mitigation measures, then discusses the various advantages of the results proposed, and finally addresses potential objections to the plan on economic grounds.
The rise of social media has been accompanied by a sharp increase in the prevalence of body image issues among women and girls. This correlation has received significant academic attention: Various empirical studies have been conducted into Facebook usage among adolescent girls (Tiggermann & Slater, 2013; Meier & Gray, 2014). These studies have consistently found that the visual and interactive aspects of the platform have the greatest influence on body image issues. Despite this, highly visual social media (HVSM) such as Instagram have yet to be robustly researched. This paper sets out to address this research gap. We investigated the effects of daily Instagram use on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls. It was hypothesized that daily Instagram use would be associated with an increase in body image concerns and a decrease in self-esteem ratings.
The introduction of a research paper includes several key elements:
and your problem statement
Don’t feel that you have to write the introduction first. The introduction is often one of the last parts of the research paper you’ll write, along with the conclusion.
This is because it can be easier to introduce your paper once you’ve already written the body ; you may not have the clearest idea of your arguments until you’ve written them, and things can change during the writing process .
The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .
A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.
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.
Caulfield, J. (2023, March 27). Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved July 5, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-paper/research-paper-introduction/
Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, writing a research paper conclusion | step-by-step guide, research paper format | apa, mla, & chicago templates, what is your plagiarism score.
This book critically analyses the value of citation data, altmetrics, and artificial intelligence to support the research evaluation of articles, scholars, departments, universities, countries, and funders. It introduces and discusses indicators that can support research evaluation and analyses their strengths and weaknesses as well as the generic strengths and weaknesses of the use of indicators for research assessment. The book includes evidence of the comparative value of citations and altmetrics in all broad academic fields primarily through comparisons against article level human expert judgements from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021. It also discusses the potential applications of traditional artificial intelligence and large language models for research evaluation, with large scale evidence for the former. The book concludes that citation data can be informative and helpful in some research fields for some research evaluation purposes but that indicators are never accurate enough to be described as research quality measures. It also argues that AI may be helpful in limited circumstances for some types of research evaluation.
Quantitative methods emphasise on objective measurements and numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires or surveys. Quantitative research focuses on gathering numerical data and generalizing it across groups of people.
Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research . 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage, 2010.
In quantitative research, your goal is to determine the relationship between one thing (an independent variable) and another (a dependent or outcome variable) in a population. Quantitative research designs are either descriptive (subjects usually measured once) or experimental (subjects measured before and after a treatment). A descriptive study establishes only associations between variables. An experiment establishes causality.
Quantitative research deals in numbers, logic and the objective, focusing on logic, numbers, and unchanging static data and detailed, convergent reasoning rather than divergent reasoning.
Its main characteristics are :
The overarching aim of a quantitative research study is to classify features, count them, and construct statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed.
Things to keep in mind when reporting the results of a study using quantitative methods :
Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research . 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage, 2010; Brians, Craig Leonard et al. Empirical Political Analysis: Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods . 8th ed. Boston, MA: Longman, 2011; McNabb, David E. Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches . 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2008; Quantitative Research Methods . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Singh, Kultar. Quantitative Social Research Methods . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2007.
Before designing a quantitative research study, you must decide whether it will be descriptive or experimental because this will dictate how you gather, analyze, and interpret the results. A descriptive study is governed by the following rules: subjects are generally measured once; the intention is to only establish associations between variables; and, the study may include a sample population of hundreds or thousands of subjects to ensure that a valid estimate of a generalized relationship between variables has been obtained. An experimental design includes subjects measured before and after a particular treatment, the sample population may be very small and purposefully chosen, and it is intended to establish causality between variables. Introduction The introduction to a quantitative study is usually written from the third person point of view and covers the following information:
Methodology The methods section of a quantitative study should describe how each objective of your study will be achieved. Be sure to provide enough detail to enable that the reader can make an informed assessment of the method being used to obtain results associated with the research problem.
Results The finding of your study should be written objectively and in a succinct and precise format. In quantitative studies, it is common to use graphs, tables, charts and other non-textual elements to help the reader understand the data. Make sure that non-textual elements do not stand in isolation from the text but are used to supplement the overall description of the results and to help clarify key points being made. Further information about how to effectively present data using charts and graphs can be found here .
Discussion Discussions should be analytic, logical and comprehensive. The discussion should meld together your findings in relation to those identified in the literature review, and placed within the context of the theoretical framework underpinning the study.
Conclusion End your study by to summarizing the topic and provide a final comment and assessment of the study.
Black, Thomas R. Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences: An Integrated Approach to Research Design, Measurement and Statistics . London: Sage, 1999; Gay,L. R. and Peter Airasain. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications . 7th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril Prentice Hall, 2003; Hector, Anestine. An Overview of Quantitative Research in Compostion and TESOL. Department of English, Indiana University of Pennsylvania; Hopkins, Will G. “Quantitative Research Design.” Sportscience 4, 1 (2000); A Strategy for Writing Up Research Results . The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Nenty, H. Johnson. "Writing a Quantitative Research Thesis." International Journal of Educational Science 1 (2009): 19-32; Ouyang, Ronghua (John). Basic Inquiry of Quantitative Research. Kennesaw State University.
Quantitative researchers try to recognize and isolate specific variables contained within the study framework, seek correlation, relationships and causality, and attempt to control the environment in which the data is collected to avoid the risk of variables, other than the one being study, accounting for the relationships identified.
Among the specific strengths of using quantitative methods to study social science research problems:
Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research . 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage, 2010; Brians, Craig Leonard et al. Empirical Political Analysis: Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods . 8th ed. Boston, MA: Longman, 2011; McNabb, David E. Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches . 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2008; Singh, Kultar. Quantitative Social Research Methods . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2007.
Quantitative methods presume to have an objective approach to studying research problems, where data is controlled and measured, to address the accumulation of facts, and to determine the causes of behavior. As a consequence, the results of quantitative research may be statistically significant but are often humanly insignificant.
Some specific limitations associated with using quantitative methods to study research problems in the social sciences include:
FIND US ON
Perceived risks of social media in the university libraries of pakistan: an empirical investigation, interlibrary cooperation and resource sharing: fiction or reality, resource sharing in university libraries: a tool for information interchange, borrow direct: a case study of patron-initiated interlibrary borrowing service., resource sharing among agricultural libraries in malaysia, impact of digital technology on library resource sharing: revisiting labelnet in the digital age, related papers.
Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Why students choose the european project semester program for academic mobility: a case study at an engineering school.
2. materials and methods, 2.1. the european project semester (eps), 2.2. theoretical framework: push–pull factors of international academic mobility, 2.3. research methodology, 3.1. sample, 3.2. survey study, 3.3. focus group study, 4. discussion and conclusions, 4.1. implications for practice, 4.2. limitations and future research, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.
Click here to enlarge figure
% | |
---|---|
18–21 | 39.7 |
22–25 | 51.3 |
26–29 | 7.7 |
More than 30 | 1.3 |
Male | 51.3 |
Female | 47.4 |
Another | 1.3 |
% | |
---|---|
First cycle (Bachelor or equivalent) | 75.6 |
Second cycle (Master or equivalent) | 24.4 |
3 months | 25.6 |
6 months | 66.7 |
Full Bachelor study | 6.4 |
Erasmus+ | 88.5 |
Erasmus Mundus | 5.1 |
Other | 6.4 |
Mean | SD | |
---|---|---|
EU study grants | 3.62 | 1.57 |
Contribution from parents/family | 3.38 | 1.37 |
Own income from previous job | 3.32 | 1.24 |
Study grants/loans from host country | 2.77 | 1.57 |
Support by home state grant (non-repayable) | 2.40 | 1.64 |
Support by home state loan (repayable) | 1.85 | 1.38 |
By working during my studies abroad | 1.72 | 1.23 |
Mean | SD | |
---|---|---|
Country of origin official language | 4.96 | 0.19 |
English | 4.26 | 0.67 |
Portuguese | 1.63 | 1.23 |
Mean | SD | |
---|---|---|
Q1—For leisure/fun/travel | 4.40 | 0.79 |
Q4—Make new friends, create an international social network | 4.37 | 0.87 |
Q6—Learn a different culture and tradition | 4.23 | 0.84 |
Q5—Be challenged | 4.10 | 1.01 |
Q2—Acquire more knowledge and develop skills | 4.09 | 0.91 |
Q3—Improve foreign language skills | 4.01 | 1.23 |
Q7—Improve the CV | 3.81 | 1.21 |
Q8—Have an international career | 3.71 | 1.03 |
Q9—Seek better job opportunities | 3.46 | 1.20 |
Q10—Facilitate inclusion in the labour market | 3.27 | 1.04 |
Q11—Study at a recognised engineering school | 2.83 | 1.33 |
Q12—Have less workload concluding the course units | 2.60 | 1.13 |
Mean | SD | |
---|---|---|
Personal motivations | 4.22 | 0.98 |
Professional motivations | 3.56 | 1.12 |
Academic motivations | 3.44 | 1.05 |
Mean | SD | |
---|---|---|
Q14—Environment (good climate, political and economic environment) | 3.99 | 1.01 |
Q13—Financial issues (lower travel cost, lower cost of living) | 3.42 | 1.32 |
Q16—Overall level of knowledge and awareness (available information on country, quality of education) | 3.35 | 1.07 |
Q17—Personal recommendations (friends and family that have been to the host country) | 3.10 | 1.39 |
Q15—Geographical proximity (distance from home country) | 2.50 | 1.42 |
Q18—Social links (friends and family that live in the host country) | 2.24 | 1.51 |
Mean | SD | |
---|---|---|
Q21—International learning environment | 3.96 | 1.10 |
Q19—Attractive and historical city | 3.86 | 1.07 |
Q20—Favourable geographical location | 3.85 | 1.07 |
Q25—The city has a low cost of living | 3.24 | 1.25 |
Q22—Qualifications of the institution are internationally recognised | 2.94 | 1.21 |
Q24—The institution has a good reputation | 2.82 | 1.30 |
Q23—Personal recommendations (friends who studied in the institution) | 2.12 | 1.41 |
Q1. English is the official language in EPS. How relevant was this fact for your decision to apply? | |
“It was extremely important.” “…was essential” | 15 |
“I would have applied anyway. If it wasn’t in English…it would be a huge challenge.” | 1 |
“I only understand basic words in Portuguese….” | 4 |
“Portuguese is a very complex language. We wouldn’t learn enough …Portuguese.” | 1 |
Q2. Being the EPS entirely in English, are you interested in learning Portuguese? What are your aims, what is its usefulness for you? | |
“…for greeting when entering the room. I really love to say, good morning!” | 18 |
“It’s useful to communicate in the grocery, to ask for a coffee, it’s nice to ask in Portuguese.” | 7 |
“I like understanding the local slang.” | 3 |
“learning new languages” | 4 |
Q3. What were you expecting or planning to do while in Porto? | |
“Just be in Porto.” “Definitely, enjoy the city centre.” | 8 |
“Friends told me how nice and friendly Portuguese people are.” | 4 |
“I wanted to know the country.” “…a nice place with sun…” | 3 |
“I didn’t plan…I just wanted to go with the flow” | 2 |
4. Which were the skills you expected to improve by attending the EPS Programme? | |
“Working in team—so…teamwork, cooperation.” | 18 |
“Being able to interact with other cultures.” | 18 |
“…learn by doing, a practical course, get more than theory…” | 18 |
“I was looking forward to developing communication skills in a large team.” | 16 |
“acquire programming skills…” | 2 |
5. Which were the foreign languages you expected to improve? Portuguese? | |
“Improve my English-speaking skills.” “Not really, Portuguese.” | 18 |
“Learn Portuguese, the basics.” | 2 |
“And learn a few words in the other EPS students’ languages, for example. Not the language.” | 1 |
6. What exactly do you consider a favourable geographical location to be? What were the characteristics of the city of Porto and Portugal that influenced your decision? | |
“Being close to the ocean.” “Good weather with no snow…” | 18 |
“A strategic place to travel from, it has an airport with good flight connections.”“…Ryanair…” | 17 |
“My girlfriend was also in Porto.” “My boyfriend also…” “Some of my friends…” | 5 |
“I’ve heard great things about Porto.” | 5 |
“…almost everyone speaks English.” | 5 |
“A place where the cost is lower: cheaper to live in, and to travel to.” | 3 |
“I had already been in Porto and really wanted to get back.” | 1 |
“For me, it’s also the landscapes and architecture.” | 1 |
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Sousa, M.; Fontão, E.; Barata, A. Why Students Choose the European Project Semester Program for Academic Mobility: A Case Study at an Engineering School. Educ. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 735. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070735
Sousa M, Fontão E, Barata A. Why Students Choose the European Project Semester Program for Academic Mobility: A Case Study at an Engineering School. Education Sciences . 2024; 14(7):735. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070735
Sousa, Marina, Eunice Fontão, and Ana Barata. 2024. "Why Students Choose the European Project Semester Program for Academic Mobility: A Case Study at an Engineering School" Education Sciences 14, no. 7: 735. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070735
Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
INTRODUCTION. Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses.1,2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results.3,4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the ...
Qualitative research involves the quality of data and aims to understand the explanations and motives for actions, and also the. way individuals perceive their experiences and the world around ...
Revised on June 22, 2023. Quantitative research is the process of collecting and analyzing numerical data. It can be used to find patterns and averages, make predictions, test causal relationships, and generalize results to wider populations. Quantitative research is the opposite of qualitative research, which involves collecting and analyzing ...
Quantitative methods emphasize objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques.Quantitative research focuses on gathering numerical data and generalizing it across groups of people or to explain a particular phenomenon.
Quantitative research methods are concerned with the planning, design, and implementation of strategies to collect and analyze data. Descartes, the seventeenth-century philosopher, suggested that how the results are achieved is often more important than the results themselves, as the journey taken along the research path is a journey of discovery. . High-quality quantitative research is ...
A scientific research paper is a piece of academic writing based on the author's original research on a particular topic and the analysis and interpretation of the research findings. How well a research paper is written entirely depends upon its structure, format, content, and style of writing.
Mixed-methods research is a flexible approach, where the research design is determined by what we want to find out rather than by any predetermined epistemological position. In mixed-methods research, qualitative or quantitative components can predominate, or both can have equal status. 1.4. Units and variables.
This research paper offers a thorough examination of the benefits and drawbacks of applying quantitative methods to research in a range of academic fields.
Revised on 10 October 2022. Quantitative research is the process of collecting and analysing numerical data. It can be used to find patterns and averages, make predictions, test causal relationships, and generalise results to wider populations. Quantitative research is the opposite of qualitative research, which involves collecting and ...
The data section of a quantitative academic paper provides information about the data, often from diverse sources, that inform the research questions or hypotheses posed previously. If you are using survey data, this is the section where you describe your survey—including information about how you designed it, what questions you asked, and ...
Controlled collection and analysis of information in order to understand a phenomenon. Originates with a question, a problem, a puzzling fact. Requires both theory and data. Previous theory helps us form an understanding of the data we see (no blank slate). Data lets us tests our hypotheses.
Research papers in the social and natural sciences often follow APA style. This article focuses on reporting quantitative research methods. In your APA methods section, ... Example: Reporting materials. The Academic Anxiety Inventory (AAI; Pizzie & Kraemer, 2017) was used to measure academic anxiety in college students. The inventory consists ...
Social media and entrepreneurship research: A literature review. Abdus-Samad Temitope Olanrewaju, ... Paul Mercieca, in International Journal of Information Management, 2020. 3.1 Research methods used in the reviewed literature. We first examined the research methods used by the reviewed papers; most of the papers use a single analytical approach: quantitative (n = 77) or qualitative (n = 54).
S ince research deals with academic activity it, ... Quantitative research design contracts with numeric information ... but can also draw on conference papers, books, and government documents ...
Three major pedagogical goals that must be taught as part of learning quantitative data analysis are the following: (a) determining what questions to ask during all phases of a data analysis, (b) recognizing how to judge the relevance of potential questions, and (c) deciding how to understand the deep-level relationships within the data.
To apply these possible world semantics to quantitative research, let us reconsider how generalization to other cases works in variable-based models. Due to the syntactic structure of quantitative laws, we can deduce predictions for singular observations from an expression of the form ∀ i: y i = f(x i). Formally, the logical quantifier ∀ ...
Here are some key characteristics of quantitative research: Numerical data: Quantitative research involves collecting numerical data through standardized methods such as surveys, experiments, and observational studies. This data is analyzed using statistical methods to identify patterns and relationships.
When collecting and analyzing data, quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings. Both are important for gaining different kinds of knowledge. Quantitative research. Quantitative research is expressed in numbers and graphs. It is used to test or confirm theories and assumptions.
Introduction. Recognition has grown that while quantitative methods remain vital, they are usually insufficient to address complex health systems related research questions. 1 Quantitative methods rely on an ability to anticipate what must be measured in advance. Introducing change into a complex health system gives rise to emergent reactions, which cannot be fully predicted in advance.
This example of a quantitative research paper is designed to help students and other r esearchers who are learning how to write about their work. ... 2019 Rene Tetzner Advice & Discussions on Preparing & Submitting Journal Articles for Publication Three Examples of Quantitative Research Methods for Academic Writing All quantitative research ...
Why Research Papers? Unlike many other disciplines within the umbrella of finance, quantitative finance tends to be very academic in nature. This means that a majority of the modern techniques and practices used within this field have arisen from innovations in research labs at universities and other academic institutions.
Table of contents. Step 1: Introduce your topic. Step 2: Describe the background. Step 3: Establish your research problem. Step 4: Specify your objective (s) Step 5: Map out your paper. Research paper introduction examples. Frequently asked questions about the research paper introduction.
This book critically analyses the value of citation data, altmetrics, and artificial intelligence to support the research evaluation of articles, scholars, departments, universities, countries, and funders. It introduces and discusses indicators that can support research evaluation and analyses their strengths and weaknesses as well as the generic strengths and weaknesses of the use of ...
An Overview of Quantitative Research in Compostion and TESOL. Department of English, Indiana University of Pennsylvania; Hopkins, Will G. "Quantitative Research Design." Sportscience 4, 1 (2000); A Strategy for Writing Up Research Results. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology.
A quantitative research methodology was adopted toexecute the study. A questionnaire was used as a data collection tool and data wascollected only from those university libraries having central and departmentallibraries. The data was collected from 110 academic librarians working in centralor departmental libraries of universities across Pakistan.
European Mobility Programmes promoted by the European Commission have propelled a significant change in students' mobility across Europe in the last few decades. The European Project Semester (EPS) is one of those programmes. Research has mainly focused on understanding the factors that shape students' decision to engage in mobility experiences but has not tackled the motivation(s) leading ...