Show that you understand the current state of research on your topic.
The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.
One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.
Download our research proposal template
Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.
Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:
The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.
Your introduction should:
To guide your introduction , include information about:
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
See an example
As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.
In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:
Following the literature review, restate your main objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.
? or ? , , or research design? | |
, )? ? | |
, , , )? | |
? |
To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.
For example, your results might have implications for:
Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .
Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.
Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.
Download our research schedule template
Research phase | Objectives | Deadline |
---|---|---|
1. Background research and literature review | 20th January | |
2. Research design planning | and data analysis methods | 13th February |
3. Data collection and preparation | with selected participants and code interviews | 24th March |
4. Data analysis | of interview transcripts | 22nd April |
5. Writing | 17th June | |
6. Revision | final work | 28th July |
If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.
Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:
To determine your budget, think about:
If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
Methodology
Statistics
Research bias
Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .
Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.
I will compare …
A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.
Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.
A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.
A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.
A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.
All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.
Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.
Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.
The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.
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.
McCombes, S. & George, T. (2024, September 05). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/
Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, "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”
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.
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments. Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2002.
The pursuit and dissemination of knowledge enjoy a place of distinction in American culture, and the public expects to reap considerable benefit from the creative and innovative contributions of scientists. As science becomes increasingly intertwined with major social, philosophical, economic, and political issues, scientists become more accountable to the larger society of which they are a part. As a consequence, it is more important than ever that individual scientists and their institutions periodically reassess the values and professional practices that guide their research as well as their efforts to perform their work with integrity.
Society's confidence in and support of research rest in large part on public trust in the integrities of individual researchers and their supporting institutions. The National Academies' report On Being a Scientist states: “The level of trust that has characterized science and its relationship with society has contributed to a period of unparalleled scientific productivity. But this trust will endure only if the scientific community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ethical scientific conduct” (NAS, 1995, preface). It is therefore incumbent on all scientists and scientific institutions to create and nurture a research environment that promotes high ethical standards, contributes to ongoing professional development, and preserves public confidence in the scientific enterprise (Grinnell, 1999; IOM, 2001; Resnik, 1998; Yarborough and Sharp, 2002).
Government oversight of scientific research is important, but such oversight, often in the form of administrative rules, typically stipulates what cannot be done; it rarely prescribes what should be done (see Chapter 4 for further discussion of the strengths and limitations of a regulatory approach). In essence, government rules define the floor of expected behavior. More, however, should be expected from scientists when it comes to the responsible conduct of research. By appealing to the conscience of individual scientists, the scientific community as a whole should seek to evoke the highest possible standard of research behavior. When institutions committed to promoting integrity in research support those standards, the likelihood of creating an environment that advances responsible research practices is greatly enhanced. It is essential that institutions foster a culture of integrity in which students and trainees, as well as senior researchers and administrators, have an understanding of and commitment to integrity in research.
The committee's task was to define integrity for the particular activity of research as conducted within contemporary society. Integrity has two general senses. The first sense concerns wholeness; the second, soundness of moral principle ( Oxford English Dictionary , 1989). Plato and subsequent philosophers have argued that leading the good life depends on a person's success in integrating moral, religious, and philosophical convictions. In conversations with experts in ethics and others, the committee found no consensus regarding whether a person could exhibit high integrity in research but not in other aspects of his life. Consequently, the committee decided to focus on the second aspect of integrity—namely, soundness of moral principle in the specific context of research practice.
Integrity characterizes both individual researchers and the institutions in which they work. For individuals, it is an aspect of moral character and experience. 1 For institutions, it is a matter of creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct by embracing standards of excellence, trustworthiness, and lawfulness that inform institutional practices.
For the individual scientist, integrity embodies above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one's actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible research conduct. These practices include:
Individual scientists work within complex organizational structures. (These structures and their interactions are described in detail in Chapter 3 .) Factors that promote responsible conduct can exert their influences at the level of the individual; at the level of the work group (e.g., the research group); and at the level of the research institution itself. These different organizational levels are interdependent in the conduct of research. Institutions seeking to create an environment that promotes responsible conduct by individual scientists and that fosters integrity must establish and continuously monitor structures, processes, policies, and procedures that:
Leadership by individuals of high personal integrity helps to foster an environment in which scientists can openly discuss responsible research practices in the face of conflicting pressures. All those involved in the research enterprise should acknowledge that integrity is a key dimension of the essence of being a scientist and not a set of externally imposed regulatory constraints.
As noted above, the committee has identified a range of key practices that pertain to the responsible conduct of research by individual scientists. The following sections elucidate the practices. 2
Intellectual honesty in proposing, performing, and reporting research refers to honesty with respect to the meaning of one's research. It is expected that researchers present proposals and data honestly and communicate their best understanding of the work in writing and verbally. The descriptions of an individual's work found in such communications frequently present selected data from the work organized into frameworks that emphasize conceptual understanding rather than the chronology of the discovery process. Clear and accurate research records must underlie these descriptions, however. Researchers must be advocates for their research conclusions in the face of collegial skepticism and must acknowledge errors.
Accuracy in representing one's contributions to research proposals and reports requires the assignment of credit. It is expected that researchers will not report the work of others as if it were their own. This is plagiarism. Furthermore, they should be honest with respect to the contributions of colleagues and collaborators. Decisions regarding authorship are best anticipated at the outset of projects rather than at their completion. In publications, it should be possible in principle to specify each author's contribution to the work. It also is expected that researchers honestly acknowledge the precedents on which their research is based.
Fairness in peer review means that researchers should agree to be peer reviewers only when they can be impartial in their judgments and only when have revealed their conflicts of interest. Peer review functions to maintain the excellence of published scientific work and ensure a merit-based system of support for research. A delicate balance pervades the peer-review system, because the best reviewers are precisely those individuals who have the most to gain from “insider information”: they are doing similar work and they will be unable to “strike” from memory and thought what they learn through the review process. Investigators serving as peer reviewers should treat submitted manuscripts and grant applications fairly and confidentially and avoid using them inappropriately.
Collegiality in scientific interactions, including communications and sharing of resources requires that investigators report research findings to the scientific community in a full, open, and timely fashion. At the same time, it should be recognized that the scientific community is highly competitive. The investigator who first reports new and important findings gets credited with the discovery.
It is not obvious that rapid reporting is the approach that is always the most conducive to progress. Intellectual property provisions and secrecy allow for patents and licensure and encourage private investment in research. Furthermore, even for publicly funded research, a degree of discretion may permit a research group to move ahead more efficiently. Conversely, an investigator who delays reporting important new findings risks having others publish similar results first and receiving little recognition for the discovery. Knowing when and how much to tell will always remain a challenge in scientific communication.
Once scientific work is published, researchers are expected to share unique materials with other scientists in a reasonable fashion to facilitate confirmation of their results. (The committee recognizes that there are limits to sharing, especially when doing so requires a time or cost commitment that interferes with the function of the research group.) When materials are developed through public funding, the requirement for sharing is even greater. Public funding is based on the principle that the public good is advanced by science conducted in the interest of humanity. This commitment to the public good implies a responsibility to share materials with others to demonstrate reproducibility and to facilitate the replication and validation of one's work by responding constructively to inquiries from other scientists, particularly regarding methodologies.
Collegiality and sharing of resources is also an important aspect of the interaction between trainees and their graduate or postdoctoral advisers. Students and fellows will ultimately depart the research team, and discussion of and planning for departure should occur over the course of their education. Expectations about such issues as who inherits intellectual property rights to a project or to the project itself upon the trainee's departure should be discussed when the trainee first joins the research group and should be revisited periodically over the course of the project (NAS, 2000).
A conflict of interest in research exists when the individual has interests in the outcome of the research that may lead to a personal advantage and that might therefore, in actuality or appearance, compromise the integrity of the research. The most compelling example is competition between financial reward and the integrity of the research process. Religious, political, or social beliefs can also be undisclosed sources of research bias.
Many scientific advances that reach the public often involve extensive collaboration between academia and industry (Blumenthal et al., 1996; Campbell et al., 1998; Cho et al., 2000). Such collaborations involve consulting and advisory services as well as the development of specific inventions, and they can result in direct financial benefit to both individuals and institutions. Conflicts of interest reside in a situation itself, not in any behavior of members of a research team. Thus, researchers should disclose all conflicts of interest to their institutions so that the researchers and their work can be properly managed. They should also voluntarily disclose conflicts of interest in all publications and presentations resulting from the research. The committee believes that scientific institutions, including universities, research institutes, professional societies, and professional and lay journals, should embrace disclosure of conflicts of interest as an essential component of integrity in research.
The protection of individuals who volunteer to participate in research is essential to integrity in research. The ethical principles underlying such research have been elaborated on in international codes and have been integrated into national regulatory frameworks (in the United States, 45 C.F.R. § 46, 2001). Elements included in such frameworks pertain to the quality and importance of the science, its risks and benefits, fairness in the selection of subjects, and, above all, the voluntary participation and informed consent of subjects. To ensure the conformance of research efforts with these goals, institutions carry out extensive research subject protection programs. To be successful, such programs require high-level, functioning institutional review boards, knowledgeable investigators, ongoing performance assessment through monitoring and feedback, and educational programs (IOM, 2001). The IOM report Preserving Public Trust (IOM, 2001) focuses specifically on the important topic of research involving human subjects, and further discussion is not included here.
The humane care of animals is essential for producing sound science and its social benefits. Researchers have a responsibility to engage in the humane care of animals in the conduct of research. This means evaluating the need for animals in any particular protocol, ensuring that research animals' basic needs for life are met prior to research, and carefully considering the benefits of the research to society or to animals versus the likely harms to any animals included as part of the research protocol. Procedures that minimize animal pain, suffering, and distress should be implemented. Research protocols involving animals must be reviewed and approved by properly constituted bodies, as required by law (Animal Welfare Act of 1966 [PL 89-544], inclusive of amendments passed in 1970 [PL 91-579], 1976 [PL 94-279], 1985 [PL 99-198], and 1990 [PL 101-624] and subsequent amendments) and professional standards (AAALAC, 2001; NRC, 1996).
Adherence to the mutual responsibilities between investigators and members of their research teams refers to both scientific and interpersonal interactions. The research team might include other faculty members, colleagues (including coinvestigators), and trainees (undergraduate students, graduate and medical students, postdoctoral fellows), as well as employed staff (e.g., technicians, statisticians, study coordinators, nurses, animal handlers, and administrative personnel). The head of the research team should encourage all members of the team to achieve their career goals. The interpersonal interactions should reflect mutual respect among members of the team, fairness in assignment of responsibilities and effort, open and frequent communication, and accountability. In this regard, scientists should also conduct disputes professionally (Gunsalus, 1998). (The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) guidelines on academic freedom and professional ethics articulate the obligation of members of the academic community to root their statements in fact and to respect the opinions of others [AAUP, 1987, 1999].)
Mentor is often used interchangeably with faculty adviser . However, a mentor is more than a supervisor or an adviser (Bird, 2001; Swazey and Anderson, 1998). 3 An investigator or research adviser may or may not be a mentor. Some advisers may be accomplished researchers but do not have the time, training, or ability to be good mentors (NAS, 2000). For a trainee, “a mentoring relationship is a close, individualized relationship that develops over time between a graduate student (or other trainee) and a faculty member (or others) that includes both caring and guidance” (University of Michigan, 1999, p. 5). A successful mentoring relationship is based on mutual respect, trust, understanding, and empathy (NAS, 1997). Mentoring relationships can extend throughout all phases of a science career, and, as such, they are sometimes referred to as mentor-protégé or mentor-apprentice relationships, rather than mentor-trainee relationships.
The committee believes that mentor should be the dominant and usual role of the laboratory director or research advisor in regard to his or her trainee. With regard to such mentor-trainee relationships, responsibilities include a commitment to continuous education and guidance of trainees, appropriate delegation of responsibility, regular review and constructive appraisal of trainees, fair attribution of accomplishment and authorship, and career guidance, as well as help in creating opportunities for employment and funding. For the trainee, essential elements include respect for the mentor, loyalty to the research group, a strong commitment to science, dedication to the project, careful performance of experiments, precise and complete record keeping, accurate reporting of results, and a commitment to oral and written presentations and publication. It should be noted that most academic research institutions play a dual role. On the one hand, they are concerned with producing original research; on the other, with educating students. The two goals are compatible, but when they come in conflict, it is important that the educational needs of the students not be forgotten. If students are exploited, then they will learn by example that such behavior is acceptable.
The individual investigator and the laboratory or research unit carry out their functions in institutions that are responsible for the management and support of the research carried out within their domains. The institutions, in turn, are regulated by governmental and other bodies that impose rules and responsibilities (see Chapter 3 for further discussion). The vigor, resources, and attitudes with which institutions carry out their responsibilities will influence investigators' commitment and adherence to responsible research practices.
It takes the leadership of an institution to promulgate a culture of responsible research. This involves the development of a vision for the research enterprise and a strategic plan. It is the responsibility of the institution leadership to develop programs to orient new researchers to institutional policies, rules, and guidelines; to sponsor opportunities for dialogue about new and emerging issues; and to sponsor continuing education about new policies and regulations as they are developed. Furthermore, institutional leaders have the responsibility to ensure that such programs are carried out, with appropriate delegation of responsibility and accountability and with adequate resources.
The observed actions of institutions in problem situations communicate as strongly (or perhaps more strongly) about responsible conduct as do any policies or programs. Institutional leaders (e.g., chancellor, president, dean, CEO) set the tone for the institutions with their own actions. Research leaders should set an example not only in their own research practices but also in their willingness to engage in dialogue about ethical questions that arise (Sigma Xi, 1999). McCabe and Pavela note that “faculty members who seek to instill a sense of social obligation without affirming personal virtues are planting trees without roots” (McCabe and Pavela, 1998, p.101).
An environment that fosters competence and honest interactions among all participants in the investigative process supports the integrity of research. Institutions have many legally mandated policies that foster mutual respect and trust—for example, policies concerning harassment, occupational health and safety, fair employment practices, pay and benefits, protection of research subjects, exposure to ionizing radiation, and due process regarding allegations of research misconduct. State and local policies and guidelines governing research may be in effect as well. It is anticipated that through a process of self-assessment, institutions can identify issues and develop programs that further integrity in research (see Chapter 6 for further discussion). Fair enforcement of all institutional policies is a critical element of the institutional commitment to integrity in research. That is not enough, however.
Within the research institution, there can be multiple smaller units (e.g., departments, divisions within a department, research groups within a division). Within these institutional subunits, there will always be power differences between members of the group. Consequently, research institutions require support mechanisms—for example, ombudspersons—that research team members can turn to for help when they feel they are being treated unfairly. Institutions need to provide guidance and recourse to anyone with concerns about research integrity (e.g., a student who observes a lack of responsible conduct by a senior faculty member). Support systems should be accessible (multiple entry points for those with questions) and have a record of reaching objective, fact-based decisions untainted by personal bias or conflicts of interest (Gunsalus, 1993). Lack of recourse within the institution for those individuals who have concerns about possible misconduct will undermine efforts to foster a climate of integrity. Equally important to having support systems in place is the dissemination of information on how and where individuals may seek such support.
The ultimate goal for institutions should be to create a culture within which all persons on a research team can work effectively and realize their full potential.
Mentors play a special role in the development of new scientists. A mentor must consider the student's core interests and needs in preference to his or her own. Trainees and mentors are codependent and, at times, competitive. Trainees depend on their mentors for scientific education and training, for support, and, eventually, for career guidance and references. Mentors tend to be role models as well. Mentors depend on trainees for performing work and bringing fresh ideas and approaches to the research group. They can enhance the mentor's reputation as a teacher and as an investigator. Institutions should establish programs that foster productive relations between mentors and trainees, including training in mentoring and advising for faculty. Moreover, institutions should work to ensure that trainees are properly paid, receive reasonable benefits (including health insurance), and are protected from exploitation. Written guidelines, ombudspersons, and mutual evaluations can help to reduce problems and identify situations requiring remediation. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the dual role academic research institutions play in both producing original research and educating students can be balanced, but when they come in conflict, educational interests of the student should take precedence.
Effective advocacy by an institution of the rules involving the use of human subjects and animals in research involves much more than simply posting the relevant federal, state, and local regulations and providing “damage control” and formal sanctions when irregularities are discovered. At all levels of the institution, including the level of the dean, department chair, research group leader, and individual research group member, regular affirmation of the guiding principles underlying the rules is essential. The goal is to create an institutional climate such that anyone who violates these guiding principles through words or deeds is immediately made aware of the behavior and, when indicated, appropriately sanctioned.
Research institutions must conduct their work in a manner that earns public trust. To do so, they must be sensitive to any conflict of interest that might affect or appear to affect their decisions and behavior in ways that could compromise their roles as trustworthy sources of information and policy advice or their obligations to ensure the protection of human research subjects. As research partnerships between industry and academic institutions continue to expand, with the promise of considerable public benefit, the management of real or perceived conflicts of interest in research requires that institutions have a written policy on such conflicts. The policy should apply to both institutions and individual investigators.
Institutions should have clearly stated policies and procedures by which they will guard against compromise by external influences. As with individual conflicts of interest, institutional leadership is not in the best position to determine whether a particular arrangement represents an unacceptable or manageable conflict of interest. Institutions should draw on independent reviews by external bodies and should have appropriate procedures for such reviews. Factors of concern include not only direct influences on institutional policy but also indirect influences on the use of resources, educational balance, and hiring of faculty, for example (AAU, 2001).
The policy on conflicts of interest should apply to individuals who are directly involved in the conduct, design, and review of research, including faculty, trainees, students, and administrators, and should clearly state their disclosure responsibilities. The policy should define conflicts of interest and should have means to convey an understanding of the term to the parties involved. It should delineate the activities and the levels and kinds of research-related financial interests that are and are not permissible, as well as those that require review and approval. The special circumstances associated with research involving human subjects should be specifically addressed. Beyond meeting their responsibility to ensure the dissemination and understanding of their policies, institutions should develop means to monitor compliance equitably. Detailed descriptions of institutional responsibilities in this area were recently reported by the Association of American Universities (AAU, 2001) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC, 2001), as described in Box 2-1 .
Definition of Institutional Conflict of Interest.
Every institution receiving federal funds for research and related activities must have in place policies and procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct (42 C.F.R. § 50, §§ A, 1989; 45 C.F.R. § 689, 1996). Although the federal government imposes these requirements, the institutions must implement them. Their effectiveness depends on investigation of allegations of misconduct with vigor and fairness. The institution should embrace the notion that it is important to the quality and integrity of science that individuals report possible research misconduct. Means of protecting any individual who reports possible misconduct in good faith must be instituted.
In carrying out their responsibilities, institutions must ensure that faculty, students, and staff are properly informed of their rights and responsibilities. Those likely to receive allegations—for example, administrators, department chairs, and research group chiefs—must be fully informed of institutional provisions and trained in dealing with issues related to research conduct or misconduct. Mechanisms must be in place to protect the public's interest in the research record, the research subjects' health, and the financial interests of the institution, as well as to ensure notification of appropriate authorities. Clear lines of authority for management of the institution's response must exist, and, where indicated, appropriate sanctions should be applied or efforts should be made to protect or restore the reputations of innocent parties.
Research institutions should provide students, faculty, and staff with educational opportunities related to the responsible conduct of research. These are mandatory for those involved in clinical research (NIH, 2000) and for recipients of Public Health Service training grants (NIH, 1989). These offerings should encourage open discussion of the values at stake and the ethical standards that promote responsible research practices. The core objective of such education is to increase participants' knowledge and sensitivity to the issues associated with integrity in research and to improve their ability to make ethical choices. It should give them an appreciation for the diversity of views that may be brought to bear on issues, inform them about the institutional rules and government regulations that apply to research, and instill in them the scientific community's expectations regarding proper research practice. Educational offerings should be flexible in their approach and be cognizant of normative differences among disciplines. Such programs should offer opportunities for the participants to explore the underlying values that shape the research enterprise and to analyze how those values are manifested in behaviors in different research environments
It is expected that effective educational programs will empower individual researchers, students, and staff in making responsible choices in the course of their research. Regular evaluation and improvement of the educational and behavioral effectiveness of these educational offerings should be a part of an institutional assessment. (See Chapter 5 for further discussion of education in the responsible conduct of research.)
The main thrust of this report reflects the need for continuing attention toward sustaining and improving a culture of integrity in research. This requires diligent oversight by institutional management to ensure that the practices associated with integrity described above are carried out. It also requires examination of the policy-making process, the policies themselves, their execution, and the degree to which they are understood and adhered to by those affected. If researchers and administrators believe that the rules are excellent and that the institution applies them equitably, then the institutional commitment to integrity will be clear. Chapter 6 addresses ways to help identify those elements critical to establishment of the perception of moral commitment and determination of whether such commitments have been made.
The committee believes that integrity in research is essential for maintaining scientific excellence and keeping the public's trust. The concept of integrity in research cannot, however, be reduced to a one-line definition. For a scientist, integrity embodies above all the individual's commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility. It is an aspect of moral character and experience. For an institution, it is a commitment to creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct by embracing standards of excellence, trustworthiness, and lawfulness and then assessing whether researchers and administrators perceive that an environment with high levels of integrity has been created. This chapter has described multiple practices that are most likely to promote responsible conduct. Individuals and institutions should use these practices with the goal of fostering a culture in which high ethical standards are the norm, ongoing professional development is encouraged, and public confidence in the scientific enterprise is preserved.
Further discussion of moral character and behavior and the development of abilities that give rise to responsible conduct can be found in Chapter 5 .
See the section of Appendix D entitled Responsible Scientific Conduct for resources with case studies that can be used in a teaching setting to further illustrate the topics discussed here.
A special issue of Science and Engineering Ethics (7:451–640, 2001) is devoted to the relationship between mentoring and responsible conduct.
Related information.
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
Discover the world's research
Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World
Read our research on:
Full Topic List
Read Our Research On:
Debates over who is Hispanic have often fueled conversations about identity among Americans who trace their heritage to Latin America or Spain .
So, who is considered Hispanic in the United States today? How exactly do the federal government and others count the Hispanic population? And what role does race play in deciding who counts as Hispanic?
We’ll answer these and other common questions here.
To answer the question of who is Hispanic, this analysis draws on about five decades of U.S. Census Bureau data and about two decades of Pew Research Center surveys of Hispanic adults in the United States.
National counts of the Latino population come from the Census Bureau’s decennial census (this includes P.L. 94-171 census data ) and official population estimates . The bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) provides demographic details such as race, country of origin and intermarriage rates. Some ACS data was accessed through IPUMS USA from the University of Minnesota.
Views of Hispanic identity draw on the Center’s National Survey of Latinos (NSL), which is fielded in English and Spanish. The survey has been conducted online since 2019, primarily through the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), which is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. Hispanic adult population by gender, Hispanic origin, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology . The NSL was conducted by phone from 2002 to 2018.
Read further details on how the Census Bureau asked about race and ethnicity and coded responses in the 2020 census. Here is a full list of origin groups that were coded as Hispanic in the 2020 census.
The Census Bureau estimates there were 65.2 million Hispanics in the U.S. as of July 1, 2023, a new high. They made up more than 19% of the nation’s population .
Before diving into the details, keep in mind that some surveys ask about Hispanic origin and race separately, following current Census Bureau practices – though these are soon to change.
One way to count Hispanics is to include those who say they are Hispanic, with no exceptions – that is, you are Hispanic if you say you are. Pew Research Center uses this approach in our surveys, as do other polling firms such as Gallup and voter exit polls .
The Census Bureau largely counts Hispanics this way, too, but with some exceptions. If respondents select only the “Other Hispanic” category and write in only non-Hispanic responses such as “Irish,” the Census Bureau recodes the response as non-Hispanic.
However, beginning in 2020 , the bureau widened the lens to include a relatively small number of people who did not check a Hispanic box on the census form but answered the race question in a way that implied a Hispanic background. As a result, someone who answered the race question by saying that they are “Mexican” or “Argentinean” was counted as Hispanic, even if they did not check the Hispanic box.
From the available data, the exact number of respondents affected by this change is difficult to determine. But it appears to be about 1% of Hispanics or fewer, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.
In the eyes of the Census Bureau, Hispanics can be of any race, because “Hispanic” is an ethnicity and not a race. However, this distinction is subject to debate . A 2015 Center survey found that 17% of Hispanic adults said being Hispanic is mainly a matter of race, while 29% said it is mainly a matter of ancestry. Another 42% said it is mainly a matter of culture.
Nonetheless, the Census Bureau’s 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) provides the self-reported racial identity of Hispanics: 22.5 million single-race Hispanics identified only as “some other race.” This group mostly includes those who wrote in a Hispanic origin or nationality as their race. Another 10.7 million identified as White. Fewer Hispanics identified as American Indian (1.5 million), Black (1.0 million) or Asian (300,000).
Another roughly 27.5 million Hispanics identified as more than one race in 2022, up from just 3 million in 2010.
Growth in the number of multiracial Hispanics comes primarily from those who identify as White and “some other race.” That population grew from 1.6 million to 24.9 million between 2010 and 2022. The number of Hispanics who identify as White and no other race declined from 26.7 million to 10.7 million.
The sharp increase in multiracial Hispanics could be due to several factors, including changes to the census form introduced in 2020 that added more space for written responses to the race question and growing racial diversity among Hispanics. This explanation is supported by the fact that almost 25 million of the Hispanics who identified as two or more races in 2022 were coded as “some other race” (and wrote in a response) and one of the specific races (such as Black or White). About 2.6 million Hispanics identified with two or more of the five major races offered in the census.
The 2030 census will combine the race and ethnicity questions , a change that other federal surveys will implement in coming years. The new question will add checkboxes for “Hispanic or Latino” and “Middle Eastern or North African” among other race groups long captured in Census Bureau surveys.
Officials hope the changes will reduce the number of Americans who choose the “Some other race” category, especially among Hispanics . However, it’s worth noting that public feedback has raised a variety of concerns, including that combining the race and ethnicity questions could lead to an undercount of the nation’s Afro-Latino population .
In 1976, Congress passed a law that required the government to collect and analyze data for a specific ethnic group: “Americans of Spanish origin or descent.” That legislation defined this group as “Americans [who] identify themselves as being of Spanish-speaking background and trace their origin or descent from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America, and other Spanish-speaking countries.” This includes around 20 Spanish-speaking nations from Latin America and Spain itself, but not Portugal or Portuguese-speaking Brazil.
To implement this law, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) developed Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 (SPD 15) in 1977, then revised it in 1997 and again in March 2024. In the most recent revision, OMB updated racial and ethnic definitions when it announced the combined race and ethnicity question. The current definition of “ Hispanic or Latino ” is “individuals of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Salvadoran, Cuban, Dominican, Guatemalan, and other Central or South American or Spanish culture or origin.”
The Census Bureau first asked everybody in the U.S. about Hispanic ethnicity in 1980. But it made some efforts before then to count people who today would be considered Hispanic. The Census Bureau also has a long history of changing labels and shifting categories . In the 1930 census, for example, the race question had a category for “Mexican.”
The first major attempt to estimate the size of the nation’s Hispanic population came in 1970 and prompted widespread concerns among Hispanic organizations about an undercount. A portion of the U.S. population (5%) was asked if their origin or descent was from the following categories: “Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, Other Spanish” or “No, none of these.”
This approach indeed undercounted about 1 million Hispanics. Many second-generation Hispanics did not select one of the Hispanic groups because the question did not include terms like “Mexican American.” The question wording also resulted in hundreds of thousands of people living in the Central or Southern regions of the U.S. being mistakenly included in the “Central or South American” category.
By 1980, the current approach – in which someone is asked if they are Hispanic – had taken hold, with some changes to the question and response categories since then. In 2000, for example, the term “Latino” was added to make the question read, “Is this person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?”
“Hispanic” and “Latino” are pan-ethnic terms meant to describe – and summarize – the population of people of that ethnic background living in the U.S. In practice, the Census Bureau often uses the term “Hispanic” or “Hispanic or Latino.”
Some people have drawn sharp distinctions between these two terms . For example, some say that Hispanics are from Spain or from Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America, which matches the federal definition, and Latinos are people from Latin America, regardless of language. In this definition, Latinos would include people from Brazil (where Portuguese is the official language) but not Spain or Portugal.
Pan-ethnic labels like Hispanic and Latino, though widely used, are not universally embraced by the population being labeled. Our 2023 National Survey of Latinos shows a preference for other terms to describe identity: 52% of respondents most often described themselves by their family’s country of origin, while 30% used the terms Hispanic, Latino, Latinx or Latine, and 17% most often described themselves as American.
The 2023 survey also finds varying preferences for pan-ethnic labels: 52% of Hispanics prefer to describe themselves as Hispanic, 29% prefer Latino, 2% prefer Latinx, 1% prefer Latine and 15% have no preference.
Latinx is a pan-ethnic identity term that has emerged in recent years as an alternative to Hispanic and Latino. Some news and entertainment outlets, corporations , local governments and universities use it to describe the nation’s Hispanic population.
However, its popularity has brought increased scrutiny in the U.S. and abroad . Some critics say it ignores the gendered forms of Spanish language, while others see Latinx as a gender- and LGBTQ+-inclusive term . Adding to the debate, some state lawmakers favor banning the use of the term entirely in government documents; Arkansas has done so already .
A 2023 survey found that awareness of Latinx has doubled among U.S. Hispanics since 2019, with growth across all major demographic subgroups. Still, the share of Hispanic adults who use Latinx to describe themselves is statistically unchanged: In 2023, 4% said they use it, compared with 3% in 2019.
Latinx is also broadly unpopular among Latinos who know the term. Three-in-four Latino adults who are aware of Latinx say the term should not be used to describe Hispanics or Latinos.
The emergence of Latinx coincides with a global movement to introduce gender-neutral nouns and pronouns into many languages that have traditionally used male or female constructions. In the U.S., Latinx first appeared more than a decade ago, and it was added to a widely used English dictionary in 2018.
Latine is another pan-ethnic term that has emerged in recent years. Our 2023 survey found that 18% of U.S. Hispanics have heard of the term.
Similar to familiarity with Latinx, awareness of Latine varies by age, education and sexual orientation. Among Latinos, awareness of Latine is highest among those ages 18 to 29 (22%), college graduates (24%) and lesbian, gay and bisexual adults (32%).
Many U.S. Hispanics have an inclusive view of what it means to be Hispanic:
Views of Hispanic identity may change in the coming decades as broad societal changes, such as rising intermarriage rates, produce an increasingly diverse and multiracial U.S. population .
Today, many Hispanic families include people who are not Hispanic:
Spouses: Among all married Hispanics in 2022, 22% had a spouse who is not Hispanic. And in a 2023 Center survey , 27% of Hispanics with a spouse or partner said their spouse or partner is not Hispanic.
Newlyweds: In 2022, 30% of Hispanic newlyweds married someone who is not Hispanic. Among them, 41% of those born in the U.S. married someone who is not Hispanic, compared with 11% of immigrant newlyweds, according to an analysis of ACS data.
Parents: Our 2015 survey found that 15% of U.S. Hispanic adults had at least one parent who is not Hispanic. This share rose to 29% among the U.S. born and 48% among the third or higher generation – those born in the U.S. to parents who were also U.S. born.
In surveys like those from the Census Bureau, skin color does not play a role in determining who is Hispanic or not. However, as with race, Latinos can have many different skin tones. A 2021 Center survey of Latino adults showed respondents a palette of 10 skin colors and asked them to choose which one most closely resembled their own.
Latinos reported having a variety of skin tones, reflecting the diversity within the group. Eight-in-ten Latinos selected one of the four lightest skin colors. By contrast, only 3% selected one of the four darkest skin colors.
A majority of Latino adults (57%) say skin color shapes their daily life experiences at least somewhat. Similar shares say having a lighter skin color helps Latinos get ahead in the U.S. (59%) and that having a darker skin color hurts Latinos’ ability to get ahead (62%).
Afro-Latino identity is distinct from and can exist alongside a person’s Hispanic identity. Afro-Latinos’ life experiences are shaped by race, skin tone and other factors in ways that differ from other Hispanics. While most Afro-Latinos identify as Hispanic or Latino, not all do, according to our estimates based on a survey of U.S. adults conducted in 2019 and 2020.
In 2020, about 6 million Afro-Latino adults lived in the U.S., making up about 2% of the U.S. adult population and 12% of the adult Latino population. About one-in-seven Afro-Latinos – an estimated 800,000 adults – do not identify as Hispanic.
Officially, Brazilians are not considered Hispanic or Latino because the federal government’s definition applies only to those of “Spanish culture or origin.” In most cases, people who report their Hispanic or Latino ethnicity as Brazilian in Census Bureau surveys are later recategorized – or “back coded” – as not Hispanic or Latino . The same is true for people with origins in Belize, the Philippines and Portugal.
An error in how the Census Bureau processed data from a 2020 national survey omitted some of this coding and provided a rare window into how Brazilians (and other groups) living in the U.S. view their identity.
In 2020, at least 416,000 Brazilians — more than two-thirds of Brazilians in the U.S. — described themselves as Hispanic or Latino on the ACS and were mistakenly counted that way. Only 14,000 Brazilians were counted as Hispanic in 2019, and 16,000 were in 2021.
The large number of Brazilians who self-identified as Hispanic or Latino highlights how their view of their own identity does not necessarily align with official government definitions. It also underscores that being Hispanic or Latino means different things to different people .
Of the 42.7 million adults with Hispanic ancestry living in the U.S. in 2015, an estimated 5 million people, or 11%, said they do not identify as Hispanic or Latino , according to a 2015-16 Center survey. These people aren’t counted as Hispanic in our surveys.
Notably, Hispanic self-identification varies across immigrant generations. Among immigrants from Latin America, nearly all identify as Hispanic. But by the fourth generation, only half of people with Hispanic heritage in the U.S. identify as Hispanic.
Note: This is an update of a post originally published on May 28, 2009.
Mark Hugo Lopez is director of race and ethnicity research at Pew Research Center .
Jens Manuel Krogstad is a senior writer and editor at Pew Research Center .
Jeffrey S. Passel is a senior demographer at Pew Research Center .
A majority of latinas feel pressure to support their families or to succeed at work, key facts about u.s. latinos for national hispanic heritage month, latinos’ views of and experiences with the spanish language, 11 facts about hispanic origin groups in the u.s., most popular.
901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries
ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.
© 2024 Pew Research Center
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
00:00. 00:00. Wharton's Duncan Watts talks with Wharton Business Daily on SiriusXM about his research on whether teams or individuals are better at accomplishing tasks. When it comes to getting ...
The need for uninterrupted research time should be supported by reasonable student communication policies and the availability of quiet private spaces on campus where researchers could focus on scientific work and, potentially, achieve the state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002), which is conducive to individual creativity.
research towards research work by teams. This identity is not perfect, for, as we shall see later, even the purest research into the secrets of nature calls for an increasing amount of team work. In the early days of nuclear physics, the well-known names were those of individual research workers — Madame Curie , Rutherford Einstein, Bohr.
Linhorst (2002) highlights the contribution social work research can make to developing new creative approaches to focus groups and urges a move away from the more one-dimensional methodology traditionally ... (p. 9). It is vital to be clear what the aims and objectives of the group are, as well as each individual session (Crawford et al., 2015).
The science of teamwork has been extensively studied, 1 and with good reason. Successful teams improve business outcomes, including revenue and performance. 2 Many organizations are intentionally fostering a collaborative team-based culture, 2 and feeling like a part of a team is a primary driver of employee engagement. 3 Prior to the pandemic, organizational shifts had resulted in teams that ...
Step 4: Create a research design. The research design is a practical framework for answering your research questions. It involves making decisions about the type of data you need, the methods you'll use to collect and analyze it, and the location and timescale of your research. There are often many possible paths you can take to answering ...
Such drivers include organizational structures, research culture, features of task environment for academic work, and resource allocation. To advance the state of science in research productivity literature, we then analyze assumptions and highlight mechanisms that need to be explored in order to improve theoretical and methodological state of ...
Background Research capacity is a prerequisite for any health care institution intending to provide high-quality care, yet, few clinicians engage in research, and their work is rarely recognized. To make research an institutional activity, it could be helpful to measure health care professionals' research performance. However, a comprehensive approach to do this is lacking. Methods We ...
Choose a research paper topic. Conduct preliminary research. Develop a thesis statement. Create a research paper outline. Write a first draft of the research paper. Write the introduction. Write a compelling body of text. Write the conclusion. The second draft.
An individual research report is a written document that presents findings from independent research conducted by a student. It typically involves investigating a specific topic, gathering and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions based on the research. All Subjects. Light. Big Idea 1 - Question and Explore ...
Doing research is stimulating and fulfilling work. Scientists make discoveries to build knowledge and solve problems, and they work with other dedicated researchers. ... Research suggests that characteristics of individual researchers and research environments explain (un)ethical behavior in the scientific workplace ...
Understanding the research activity is very important for policymakers to encourage individual research productivity [27]. Objects, topics, and research areas are usually briefly described in the ...
Abstract. Evaluating individual research performance is a complex task that ideally examines productivity, scientific impact, and research quality—a task that metrics alone have been unable to achieve. In January 2011, the French Academy of Sciences published a report on current bibliometric (citation metric) methods for evaluating individual ...
2.1. Work Motivation: A Conceptual Background. Work motivation is considered "a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual's being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form direction intensity and duration" [].Nicolescu and Verboncu (2008) [] argued that work motivation contributes directly and indirectly to employees ...
An initial draft of the PCS was based on a review of research investigating conditions influencing students' preferences for individual and group work. Two focus groups of students in Grades 6 to 8 were recruited to complete the draft survey items, provide feedback on their relevance and clarity, and suggest additional items.
Individual work is, in certain situations, preferable." Group work might be perceived as ineffective and time consuming considering long working periods with tedious discussions. One participant stated, "The time aspect, everything is time consuming." ... Research on Group Work in Education. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc [Google ...
Teamwork vs. individual work: 8 key differences. Key differences between teamwork and individual work include: 1. Collaboration. Collaborating with team members can be beneficial to your work environment by building stronger relationships through shared experiences and cooperative efforts. Working closely with other people can help you approach ...
Research proposal examples. Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We've included a few for you below. Example research proposal #1: "A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management".
When conducting research involving the testing of human biospecimens, investigators and their institutions should routinely consider whether and how to return individual research results on a study-specific basis through an informed decision-making process, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
If you want to learn how to write your own plan for your research project, consider the following seven steps: 1. Define the project purpose. The first step to creating a research plan for your project is to define why and what you're researching. Regardless of whether you're working with a team or alone, understanding the project's purpose can ...
INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH. Integrity characterizes both individual researchers and the institutions in which they work. For individuals, it is an aspect of moral character and experience. 1 For institutions, it is a matter of creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct by embracing standards of excellence, trustworthiness, and lawfulness that inform institutional practices.
Theoretically, individual work performance (IWP) can be divided into four dimensions: task performance, contextual performance, adaptive performance, and counterproductive work behavior.
The research emphasizes the emergent importance and need for the concept of employee engagement been associated with work performance of employees. Correlations between dimensions of work ...
The Census Bureau first asked everybody in the U.S. about Hispanic ethnicity in 1980. But it made some efforts before then to count people who today would be considered Hispanic. The Census Bureau also has a long history of changing labels and shifting categories.In the 1930 census, for example, the race question had a category for "Mexican."