a research brief is used for what purpose

Business & Enterprise
Education, Learning & Skills
Energy & Environment
Financial Services
Health & Wellbeing
Higher Education
Work & Welfare
Behavioural insights
Business Spotlight – IFF’s business omnibus
Customer experience research
Customer satisfaction measurement
National statistics and complex surveys
Stakeholder research
Tenant satisfaction measures
Our approach
Trusted partner
Equality, diversity & inclusion at IFF
Sustainability at IFF
Charity giving
Meet the team
News & resources
Case studies

How to write an effective research brief

Whether you’re launching a simple survey or planning a large-scale project the quality of your brief will hugely impact on the value you get from the research. While it can take a little time and effort creating a research brief, it will undoubtedly be time well spent – getting you better results and return on your investment and saving you valuable resources on further clarification. At best, a poor brief will be a time drain on you and your team. At worst, the findings will fail to meet your objectives, costing you time and money.

We’ve seen a lot of research briefs over the years. Some of which have been well thought through and clear, helping us prepare a detailed proposal and deliver an effective project and subsequent results. And others which have been not so good, lacking clarity or detail.

Using this experience, we’ve put together a ‘how to’ guide on writing an effective research brief, to help you ensure success on your next project.

1. Preparation is key

As with any project, before you start it’s crucial you think through what you want and need to deliver. Here are some things you should consider:

Why are you conducting the research? What exactly are you looking to understand?
Who are you looking to understand better? Who do you need to speak to answer your research questions?
Who are your internal stakeholders? Have you discussed the project needs with the people in your organisation who will use the findings or who are invested in the research?
How will the findings be used?
When do you need the findings?
Have you agreed a budget with either your procurement team, or the relevant person in your organisation?

2. Be clear on your objectives

This is one of the most important parts of your brief to convey to the reader what you want out of the project and ensure you get results which deliver.

Projects should have around three or four overarching aims which set out what the project ultimately wants to achieve.

These might be things like:

Assess the impact of……
Examine views of…..
Evaluate the effectiveness of….

In addition to project objectives, you should also include the key questions you want the research to answer. These should support you in meeting the aims of the research.

For example, if the project aim is to assess the impact of an intervention, your research questions might include:

Who did the intervention target?
What did the project deliver?
What elements were successful, and why?
What were the main enablers and barriers?

3. Remember your audience

Research agencies or organisations who will be responding to your brief might not know anything about your business. So, make sure you include enough background information in your brief to enable them to understand your needs and deliver effectively. And avoid use of jargon or acronyms which could lead to errors or confusion.

4. Structure your research brief

Before you start to populate your brief it’s worth considering all the information and sections you need to include, to structure your thinking and ensure you don’t miss anything important.

This might include some, or all, of the following:

Background info
Introduction
Aims and objectives
Research Question(s)
Issues / Risks
Methodology
Timing and Outputs
Project Management

5. Make it thorough, yet succinct

While it’s crucial to include all the relevant information to enable bidders to respond effectively, no one wants to read reams and reams of information. To avoid the key information getting lost in the details use annexes to add supplementary information which could be useful.

6. Consider how prescriptive you want to be on the methodology

The extent to which you want to specify the methodology will depend on the project you aim to deliver. There are benefits and risks to being overly prescriptive or offering free reign. If you outline in precise detail how you want the research to be conducted, you will hamper any original ideas from those invited to tender and might limit the impact on the research. Whereas, if you’re less prescriptive, allowing room for creativity, you risk not getting the project or results you want, or receiving proposals on a scale which you can’t resource.

Generally, it is useful to allow those invited to tender some scope to develop the methodology they propose to use. Exceptions might be where previous work has to be very precisely replicated or some other very precise commitment about the nature of findings has been given to stakeholders.

7. Define your timelines

As a minimum, you need to include when you want the project to start and end. But you should also include the timetable for procurement. When planning this, don’t underestimate the time and resource needed to run a procurement exercise. Make sure your evaluators are available when you need them and have enough time blocked out in their diary.

You’ll likely also want to include milestones for when you expect outputs to be delivered, such as deadlines for a draft report (providing opportunity for review and feedback) and the final report; allowing sufficient time between the two to enable your stakeholders to consult, for you to feedback and for the contractor to revise the report.

8. Set expectations on cost

You will most likely have budgetary constraints, with a figure for what you are prepared to spend. To save you and your bidders time, and to set realistic expectations, you should include an indication within your brief. This will prevent you receiving proposals which are way out of the ballpark; enable bidders to plan a project which delivers on (or at least close to) budget; and will prevent any nasty surprises, further down the line.

By following these tips you’ll be well on your way to creating an effective research brief which delivers on time and on budget.

If you’d like more guidance download our “step-by-step” guide, which includes a template and information for what to include in each section to ensure success.

Download the guide now.

Scroll to top
Light Dark Light Dark

Cart review

No products in the cart.

Research Brief Format: Essential Guide for Clear & Concise Reports

Author Survey Point Team
Published February 28, 2024

A person reading a book while holding a pen. Illustration for a Research Brief Format.

Research brief format are invaluable tools for distilling complex research findings into an easily digestible format for busy stakeholders. A well-structured research brief gets the most important information in front of decision-makers, policymakers, and other non-technical audiences. This guide breaks down the essential elements that make a research brief impactful and easy to understand.

Delving into the world of research briefs requires finesse and a deep understanding of the essentials. In this guide, we unravel the intricacies of the [Research Brief Format: Essential Guide for Clear & Concise Reports]. From the foundation to advanced strategies, we’ve got you covered. Let’s embark on this journey to elevate your reporting skills.

Table of Contents

Research Brief Basics

Definition and Purpose: A research brief is a short, targeted summary of a research study or project. Its primary purposes are to:

Inform decision-makers who might not have time for in-depth reports.
Influence policy by highlighting key research outcomes.
Shape public opinion or action regarding a specific issue.

Target Audience: Research briefs are written for a non-specialist audience. This generally includes policymakers, stakeholders, or the general public without the technical background to decipher full research reports.

Key Differences from a Research Report:

Length: Research briefs are concise (often 2-4 pages), while reports are much longer.

Focus: Briefs highlight key conclusions and recommendations, while reports present detailed methodology, data, and in-depth analysis

Essential Elements of a Research Brief Format

Title: Concisely and accurately reflects the research focus.

Executive Summary: A few sentences or a short paragraph outlining the absolute essentials: problem, key findings, and main recommendations.

Background/Problem Statement: Briefly explain the issue the research addressed and why it matters.

Research Questions: State the specific questions your research sought to answer.

Methodology: A high-level summary of your research methods (e.g., surveys, experiments, etc.). Avoid excessive technical detail.

Key Findings: Present main findings as clear bullet points or short statements.

Recommendations: Offer actionable recommendations based directly on your findings.

Limitations: Briefly acknowledge factors that might limit the generalizability of your findings.

Visual Aids (Optional): A simple graph or chart can powerfully illustrate the most important finding.

Tips for Writing Clear & Concise Research Brief Format

Plain Language: Ditch the jargon and complex terminology!

Focused: Include only the most essential information for your target audience.

Action-oriented: Clearly emphasize the implications of your findings and provide practical recommendations. What is the ideal length for a research brief? A research brief’s length depends on the complexity of the topic. However, aiming for a concise document of 2-3 pages is often effective.

Frequently Asked Questions

How crucial are LSI keywords in a research brief? LSI keywords enhance the visibility and relevance of your research brief, making it a vital element for a successful report.

Can visual aids replace detailed explanations? While visual aids are impactful, they should complement, not replace, detailed explanations. Balance is key for an effective research brief.

Is there a specific structure to follow in a research brief? Yes, a well-structured research brief typically includes an introduction, methodology, findings, and conclusion. Adhering to this format ensures clarity.

How can I scope my research effectively? Define the scope by clearly stating the objectives, limitations, and expected outcomes of your research. This provides a clear roadmap for your study.

Should I include recommendations in my research brief? Yes, offering actionable recommendations adds value to your research brief, demonstrating its practical implications.

A well-formatted research brief is a powerful communication tool . It can shape how your research is understood and applied by those in positions to make a difference. Use this guide to create briefs that are both informative and persuasive.

Survey Point Team

a research brief is used for what purpose

Marketing91

Research brief: Meaning, Components, Importance & Ways to Prepare

June 12, 2023 | By Hitesh Bhasin | Filed Under: Marketing

Have you ever faced a situation where a researcher has not exactly given the results that you require? Have you ever discussed research as what you want precisely and been disappointed to find that there is a disparity in your expectation and the outcomes? This is because of a failure in communication , that is particular an insufficient brief.

This is where we exactly wish to discuss research brief.

A research brief is a statement that comes from the sponsor, who sets the objectives and background. This is to enable the researcher to plan the research and conduct an appropriate study on it. Research Brief can be as good as a market research study and is very important to a researcher.

It provides good insight and influences on the choice of methodology to be adopted in the research. It also provides an objective to which the project links itself.

It is a short and non-technical summary of a discussion paper that is purely intended for decision-makers with a concentration on the paper’s policy-relevant findings.

Table of Contents

Components of a Research Brief

Some sponsors deliver the brief orally by developing many detail points at the time of initial discussion with the researcher. On the other hand, the brief can also be completely thought through and committed to a paper.

This is very important when many research agencies need to submit proposals. Whether the research brief is oral or written, it should pay attention to the following points:

Problem Background – This is a short record of the events which has actually led to the study. This provides an insight into the researcher a better viewpoint and understanding of the objective of the project.
Problem Description – The researcher requires details in depth to perform the research. When the scope of the research is described properly, the research process gets easier. It becomes helpful for the sponsor to monitor the progress of the research.
Market Analysis – The researcher needs to know the geographical areas of the research. Hence this should be part of the research brief.
Objective Statement – The object of the researcher should be put statement. The researcher should gather the details from the sponsor and then provide a view of what has to be achieved.
Time and Budget – The research brief should mention the time and budget constraints of the research.

Importance of Research Brief

Now, why is research brief important? It is like the way you set a foundation for a building; research brief provides a strong foundation for the research process.

Writing a research brief is important to the success of any market research project. However, it can be difficult to craft the perfect brief that meets the necessity of both the client and the researcher but eventually leads to the desired outcomes.

It helps a researcher to identify a problem to be researched, the exact background of the problem, the required details to address the problem, time and budget constraints within which the research is supposed to be designed.

Example of Research Brief

Keeping the above points in mind, let us take a small example of the way to write a market research brief.

To write a market research brief, it clarifies the research requirement and also makes sure that the ideas are well articulated. It helps to write a better research proposal , conduct user research, and achieve the desired outcome.

Background:

Describe the problem that is required to solve. Include applicable background and the challenge during the research.

Business and Project Objectives:

Explain the business objectives. For example: to increase sales /profit. Try to be specific as you can.

Also, describe the purpose of research and the expected outcomes. What is the decision that you require to make?

Market Objectives:

Market research objective typically follows from the above two objectives. Hence you will need to summarise the aim and information of the research. This will help to mention the questions required for answering.

Stakeholders:

Here, you will need to consider the participant who will sign-off and act on the research outcomes listed.

Research Methods, scope, sample, and guidelines:

Here, you will explain what is required. This will help you to focus on what is important and also have a piece of knowledge of the research investment. Here, more focus is given on the scope of the work and type of research . The inputs and the sample are also analyzed.

Research outcomes:

Here, you will require to define the delivery part of the research.

Ways to prepare Research Brief

Having discussed the basic of research brief, the following points will give you a brief idea of the ways to prepare yourself to write an effective research brief.

Start with a summary of the current situation. Also, define in clear words as what you are already aware of. It would be more useful if you could include more details on your thought about the responsibility for the project on you and the research agency.
After a summary, set up the business and research objectives . For business objectives, you need to mention the overall strategy and what is the importance of the current research. For research objectives, list the issues and topics that are likely to discover. List the problems to solve. Based on the research agency design, define clearly the business and research objectives. Having a clear objective will help you to assess the quality and also focus on the research agency’s report.
Next, you may suggest about the ways about data collection . You can decide on a suitable research methodology that you think will be best fit the project.
List what the outcomes of the project and the deliverables are. Like for example, you might just want to advise on survey design . For this, statistically robust data would be ideal. Or sometimes, you might write a full report with data, interpretation, recommendations, etc. Whatever it is, be clear as what is required. Suggest a timetable and mention the deadline to receive proposals and other deliverables.

Research Brief Template

Given below the template for research brief:

Research Brief: Project Name

#1 background.

In this area, give the background of the research brief.

#2 Business objectives

In this area, define the business objectives. Ideally, for a better understanding and readability, it would be good if the points are bulleted.

#3 Marketing objectives

In this area, type your marketing objectives. In case you have any other kind of objectives apart from marketing, you could change the section title.

In this area, define the research target here. Here, name all the target groups that will be a part of the research and the reason for it. Capture any other applicable details of the target group .

In this area, mention the Budget information. Mentioning a range of budget is fine. Also, indicate an upper limit in case you have any.

In this area, mention the timeline of the research. The approximate time as when this work would be over. Also, when can you provide the final analysis?

#6 Deliverables

In this area, mention the report requirements. For example, whether a detail report is required or just a presentation.

#7 Contact information

In this area, mention the contact information for questions or clarification. It could be Client company name or Individual name, title, e-mail id, phone number, and mailing address.

Liked this post? Check out the complete series on Market research

What is Brand Brief? Components of Brand Brief and Examples
Causal Research – Meaning, Explanation, Examples, Components
What is a Design Brief and How to Write it in 9 Easy Steps?
Qualitative Research: Meaning, and Features of Qualitative Research
Advertising Message – Definition, Meaning, Importance and Components
Research Ethics – Importance and Principles of Ethics in Research
Market Space – Definition, Meaning, Characteristics, Components
Sales Agreement – Meaning, Components and Samples
How to Write Research Proposal? Research Proposal Format
7 Key Differences between Research Method and Research Methodology

About Hitesh Bhasin

Hitesh Bhasin is the CEO of Marketing91 and has over a decade of experience in the marketing field. He is an accomplished author of thousands of insightful articles, including in-depth analyses of brands and companies. Holding an MBA in Marketing, Hitesh manages several offline ventures, where he applies all the concepts of Marketing that he writes about.

All Knowledge Banks (Hub Pages)

Marketing Hub
Management Hub
Marketing Strategy
Advertising Hub
Branding Hub
Market Research
Small Business Marketing
Sales and Selling
Marketing Careers
Internet Marketing
Business Model of Brands
Marketing Mix of Brands
Brand Competitors
Strategy of Brands
SWOT of Brands
Customer Management
Top 10 Lists

Blockchain: The Revolutionary Technology of the Digital World

Iblockchain technology, although initially introduced in satoshi nakamoto's 2008 bitcoin paper, now spans a wide range of applications from the financial sector to healthcare services, supply chains, and voting systems. this technology enables transactions to be recorded and verified on a distributed network without the need for a third-party intermediary, thus minimizing issues like data manipulation and fraud while enhancing transparency and trust., how to write a good and effective research brief, as twentify, we believe a well-written research brief sets the foundation for a successful research study. in this blog post, we will discuss how to write a good and effective research brief that will help companies run a successful study and reach their goals., understanding the purpose of the research.

The first step in writing a research brief is to understand the purpose of the research. This means identifying the problem or opportunity that the research will address. Therefore, it is essential to be clear about the research objectives and clearly communicate them in brief. This will ensure that everyone involved in the research project is on the same page and working towards the same goals.

Defining the Target Audience

Once the purpose of the research has been established, it is essential to define the target audience. For example, who are the people that the research is intended to reach? Understanding the target audience is crucial as it will help to determine the research method, sample size, and the questions that will be asked.

Determining the Research Methods

The next step is to determine the research methods that will be used. Many methods can be used, including surveys, focus groups, and interviews. Choosing the most appropriate method for the research objectives and target audience is essential.

Developing a Detailed Research Plan

Once the research methods have been determined, developing a detailed research plan is essential. This plan should include the specific questions that will be asked, the sample size, and the timeline. It is also necessary to consider the research budget and allocate resources accordingly.

Reviewing and Refining the Research Brief

Finally, it is essential to review and refine the research brief. This means checking the research objectives, target audience, methods, and plan to ensure they are clear, accurate, and achievable. This review process is crucial to ensure that the research project is set up for success.

In conclusion, writing a good and effective research brief is crucial for running a successful study. By understanding the research purpose, defining the target audience, determining the research methods, developing a detailed research plan, and reviewing and refining the research brief, companies can ensure that their research project is set up for success.

As an innovative consumer and market research company, we are committed to helping companies reach their goals by running successful research studies.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR | Ogün Tübek

Topics: RESEARCH

Request consultation

Do you need support in running a pricing or product study? We can help you with agile consumer research and conjoint analysis.

Looking for an online survey platform?

Conjointly offers a great survey tool with multiple question types, randomisation blocks, and multilingual support. The Basic tier is always free.

Catherine Chipeta

Monthly newsletter.

Get the latest updates about market research, automated tools, product testing and pricing techniques.

A good market research brief helps agencies lead successful projects. Learn what to include and how to write a detailed brief with our template guide.

A market research brief is a client document outlining all the relevant information that a research agency needs to understand the client’s specific research needs to propose the most suitable course of action.

A clear, informed brief will ensure the market researcher can deliver the most effective research possible. It also streamlines the project by reducing the need for back and forth between your company and the researcher. A good brief will leave no confusion and provide a meaningful framework for you and the researcher, maximising the accuracy and reliability of insights collected.

Start your project faster with our market research brief template!

In this article, we’ve broken down the key components of a well-written brief, with examples. Using this template guide, you can confidently equip the researcher with the right information to deliver exemplary research for your next project.

Business Background/ Project Background

This section of the brief introduces your company to the market researcher, giving them a more informed overview of your brand, product/service, and target market. You should provide all available context to ensure you and the researcher are on the same page with the project.

Relevant information to add in this section includes: company details, company mission/vision, industry status and trends, market performance history, competitive context, any existing research.

Business Objectives/ Marketing Objectives

Your business objectives/marketing objectives should answer why you are being asked to conduct the research. The researcher should be able to grasp the existing problems/issues your company is looking to address in the research.

For example, this could involve sales, competition, customer satisfaction, or product innovation, to name a few.

Research Objectives

Research objectives address the specific questions you would like the research to cover, including what insights you wish to gain. This is where you should detail what actions your company is planning to take based on the research you are commissioning.

Your research objective is one of the most important elements of your brief, as it dictates how your study will be conducted and the quality of results.

Target Market

Who will this research focus on? This is where you should state respondents’ demographic and profiling information, along with any pre-existing segments you want to target. Be specific, but also be aware that the more restrictive the criteria are, the higher the sample cost will be. Extensive limitations are also realistically harder to meet.

For example:

Market: Canada
Sample size: 200 – 1000
Demographics: Household income of $150k and above a year
Markets: Malaysia (priority), Thailand, Singapore
Sample size: N=200 (Product Variant Selector) + N=500 (Conjoint)
Demographics: 16 – 50 years old
National representation: Age, gender and location
Target definition: Bought electronics online in the past 12 months
Reads on: 16 – 30-year olds vs. 31 – 50-year olds
Market: South America
Sample size: 1800
Target definition: Main and joint grocery buyers
5 target groups: Income, urban/rural, age, family status, shopping frequency (divide each into 3 subgroups, e.g. low, medium, high).

Action Standards/ Decision Rules

Action standards outline which criteria will determine the decisions you make following research. These should detail specific numerical scores and any company benchmarks which need to be met in your research results for decision-making to go ahead. Clear and detailed action standards will allow you to make decisions faster and more confidently following research.

Nestlé’s 60/40 action standard which prioritises preference and nutrition, by aiming “to make products that achieve at least 60% consumer taste preference with the added ‘plus’ of nutritional advantage”.

Pricing is seen as credible by at least 40% of the target market.

Product has at least 50% acceptance from the target market.

Methodology

You should only include methodology if you are certain of the approach you want to take. If you do not know which methodology you should use, leave this section blank for agency recommendations.

Monadic test : Monadic testing introduces survey respondents to individual concepts, products in isolation. It is usually used in studies where independent findings for each stimulus are required, unlike in comparison testing, where several stimuli are tested side-by-side. Each product/concept is displayed and evaluated separately, providing more accurate and meaningful results for specific items.

Discrete choice modelling : Sometimes referred to as choice-based conjoint, discrete choice is a more robust technique consistent with random utility theory and has been proven to simulate customers’ actual behaviour in the marketplace. The output on relative importance of attributes and value by level is aligned to the output from conjoint analysis (partworth analysis).

Qualitative research : Qualitative forms of research focus on non-numerical and unstructured data, such as participant observation, direct observation, unstructured interviews, and case studies.

Quantitative research : Numbers and measurable forms of data make up quantitative research, focusing on ‘how many’, ‘how often’, and ‘how much’, e.g. conjoint analysis , MaxDiff , Gabor-Granger , Van Westendorp .

Deliverables

Deliverables should clearly outline project expectations – both from your company and the agency. This should cover who is responsible for everything required to undertake research, including survey inputs and outputs, materials, reporting, reviewing, and any additional requirements.

PowerPoint presentation
Crosstabs of data
Raw datasets
Excel simulator
Online dashboard
“Typing tool” for future research

Timing and Cost

Timing covers the due dates for key milestones of your research project, most importantly, for your preliminary and final reports. Cost should include your project budget, along with any potential additional costs/constraints.

Contacts and Responsibilities

This section states all stakeholders involved in the project, their role and responsibilities, and their contact details. You should ensure that these are easy to locate on your brief, for quick reference by the agency and easier communication.

Ready-to-use market research brief template with examples

Start your research project faster and get better results. Using this template, you can confidently equip the researcher with the right information to deliver exemplary research for your next project.

Read these articles next:

Reddit rebrand — new vs. old.

To evaluate the effectiveness of Reddit's recent logo update, this Logo Test compares the new 2023 logo with the 2017 Reddit logo.

Kano Model or MaxDiff Analysis?

Should you use Kano or MaxDiff for feature selection? We compare the two and draw practical recommendations.

How to get the most out of open-ended questions

Open-ended questions should be part of any research project as they can gather in-depth and rich insights from your target audience. Learn more about open-ended questions and getting the most out of them for your projects.

Which one are you?

I am new to conjointly, i am already using conjointly, cookie consent.

Conjointly uses essential cookies to make our site work. We also use additional cookies in order to understand the usage of the site, gather audience analytics, and for remarketing purposes.

For more information on Conjointly's use of cookies, please read our Cookie Policy .

Do you want to be updated on new features from Conjointly?

We send occasional emails to keep our users informed about new developments on Conjointly , such as new types of analysis and features.

Subscribe to updates from Conjointly

You can always unsubscribe later. Your email will not be shared with other companies.

Ready to level up your insights?

Get ready to streamline, scale and supercharge your research. Fill out this form to request a demo of the InsightHub platform and discover the difference insights empowerment can make. A member of our team will reach out within two working days.

Cost effective insights that scale

Quality insight doesn't need to cost the earth. Our flexible approach helps you make the most of research budgets and build an agile solution that works for you. Fill out this form to request a call back from our team to explore our pricing options.

What is InsightHub?
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Data Activation
Research Templates
Information Security
Our Expert Services
Support & Education
Consultative Services
Insight Delivery
Research Methods
Sectors We Work With
Meet the team
Advisory Board
Press & Media
Book a Demo
Request Pricing

Embark on a new adventure. Join Camp InsightHub, our free demo platform, to discover the future of research.

Read a brief overview of the agile research platform enabling brands to inform decisions at speed in this PDF.

InsightHub on the Blog

Surveys, Video and the Changing Face of Agile Research
Building a Research Technology Stack for Better Insights
The Importance of Delegation in Managing Insight Activities
Common Insight Platform Pitfalls (and How to Avoid Them)
Support and Education
Insight Delivery Services

Our services drive operational and strategic success in challenging environments. Find out how.

Close Connections bring stakeholders and customers together for candid, human conversations.

Services on the Blog

Closing the Client-Agency Divide in Market Research
How to Speed Up Fieldwork Without Compromising Quality
Practical Ways to Support Real-Time Decision Making
Developing a Question Oriented, Not Answer Oriented Culture
Meet the Team

The FlexMR credentials deck provides a brief introduction to the team, our approach to research and previous work.

We are the insights empowerment company. Our framework addresses the major pressures insight teams face.

Latest News

Insight as Art Shortlisted for AURA Innovation Award
FlexMR Launch Video Close Connection Programme
VideoMR Analysis Tool Added to InsightHub
FlexMR Makes Shortlist for Quirks Research Supplier Award
Latest Posts
Strategic Thinking
Technology & Trends
Practical Application
Insights Empowerment
View Full Blog Archives

Discover how to build close customer connections to better support real-time decision making.

What is a market research and insights playbook, plus discover why should your team consider building one.

How to Write a Market Research Brief (+ Free Template)

Emily james, pitch it: the business case for customer salience.

As insight experts, we understand the power of insights, their inherent value in key decision-making...

Insights Empowerment (29)
Practical Application (170)
Research Methods (283)
Strategic Thinking (192)
Survey Templates (7)
Tech & Trends (387)

A market research brief is a document a client produces detailing important information about their unique situation and research requirements. This information should include (but is not limited to) the context of the situation in which the decision to conduct research was made, the initial objectives, and the resulting actions that hope to be taken after the research has concluded.

This brief would come before the typical market research plan (see our example here ), and so any information that is contained within the brief will be subject to modification once in-depth chats between the client and the research agency have been conducted.

This is one of the most important initiating steps for market research as it provides the necessary information that researchers need to understand your needs as much as you do yourself. There is a lot to be said for being on the same page at this early stage of the research experience. While different agencies will prioritise different aspects of the research project, 90% of the brief will follow the same lines, so a draft should always be made and then it can be easily edited to the agency’s requirements.

Why Create a Market Research Brief?

Writing up a brief is essential for the clear communication of your research requirements. Clear communication from the very start is essential if a positive working relationship is going to bloom between the parties involved. This brief outline of a business’ unique scenario communicates information that researchers need in order to achieve a high level of understanding which they can use to create and further refine a detailed plan the research experience.

Key Components

Just looking at the many template designs out there, we can see that a research brief has a few key aspects that everyone agrees are important:

1. Contextual Information

Now this can be interpreted in two ways, both of which should be included within the market research brief. The first interpretation is contextual information relating to the business hiring the research agency. What does the business do? What are it’s values? How is it run? And then the second interpretation is contextual information relating to how the need for research arose. What are the steps that took place towards the realisation that research was needed? This timeline could span months or just days, but even so, the detail must be included for the researcher to get a full understanding of the situation at hand.

2. Description of Research Purpose

At this point, a description of the product (or service) which is to be researched is needed; whoever is carrying out the research will need to know as much detail as possible about the subject of the study as this will have a big influence on the research method used (more information on that to come).

A description of the target markets will also be needed at this point: covering the geographical territories, the target audience (consumers vs. potential consumers) and any specific demographics that should be included or excluded. If this information is known, an approximate sample size can also be noted down.

If a business is wanting to test adverts, product examples, etc. then example designs or prototypes are going to be needed for both the researcher and the participants to use in the formation of the research tasks and the generation of data.

3. Objectives

Again, this aspect of the brief can be split up into two equally important interpretations. The objectives of the business are incredibly important as they provide another level of contextual understanding for the researcher. The other set of objectives that are needed within the brief, are the research objectives. Now, these are usually formed as questions that the business would like answered, but are subject to modification with the input of the researcher as they will know what is achievable, and what the business needs instead of what they want. Research objectives also cover what the business want to do with the insights generated as that gives an indication of what sort of research needs to be conducted. For the best research experience that ends in fully applicable insights, aligning business and research objectives is imperative.

4. Research Methods

While this will also be subject to modification, an idea of what types of research methods the business might want to employ for this research experience will provide insights on a couple of things to a well-trained researcher. Firstly, it will indicate the business’ level of knowledge on market research, which will allow the researcher to adjust their tone, etc. to accommodate for any knowledge gaps that might be present.

Secondly, it will indicate what type of research that the business is looking to conduct (i.e. qualitative or quantitative, etc.), even if they don’t know it themselves. This section also serves the purpose of sparking a bit of research on the business’ end to see for themselves what options are available to them.

5. Business constraints

This is a relatively simple one. Constraints such as time and budget are imperative to communicate to the researcher, as this will be the main factor in the shaping of your research experience. Depending on whether a business is very constrained or loosely constrained will determine what types of research tasks should be employed, and how extravagant and dedicated a researcher can be in their pursuit of insights for the business.

a. Research Deliverables

Finally, this is an optional category of information that will help shape the research experience in both the formation of the research tasks and the research reports. One important question is, what actions would you want to take after receiving the insights from the research?

If the answer to this question depends on the tone of the insights, then what options do you see for how the results will be used within the business? Different agencies will offer different reporting options and it helps to know which you would like. So, what type of report would you like to receive? The answers to these questions help how the report and project are framed.

Free Template Example

Use this link to download our free market research brief template. This template contains editable sections that complies with the advice above, with brief guidance and tips on how to make the most out of your brief. This template is currently available in .docx format only, and will require a copy of Microsoft Word or an alternative text editor to be used.

About FlexMR

We are The Insights Empowerment Company. We help research, product and marketing teams drive informed decisions with efficient, scalable & impactful insight.

About Emily James

As a professional copywriter, Emily brings our global vision to life through a broad range of industry-leading content.

Stay up to date

Market Research Room 101: Round 2

On Thursday 9th May 2024, Team Russell and Team Hudson duelled in a panel debate modelled off the popular TV show Room 101. This mock-gameshow-style panel, hosted by Keen as Mustard Marketing's Lucy D...

Delivering AI Powered Qual at Scale...

It’s safe to say artificial intelligence, and more specifically generative AI, has had a transformative impact on the market research sector. From the contentious emergence of synthetic participants t...

How to Use Digital Ethnography and ...

In one way or another, we’ve all encountered social media spaces. Whether you’ve had a Facebook account since it first landed on the internet, created different accounts to keep up with relatives duri...

Research Writing and Analysis

NVivo Group and Study Sessions
SPSS This link opens in a new window
Statistical Analysis Group sessions
Using Qualtrics
Dissertation and Data Analysis Group Sessions
Defense Schedule - Commons Calendar This link opens in a new window
Research Process Flow Chart
Research Alignment Chapter 1 This link opens in a new window
Step 1: Seek Out Evidence
Step 2: Explain
Step 3: The Big Picture
Step 4: Own It
Step 5: Illustrate
Annotated Bibliography
Literature Review This link opens in a new window
Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
How to Synthesize and Analyze
Synthesis and Analysis Practice
Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
Problem Statement
Purpose Statement
Conceptual Framework
Theoretical Framework
Quantitative Research Questions
Qualitative Research Questions
Trustworthiness of Qualitative Data
Analysis and Coding Example- Qualitative Data
Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
Dissertation to Journal Article This link opens in a new window
International Journal of Online Graduate Education (IJOGE) This link opens in a new window
Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning (JRIT&L) This link opens in a new window

Jump to DSE Guide

Purpose statement overview.

The purpose statement succinctly explains (on no more than 1 page) the objectives of the research study. These objectives must directly address the problem and help close the stated gap. Expressed as a formula:

Good purpose statements:

Flow from the problem statement and actually address the proposed problem
Are concise and clear
Answer the question ‘Why are you doing this research?’
Match the methodology (similar to research questions)
Have a ‘hook’ to get the reader’s attention
Set the stage by clearly stating, “The purpose of this (qualitative or quantitative) study is to ...

In PhD studies, the purpose usually involves applying a theory to solve the problem. In other words, the purpose tells the reader what the goal of the study is, and what your study will accomplish, through which theoretical lens. The purpose statement also includes brief information about direction, scope, and where the data will come from.

A problem and gap in combination can lead to different research objectives, and hence, different purpose statements. In the example from above where the problem was severe underrepresentation of female CEOs in Fortune 500 companies and the identified gap related to lack of research of male-dominated boards; one purpose might be to explore implicit biases in male-dominated boards through the lens of feminist theory. Another purpose may be to determine how board members rated female and male candidates on scales of competency, professionalism, and experience to predict which candidate will be selected for the CEO position. The first purpose may involve a qualitative ethnographic study in which the researcher observes board meetings and hiring interviews; the second may involve a quantitative regression analysis. The outcomes will be very different, so it’s important that you find out exactly how you want to address a problem and help close a gap!

The purpose of the study must not only align with the problem and address a gap; it must also align with the chosen research method. In fact, the DP/DM template requires you to name the research method at the very beginning of the purpose statement. The research verb must match the chosen method. In general, quantitative studies involve “closed-ended” research verbs such as determine , measure , correlate , explain , compare , validate , identify , or examine ; whereas qualitative studies involve “open-ended” research verbs such as explore , understand , narrate , articulate [meanings], discover , or develop .

A qualitative purpose statement following the color-coded problem statement (assumed here to be low well-being among financial sector employees) + gap (lack of research on followers of mid-level managers), might start like this:

In response to declining levels of employee well-being, the purpose of the qualitative phenomenology was to explore and understand the lived experiences related to the well-being of the followers of novice mid-level managers in the financial services industry. The levels of follower well-being have been shown to correlate to employee morale, turnover intention, and customer orientation (Eren et al., 2013). A combined framework of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory and the employee well-being concept informed the research questions and supported the inquiry, analysis, and interpretation of the experiences of followers of novice managers in the financial services industry.

A quantitative purpose statement for the same problem and gap might start like this:

In response to declining levels of employee well-being, the purpose of the quantitative correlational study was to determine which leadership factors predict employee well-being of the followers of novice mid-level managers in the financial services industry. Leadership factors were measured by the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) assessment framework by Mantlekow (2015), and employee well-being was conceptualized as a compound variable consisting of self-reported turnover-intent and psychological test scores from the Mental Health Survey (MHS) developed by Johns Hopkins University researchers.

Both of these purpose statements reflect viable research strategies and both align with the problem and gap so it’s up to the researcher to design a study in a manner that reflects personal preferences and desired study outcomes. Note that the quantitative research purpose incorporates operationalized concepts or variables ; that reflect the way the researcher intends to measure the key concepts under study; whereas the qualitative purpose statement isn’t about translating the concepts under study as variables but instead aim to explore and understand the core research phenomenon.

Best Practices for Writing your Purpose Statement

Always keep in mind that the dissertation process is iterative, and your writing, over time, will be refined as clarity is gradually achieved. Most of the time, greater clarity for the purpose statement and other components of the Dissertation is the result of a growing understanding of the literature in the field. As you increasingly master the literature you will also increasingly clarify the purpose of your study.

The purpose statement should flow directly from the problem statement. There should be clear and obvious alignment between the two and that alignment will get tighter and more pronounced as your work progresses.

The purpose statement should specifically address the reason for conducting the study, with emphasis on the word specifically. There should not be any doubt in your readers’ minds as to the purpose of your study. To achieve this level of clarity you will need to also insure there is no doubt in your mind as to the purpose of your study.

Many researchers benefit from stopping your work during the research process when insight strikes you and write about it while it is still fresh in your mind. This can help you clarify all aspects of a dissertation, including clarifying its purpose.

Your Chair and your committee members can help you to clarify your study’s purpose so carefully attend to any feedback they offer.

The purpose statement should reflect the research questions and vice versa. The chain of alignment that began with the research problem description and continues on to the research purpose, research questions, and methodology must be respected at all times during dissertation development. You are to succinctly describe the overarching goal of the study that reflects the research questions. Each research question narrows and focuses the purpose statement. Conversely, the purpose statement encompasses all of the research questions.

Identify in the purpose statement the research method as quantitative, qualitative or mixed (i.e., “The purpose of this [qualitative/quantitative/mixed] study is to ...)

Avoid the use of the phrase “research study” since the two words together are redundant.

Follow the initial declaration of purpose with a brief overview of how, with what instruments/data, with whom and where (as applicable) the study will be conducted. Identify variables/constructs and/or phenomenon/concept/idea. Since this section is to be a concise paragraph, emphasis must be placed on the word brief. However, adding these details will give your readers a very clear picture of the purpose of your research.

Developing the purpose section of your dissertation is usually not achieved in a single flash of insight. The process involves a great deal of reading to find out what other scholars have done to address the research topic and problem you have identified. The purpose section of your dissertation could well be the most important paragraph you write during your academic career, and every word should be carefully selected. Think of it as the DNA of your dissertation. Everything else you write should emerge directly and clearly from your purpose statement. In turn, your purpose statement should emerge directly and clearly from your research problem description. It is good practice to print out your problem statement and purpose statement and keep them in front of you as you work on each part of your dissertation in order to insure alignment.

It is helpful to collect several dissertations similar to the one you envision creating. Extract the problem descriptions and purpose statements of other dissertation authors and compare them in order to sharpen your thinking about your own work. Comparing how other dissertation authors have handled the many challenges you are facing can be an invaluable exercise. Keep in mind that individual universities use their own tailored protocols for presenting key components of the dissertation so your review of these purpose statements should focus on content rather than form.

Once your purpose statement is set it must be consistently presented throughout the dissertation. This may require some recursive editing because the way you articulate your purpose may evolve as you work on various aspects of your dissertation. Whenever you make an adjustment to your purpose statement you should carefully follow up on the editing and conceptual ramifications throughout the entire document.

In establishing your purpose you should NOT advocate for a particular outcome. Research should be done to answer questions not prove a point. As a researcher, you are to inquire with an open mind, and even when you come to the work with clear assumptions, your job is to prove the validity of the conclusions reached. For example, you would not say the purpose of your research project is to demonstrate that there is a relationship between two variables. Such a statement presupposes you know the answer before your research is conducted and promotes or supports (advocates on behalf of) a particular outcome. A more appropriate purpose statement would be to examine or explore the relationship between two variables.

Your purpose statement should not imply that you are going to prove something. You may be surprised to learn that we cannot prove anything in scholarly research for two reasons. First, in quantitative analyses, statistical tests calculate the probability that something is true rather than establishing it as true. Second, in qualitative research, the study can only purport to describe what is occurring from the perspective of the participants. Whether or not the phenomenon they are describing is true in a larger context is not knowable. We cannot observe the phenomenon in all settings and in all circumstances.

Writing your Purpose Statement

It is important to distinguish in your mind the differences between the Problem Statement and Purpose Statement.

The Problem Statement is why I am doing the research

The Purpose Statement is what type of research I am doing to fit or address the problem

The Purpose Statement includes:

Method of Study
Specific Population

Remember, as you are contemplating what to include in your purpose statement and then when you are writing it, the purpose statement is a concise paragraph that describes the intent of the study, and it should flow directly from the problem statement. It should specifically address the reason for conducting the study, and reflect the research questions. Further, it should identify the research method as qualitative, quantitative, or mixed. Then provide a brief overview of how the study will be conducted, with what instruments/data collection methods, and with whom (subjects) and where (as applicable). Finally, you should identify variables/constructs and/or phenomenon/concept/idea.

Qualitative Purpose Statement

Creswell (2002) suggested for writing purpose statements in qualitative research include using deliberate phrasing to alert the reader to the purpose statement. Verbs that indicate what will take place in the research and the use of non-directional language that do not suggest an outcome are key. A purpose statement should focus on a single idea or concept, with a broad definition of the idea or concept. How the concept was investigated should also be included, as well as participants in the study and locations for the research to give the reader a sense of with whom and where the study took place.

Creswell (2003) advised the following script for purpose statements in qualitative research:

“The purpose of this qualitative_________________ (strategy of inquiry, such as ethnography, case study, or other type) study is (was? will be?) to ________________ (understand? describe? develop? discover?) the _________________(central phenomenon being studied) for ______________ (the participants, such as the individual, groups, organization) at __________(research site). At this stage in the research, the __________ (central phenomenon being studied) will be generally defined as ___________________ (provide a general definition)” (pg. 90).

Quantitative Purpose Statement

Creswell (2003) offers vast differences between the purpose statements written for qualitative research and those written for quantitative research, particularly with respect to language and the inclusion of variables. The comparison of variables is often a focus of quantitative research, with the variables distinguishable by either the temporal order or how they are measured. As with qualitative research purpose statements, Creswell (2003) recommends the use of deliberate language to alert the reader to the purpose of the study, but quantitative purpose statements also include the theory or conceptual framework guiding the study and the variables that are being studied and how they are related.

Creswell (2003) suggests the following script for drafting purpose statements in quantitative research:

“The purpose of this _____________________ (experiment? survey?) study is (was? will be?) to test the theory of _________________that _________________ (compares? relates?) the ___________(independent variable) to _________________________(dependent variable), controlling for _______________________ (control variables) for ___________________ (participants) at _________________________ (the research site). The independent variable(s) _____________________ will be generally defined as _______________________ (provide a general definition). The dependent variable(s) will be generally defined as _____________________ (provide a general definition), and the control and intervening variables(s), _________________ (identify the control and intervening variables) will be statistically controlled in this study” (pg. 97).

Sample Purpose Statements

The purpose of this qualitative study was to determine how participation in service-learning in an alternative school impacted students academically, civically, and personally. There is ample evidence demonstrating the failure of schools for students at-risk; however, there is still a need to demonstrate why these students are successful in non-traditional educational programs like the service-learning model used at TDS. This study was unique in that it examined one alternative school’s approach to service-learning in a setting where students not only serve, but faculty serve as volunteer teachers. The use of a constructivist approach in service-learning in an alternative school setting was examined in an effort to determine whether service-learning participation contributes positively to academic, personal, and civic gain for students, and to examine student and teacher views regarding the overall outcomes of service-learning. This study was completed using an ethnographic approach that included observations, content analysis, and interviews with teachers at The David School.
The purpose of this quantitative non-experimental cross-sectional linear multiple regression design was to investigate the relationship among early childhood teachers’ self-reported assessment of multicultural awareness as measured by responses from the Teacher Multicultural Attitude Survey (TMAS) and supervisors’ observed assessment of teachers’ multicultural competency skills as measured by the Multicultural Teaching Competency Scale (MTCS) survey. Demographic data such as number of multicultural training hours, years teaching in Dubai, curriculum program at current school, and age were also examined and their relationship to multicultural teaching competency. The study took place in the emirate of Dubai where there were 14,333 expatriate teachers employed in private schools (KHDA, 2013b).
The purpose of this quantitative, non-experimental study is to examine the degree to which stages of change, gender, acculturation level and trauma types predicts the reluctance of Arab refugees, aged 18 and over, in the Dearborn, MI area, to seek professional help for their mental health needs. This study will utilize four instruments to measure these variables: University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA: DiClemente & Hughes, 1990); Cumulative Trauma Scale (Kira, 2012); Acculturation Rating Scale for Arabic Americans-II Arabic and English (ARSAA-IIA, ARSAA-IIE: Jadalla & Lee, 2013), and a demographic survey. This study will examine 1) the relationship between stages of change, gender, acculturation levels, and trauma types and Arab refugees’ help-seeking behavior, 2) the degree to which any of these variables can predict Arab refugee help-seeking behavior. Additionally, the outcome of this study could provide researchers and clinicians with a stage-based model, TTM, for measuring Arab refugees’ help-seeking behavior and lay a foundation for how TTM can help target the clinical needs of Arab refugees. Lastly, this attempt to apply the TTM model to Arab refugees’ condition could lay the foundation for future research to investigate the application of TTM to clinical work among refugee populations.
The purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological study is to describe the lived experiences of LLM for 10 EFL learners in rural Guatemala and to utilize that data to determine how it conforms to, or possibly challenges, current theoretical conceptions of LLM. In accordance with Morse’s (1994) suggestion that a phenomenological study should utilize at least six participants, this study utilized semi-structured interviews with 10 EFL learners to explore why and how they have experienced the motivation to learn English throughout their lives. The methodology of horizontalization was used to break the interview protocols into individual units of meaning before analyzing these units to extract the overarching themes (Moustakas, 1994). These themes were then interpreted into a detailed description of LLM as experienced by EFL students in this context. Finally, the resulting description was analyzed to discover how these learners’ lived experiences with LLM conformed with and/or diverged from current theories of LLM.
The purpose of this qualitative, embedded, multiple case study was to examine how both parent-child attachment relationships are impacted by the quality of the paternal and maternal caregiver-child interactions that occur throughout a maternal deployment, within the context of dual-military couples. In order to examine this phenomenon, an embedded, multiple case study was conducted, utilizing an attachment systems metatheory perspective. The study included four dual-military couples who experienced a maternal deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) when they had at least one child between 8 weeks-old to 5 years-old. Each member of the couple participated in an individual, semi-structured interview with the researcher and completed the Parenting Relationship Questionnaire (PRQ). “The PRQ is designed to capture a parent’s perspective on the parent-child relationship” (Pearson, 2012, para. 1) and was used within the proposed study for this purpose. The PRQ was utilized to triangulate the data (Bekhet & Zauszniewski, 2012) as well as to provide some additional information on the parents’ perspective of the quality of the parent-child attachment relationship in regards to communication, discipline, parenting confidence, relationship satisfaction, and time spent together (Pearson, 2012). The researcher utilized the semi-structured interview to collect information regarding the parents' perspectives of the quality of their parental caregiver behaviors during the deployment cycle, the mother's parent-child interactions while deployed, the behavior of the child or children at time of reunification, and the strategies or behaviors the parents believe may have contributed to their child's behavior at the time of reunification. The results of this study may be utilized by the military, and by civilian providers, to develop proactive and preventive measures that both providers and parents can implement, to address any potential adverse effects on the parent-child attachment relationship, identified through the proposed study. The results of this study may also be utilized to further refine and understand the integration of attachment theory and systems theory, in both clinical and research settings, within the field of marriage and family therapy.

Was this resource helpful?

<< Previous: Problem Statement
Next: Conceptual Framework >>
Last Updated: May 16, 2024 8:25 AM
URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchtools

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
My Account Login
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Review Article
Open access
Published: 13 September 2021

Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review

Diana Arnautu 1 &
Christian Dagenais 1

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 8 , Article number: 211 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

17 Citations

100 Altmetric

Metrics details

Health humanities
Medical humanities

There is a significant gap between researchers’ production of evidence and its use by policymakers. Several knowledge transfer strategies have emerged in the past years to promote the use of research. One of those strategies is the policy brief; a short document synthesizing the results of one or multiple studies. This scoping study aims to identify the use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer strategy. Twenty-two empirical articles were identified, spanning 35 countries. Results show that policy briefs are considered generally useful, credible and easy to understand. The type of audience is an essential component to consider when writing a policy brief. Introducing a policy brief sooner rather than later might have a bigger impact since it is more effective in creating a belief rather than changing one. The credibility of the policy brief’s author is also a factor taken into consideration by decision-makers. Further research needs to be done to evaluate the various forms of uses of policy briefs by decision-makers.

Barriers and facilitators of translating health research findings into policy in sub-Saharan Africa: A Scoping Review

Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence

Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice

Introduction.

Improving well-being and reducing health-related inequalities is a challenging endeavor for public policymakers. They must consider the nature and significance of the issue, the proposed interventions and their pros and cons such as their impact and acceptability (Lavis et al., 2012 ; Mays et al., 2005 ). Policymakers are members of a government department, legislature or other organization responsible for devising new regulations and laws (Cambridge University Press, 2019 ). They face the challenge of finding the best solutions to multiple health-related crises while being the most time and cost-effective possible. Limited by time and smothered by an overwhelming amount of information, some policymakers are likely to use cognitive shortcuts by selecting the “evidence” most appropriate to their political leanings (Baekgaard et al., 2019 ; Cairney et al., 2019 ; Oliver and Cairney, 2019 ).

To prevent snap decisions in policymaking, it is essential to develop tools to facilitate the dissemination and use of empirical research. Evidence-informed solutions might be an effective way to address these complicated questions since they derive knowledge from accurate and robust evidence instead of beliefs and provide a more holistic view of a problem. Although it may be possible for different stakeholders to agree on certain matters, a consensus is uncommon (Nutley et al., 2013 ). Using research evidence allows policymakers to decrease their bias towards an intervention’s perceived effectiveness. This leads to more confidence among policymakers on what to expect from an intervention as their decisions are guided by evidence (Lavis et al., 2004 ). However, trying to integrate research findings into the policy-making process comes with a whole new set of challenges, both for researchers and policymakers.

Barriers to evidence-informed policy

Barriers to evidence-informed policy can be defined in three categories: the research evidence is not available in an accessible format for the policymaker, the evidence is disregarded for political or ideological reasons and the evidence is not applicable to the political context (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ; Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ).

The first category of barriers refers to the availability and the type of evidence. The vast amount of information policymakers need to keep up-to-date in specific fields is a particular challenge to this barrier, leading to policymakers being frequently overwhelmed with the amount of information they need to go through regarding each case (Orandi and Locke, 2020 ). Decision-makers have reported a lack of competencies in finding, evaluating, interpreting or using certain evidence such as systematic reviews in their decision-making, leading to difficulty in accessing these reviews and identifying the key messages quickly (Tricco et al., 2015 ). Although policymakers use a broader variety of forms of evidence than previously examined in the literature, scholars have rarely been consulted and research evidence has rarely been seen as directly applicable (Oliver and de Vocht, 2017 ). The lack of awareness on the importance of research evidence and on the ways to access these resources also contribute to the gap between research and policy (Oliver et al., 2014 ; van de Goor et al., 2017 ). Some other frequently reported barriers to evidence use in policymaking were the poor access to timely, quality and relevant research evidence as well as the limited collaboration between policymakers and researchers (Oliver et al., 2014 ; Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ; van de Goor et al., 2017 ). Given the fact that research is only one input amongst all the others that policymakers must consider in their decision, it is no surprise that policymakers may disregard research evidence in favor of other sources of information (Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ).

The second category of barriers refers to policymakers’ ideology regarding research evidence and the presence of biases. Resistance to change and a lack of willingness by some policymakers to use research are two factors present when attempting to bridge the gap. This could be explained by certain sub-cultures of policymaking that grants little importance to evidence-informed solutions or by certain policymakers prioritizing their own opinion when research findings go against their expectations or against current policy (Koon et al., 2013 ; Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ). Policymakers tend to interpret new information based on their past attitudes and beliefs, much like the general population (Baekgaard et al., 2019 ). It also does not seem to persuade policymakers with beliefs opposed to the evidence, rather it increases the effect of attitudes on the interpretation of information by policymakers (Baekgaard et al., 2019 ). This highlights the importance of finding methods to disseminate tailored evidence in a way that policymakers will be open to receive and consider (Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017 ).

The third category of barriers refers to the evidence produced not always being tailor-made for application in different contexts (Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ; WHO, 2004 ). Indeed, the political context is an undeniable factor in the use of evidence in policymaking. Political and institutional factors such as the level of state centralization and democratization, the influence of external organizations and donors, the organization of bureaucracies and the social norms and values, can all affect the use of evidence in policy (Liverani et al., 2013 ). The elaboration of new policies implies making choices between different priorities while taking into consideration the limited resources available (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ). The evidence of research can always be contested or balanced with the potential negative consequences of the intervention in another domain, such as a health-care intervention having larger consequences on the economy. Even if the effectiveness of an intervention can be proved beyond doubt, this given issue might not be a priority for decision-makers, or it might involve unrealistic resources that would rather be granted to other issues. Policymakers need to stay aware of the political priorities identified and the citizens they need to justify their decisions to. In this sense, politics and institutions are not a barrier to the use of research but rather they are the context under which evidence must respond to (Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017 ; Hawkins and Parkhurst, 2016 ).

Summaries to prevent information overload

A great deal of research evidence has been developed but not enough of it is being disseminated in effective ways (Oliver and Boaz, 2019 ). Offering a summary of research results in an accessible format could facilitate policy discussion and ultimately improve the use of research and help policymakers with their decisions (Arcury et al., 2017 ; Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017 ). In this age of information overload, when too much information is provided, one can have trouble discerning what is most important and make a decision. It is not unlikely that policymakers will, after a brief glance, discard a large amount of information given to them (Beynon et al., 2012 ; Yang et al., 2003 ). Decision-makers oftentimes criticize the length and overly dense contents of research documents (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ; Oliver et al., 2014 ). Hence, summaries of research results could increase the odds of decision-makers reading and therefore using the evidence proposed by researchers.

There are different methods to summarize research findings to provide facts and more detail for those involved in decision-making. For example, an infographic is an effective visual representation that explains information simply and quickly by using a combination of text and graphical symbols (Huang and Tan, 2007 ). Another type of research summary is the rapid review, a form of knowledge synthesis tailored and targeted to answer specific questions arising in “real world” policy or program environments (Moore et al., 2016 ; Wilson et al., 2015 ). They are oftentimes commissioned by people who would need scientific results to back up a decision. To produce the information in a timely manner, certain components of the systematic review process need to be simplified or omitted (Khangura et al., 2012 ). One study examining the use of 139 rapid reviews found that 89% of them had been used by commissioning agencies, on average up to three uses per review. Policymakers used those rapid reviews mostly to determine the details of a policy, to identify priorities and solutions for future action and communicate the information to stakeholders. However, rapid reviews might be susceptible to bias as a consequence of streamlining the systematic review process (Tricco et al., 2015 ). Also, policymakers may not always be able to commission a rapid review due to financial constraints.

Policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool

Another approach to summarizing research, which is more focused on summarizing results for the use of policymakers, is the policy brief. There are multiple definitions to the policy brief (Dagenais et Ridde, 2018 ). However, in this article it will refer to a short document that uses graphics and text to summarize the key elements of one or multiple researches and provides a succinct explanation of a policy issue or problem, together with options and specific recommendations for addressing that issue or problem (Arcury et al., 2017 ; Keepnews, 2016 ).

The objective of a policy brief is to inform policymakers’ decisions or motivate action (Keepnews, 2016 ; Wong et al., 2017 ). Their resolve can be placed on a continuum going from “neutral”, meaning objective and nuanced information, to “interventionist”, which puts forwards solutions to the stated problem (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ). However, it is not an advocacy statement nor is it an opinion piece. A policy brief is analytic in nature and aims to remain objective and fact-based, even if the evidence is persuasive (Wong et al., 2017 ). A policy brief should include contextual and structural factors as a way to apply locally what was initially more general evidence (Rajabi, 2012 ).

What is known about format preferences

The format of policy briefs is just as important as the content when it comes to evidence use by policymakers. Decision-makers like concise documents that can be quickly examined and interpreted (Rajabi, 2012 ). Evidence should be understandable and user-friendly, as well as visually appealing and easy to access (Beynon et al., 2012 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Oliver et al., 2014 ). Tailoring the message to the targeted audience and ensuring the timing is appropriate are also two important factors in research communication. Indeed, the wording and contextualization of findings can have a noticeable impact on the use of those results (Langer et al., 2016 ). Policymakers also prefer documents written by expert opinions that is both simple and clear. It must be restricted to the information of interest and propose recommendations for action (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ; Cairney and Oliver, 2020 ).

In the case of a workshop, sending the policy brief in advance facilitates the use of its information (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ). The results tend to be considered further since the information will already have been acknowledged prior to the workshop, leaving enough time during for it to be discussed with other stakeholders. These findings are in line with Langer’s report ( 2016 ), which suggested that interventions using a combination of evidence use mechanisms, such as communication of the evidence and interactions between stakeholders, are associated with an increased probability of being successful.

Why policy briefs were chosen

In the interest of sharing key lessons from research more effectively, it is essential to improve communication tools aimed at decision-making environments (Oliver and Boaz, 2019 ). In recent years, policy briefs have seen an increase in use as a way to inform or influence decision-making (Tessier et al., 2019 ). The policy brief was the chosen scope in this study as it is the most commonly used term referring to information-packaging documents. Indeed, a study of the nomenclature used in information-packaging efforts to support evidence-informed policymaking in low to middle income countries determined that “policy brief” was the most frequently used label (39%) to describe such a document (Adam et al., 2014 ). However, there are many different terms related to such a synthesized document, including the technical note, policy note, evidence brief, evidence summary, research snapshot, etc. (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ). Although these different terms were searched, the term “policy briefs” will be used in this paper.

Furthermore, policy briefs are postulated as a less intimidating form of research synthesis for policymakers, as opposed to systematic reviews. They offer key information on a given subject based on a systematic yet limited search of the literature for the most important elements. The policy brief is a first step into evidence, leading to further questioning and reading rather than providing a definitive report of what works (Nutley et al., 2013 ).

How should evidence use be measured?

The idea that evidence should be used to inform decision-making, rather than to determine what should be done, leads to questioning the way that evidence use should be measured (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ). What constitutes good use of evidence does not necessarily lead to the recommendations being applied. A policymaker might read the evidence but ultimately decide not to apply the recommendations due to taking into consideration a series of other factors such as the interests of other stakeholders and the limited resources available (Oliver and Boaz, 2019 ).

While the evidence may not have been used in decision-making, it was still used to inform (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ). The term evidence- based policy, implying that decision-making should depend on the body of research found, has been transitioning in the last few years to evidence- informed policy (Oxman et al., 2009 ; Nutley et al., 2019 ). This change reflects a new perspective of looking at research communication processes rather than solely the results and impact of the evidence use on decision-making. It sheds light into the current issues characterizing the know-do gap while also recognizing the political nature of the decision-making process.

Therefore, as a guide to evaluate the use of evidence by decision-makers, the instrumental, conceptual and persuasive use of policy briefs by decision-makers will be used. This approach allows for a more holistic view of evidence use and to determine more specifically in which ways policymakers use research evidence

The instrumental use refers to the direct use of the policy brief in the decision-making process. The conceptual use refers to the use of the policy brief to better understand a problem or a situation. The symbolic, or persuasive use, refers to the use of the policy brief to confirm or justify a decision or a choice, which has already been made (Anderson et al., 1999 ). This framework is based on the idea that good use of evidence should not rely solely on the following decisions taken by policymakers, but also on the manner in which these decisions were taken and how the evidence was identified, interpreted and considered to better inform the parties involved (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ).

In policy contexts, instrumental use of research is relatively rare while conceptual and strategic use tend to be more common (Boaz et al., 2018 ). However, evidence on the use and effectiveness of policy briefs more specifically as a knowledge transfer tool remains unclear. Previous reviews, such as Petkovic et al., ( 2016 ), have researched the use of systematic review summaries in decision-making and the policy-maker’s perspective towards the summaries in terms of understanding, knowledge and beliefs. Other articles have studied the barriers and facilitators to policymakers using systematic review summaries (Oliver et al., 2014 ; Tricco et al., 2015 ). It remains unknown under which circumstances does a policy brief elicit changes in attitude, knowledge and intention to use. Hence, this study will report what is known about whether policy briefs are considered effective by decision-makers, how policy briefs are used by decision-makers and which components of policy briefs were considered useful.

Therefore, the objectives of this study were to (1) identify evidence about the use of policy briefs and (2) identify which elements of content made for an effective policy brief. The first objective includes the perceived appreciation and the different types of use (instrumental, conceptual, persuasive) and the factors linked to use. The second objective includes the format, the context and the quality of the evidence.

This study used the scoping review method by Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ). A scoping study is a synthesis and analysis of a broad range of research material aimed at quickly mapping the key concepts underpinning a wider research area that has not been reviewed comprehensively before and where several different study designs might be relevant (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ; Mays et al., 2001 ). This allows to provide a greater conceptual clarity on a specific topic (Davis, et al., 2009 ). A scoping study, as opposed to other kinds of systematic reviews, is less likely to address a specific research question or to assess the quality of included studies. Scoping studies tend to address broader topics where many different study designs might be applicable (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ). They do not reject studies based on their research designs.

This method was chosen to assess the breadth of knowledge available on the topic of short documents synthesizing research results and their usage by policymakers. Scoping reviews allow a greater assessment of the extent of the current research literature since the inclusion and exclusion criteria are not exhaustive.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The policy brief must have been presented to the target users; policymakers. A policymaker refers to a person responsible for devising regulations and laws. In this paper, the term policymaker will be used along with the term decision-maker, which is characterized more broadly as any entity who, such as health system managers, could benefit from empirical research to make a decision. For this paper, we did not differentiate between types or levels of policymakers. Stakeholders involved in the decision-making process related to a large jurisdiction or organization for which policy briefs were provided were included. As an example, papers were rejected if the participants were making decisions for an individual person or a patient. Articles were accepted if other user types were included as participants, as long as policymakers or decision-makers were included as users. This was decided because many papers included a variety of participants and if the feedback given by policymakers would have been different from other decision-makers, it would have been explained in the article.

Type of document

Articles were included when decision-makers had to assess a short document synthesizing research results. Given that many different terms are used to describe short research syntheses, the articles were identified using terms such as policy briefs, evidence summaries, evidence briefs and plain language summaries. The full list can be found in Table 1 .

Evaluations of systematic reviews were rejected as they are often written using technical language and can be lengthy (Moat et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, past research has evaluated the use and effectiveness of systematic reviews in policy. Given that this paper sought to evaluate short synthesized documents as a technical tool for knowledge transfer, any form of lengthy reports or reviews were excluded.

Rapid reviews were rejected due to their commissioned nature and the large breadth of literature available on their subject. Rapid reviews and commissioned research were excluded because they are different in a fundamental aspect: they are made as a direct response to a request from decision-makers. Since these papers are commissioned, there is already an intended use of these papers by decision-makers, as opposed to the use of non-commissioned papers. The expectations and motivations of these decision-makers in using these research results will be different. For these reasons, rapid reviews and commissioned research were excluded.

Articles were mostly excluded for being only examples of policy briefs, for not testing empirically the effectiveness of a policy brief, for testing another type of knowledge transfer tool (ex: deliberative dialogs) or for not having decision-makers as participants.

Type of study

All empirical studies were included, meaning qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods. Any type of literature review such as systematic reviews were excluded to avoid duplication of studies and to allow an equal representation of all included studies. This prevented the comparison between the results of a systematic review and the results of one case study. Systematic reviews were however scanned for any study respecting the criteria to be added into the scoping review.

Empirical studies were eligible based on the implementation of a policy brief and the assessment of its use by decision-makers. Outcomes of interest were the use and effectiveness of policy briefs according to decision-makers, as well as the preferred type of content and format of such documents. These results were either reported directly by the decision-makers or through observations by the researchers. Articles were included if the policy brief was reviewed in any sort of way, whether through the participants giving their opinion on the policy brief or any commentary on the way the policy brief had been acknowledged. Articles were not excluded for not assessing a specific type of use. Examples of policy briefs and articles limited to the creation process of a policy brief and articles without any evaluations of the use of policy brief were not included, as no empirical evidence was used to back up what the authors considered made a policy brief effective.

Search strategy

To identify potentially eligible studies, literature searches have been conducted using PsycNET, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from February 2018 to May 2019 in an iterative process. The search strategy was conceived in collaboration with a specialist in knowledge and information management. The scoping review’s objectives were discussed until four main concepts were identified. Related words to the four main concepts of the scoping study were searched with APA Thesaurus, these concepts being: (1) policy brief, (2) use, (3) knowledge transfer and (4) policymaker. The first term was used to find articles about the kind of summarized paper being evaluated. The second term was used to find articles discussing the ways these papers were used or discussing their effectiveness. Without this search term, many articles were simply mentioning policy briefs without evaluating them. The third term referred to the policy brief’s intent and to the large domain of knowledge transfer to get more precise research results into this field. The fourth search term allowed for the inclusion of the desired participants.

Different keywords for the concept of policy brief (any short document summarizing research results) were found through the literature and were also created using combinations of multiple keywords (e.g., research brief and evidence summary were combined to create research summary). The different concepts were then combined in the databases search engines until a point of saturation was reached and no new pertinent articles were found.

Study selection

Following the removal of duplicates, the articles were selected by analyzing the titles. If they seemed pertinent, the abstracts were then read. The remaining articles were verified by two authors to assess their eligibility, were read in their entirety and possibly eliminated if they did not respect the established criteria.

Data extraction

Once the articles were selected, summary sheets were created to extract data systematically. The factors recorded were the intended audience of the paper, the journal of publication, the objectives of the research, the research questions, a summary of the introduction, the variables researched, the type of research synthesis used in the study and a description of the document, information on sampling (size, response rate, type of participants, participants’ country, sampling method), the type of users reading the document (ex: practitioners, policymakers, consumers), a description of the experimentation, the research design, the main results found and the limits identified in the study.

Data analyses

Based on the extracted information compiled in the summary sheets, the data was taken from those summary sheets and separated into the two objectives of this study, which are (1) the evidence of policy brief use and (2) the elements of content that contributed to their effectiveness. Further themes were outlined based on the results, which formed the main findings. When more than one study had the same finding, the additional sources would be indicated. Similarly, any contradicting findings were also noted.

Literature search

Four-thousand nine-hundred four unique records were retrieved, of which 215 were screened on full text. In total, 22 articles were included in this scoping study. The number of studies in each step of the literature review process are shown in Fig. 1 .

A diagram of the number of records identified, included and excluded in the article.

Study characteristics

The year of publication ranged from 2007 to 2018, with 50% of the articles having been published in the last 5 years.

The studies spanned 35 countries, with the most common being conducted in Canada ( n = 5), others being conducted in Burkina Faso ( n = 2), the United States ( n = 2), Netherlands ( n = 1), Wales ( n = 1), Thailand ( n = 1), Nigeria ( n = 1), Uganda ( n = 1), Kenya ( n = 1) and Israel ( n = 1). Six studies were conducted in multiple countries Footnote 1 . Of the included studies, 12 took place in a total of 23 low to middle income countries, according to the World Bank Classification ( 2019 ).

Case studies were the most common design (59%), followed by descriptive studies (27%) and randomized controlled trials (14%). Five studies used quantitative research methods, eight were qualitative methods and nine used mixed-methods. For more details, Table 2 presents an overview of the characteristics of selected studies.

Primary objective: use of policy briefs

Appreciation of policy briefs.

The perception of decision-makers regarding policy briefs is a starting point to evaluate if more work should be put into its format to meet the needs of decision-makers or if it should go into communicating the importance of evidence-informed methods to decision-makers.

Of all the eligible studies, 19 (86%) found it useful or had a general appreciation towards policy briefs as a tool for knowledge transfer by decision-makers. Two studies (Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ; Orem et al., 2012 ) did not report about the perceived usefulness or appreciation of such a document and one study (de Goede et al., 2012 ) had policy actors declare they found the document of no importance and neglected it during the policy process. Many participants reported throughout the various studies that taking into consideration the available evidence would help improve decision-making (El-Jardali et al., 2014 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Vogel et al., 2013 ).

Types of use of policy briefs

The use of the policy brief in the decision-making process was assessed through its instrumental use, conceptual use and persuasive use.

In regard to instrumental use, many policymakers claimed to have used evidence to inform their decision-making, even sometimes going as far as actively seeking out policy briefs and improving their ability to assess and use research evidence (El-Jardali et al., 2014 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Policy briefs seem to oftentimes be used as a starting point for deliberations on policies and to facilitate the discussions with policy actors on definitions and solutions to multiple problems (Ellen et al., 2016 ; de Goede et al., 2012 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ; Ti et al., 2017 ). Although policy briefs have helped in identifying problems and solutions in their communities, policymakers reported also relying on other sources of information, such as other literature, colleagues and their own knowledge (Goede et al., 2012 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ). When it comes to putting recommendations into action, policymakers may be more inclined to report intentions to take into consideration and apply the recommendations when the solutions offered require little effort or co-operation from others (Beynon et al., 2012 ).

Policy briefs are most commonly used conceptually, which is no surprise given that it is the type of use requiring the least commitment. They allow decision-makers to better understand the different facets of a situation, to inform policymaking and raise awareness on certain issues (Campbell et al., 2009 ; El-Jardali et al., 2014 ; Ellen et al., 2016 ; Goede et al., 2012 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ). A better comprehension of a situation can also lead to a change of beliefs in certain circumstances. Beynon et al. ( 2012 ) found that reading a policy brief lead to creating evidence-accurate beliefs more commonly amongst those with no prior opinion. The policy brief was not as effective in changing the beliefs of respondents who had an opinion on the issue before reading the brief.

Few studies reported the persuasive use of policy briefs. One study reported policy briefs being used to support prior beliefs such as good timing for specific policies and to allow the progression of information before publication in order to make sure it is aligned with national health policies (de Goede et al., 2012 ). Policy briefs can be seen as an effective tool for advocacy when the objective is to convince other stakeholders of a position using evidence-based research (Ti et al., 2017 ). However, one study had policymakers claim that although research needs to be used more, rarely will they use research to inform policy agendas or to evaluate the impacts of a policy (Campbell et al., 2009 ). Thus, it remains unclear whether policy briefs are often used in a persuasive way.

Factors linked to use

Decision-makers are more inclined to report intentions and actual follow-up actions that require little effort or co-operation from others although globally, women are less likely to claim that they will do follow-up actions than men (Beynon et al., 2012 ). The same study reported that a higher level of self-perceived influence predicts a higher level of influence and those readers are more inclined to act. Furthermore, decision-makers were most likely to use policy briefs if they were directly targeted by the subject of the evidence (Brownson et al., 2011 ).

Dissemination strategies are specific methods of distributing information to key parties with the intention of having the reader process that information. A policy brief could be very well written and have all the necessary information but if it is not properly shared with the intended audience, it might not be read. One effective dissemination strategy appreciated by policymakers is to send the policy briefs a few weeks before a workshop (Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2018 ) as well as an individualized email in advance of the policy brief (Ellen et al., 2016 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ). Asking policymakers to be a part of the presentation of the briefs and to arrange a follow-up meeting to receive feedback on the documents was also viewed favorably (Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ).

Secondary objective: elements of content contributing to the effectiveness of policy briefs

Decision-makers often report the language of researchers being too complex, inaccessible, lacking clarity and commonly using overly technical terms (Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ; Rosenbaum et al., 2011 ). They prefer the use of simple and jargon-free language in clear, short sentences (Ellen et al., 2014 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ; Schmidt et al., 2014 ; Vogel et al., 2013 ). Some decision-makers have reported having difficulty understanding the objectives in the policy brief and finding the document too long (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ). They appreciate the emphasis to be on the advantages of the policy brief and for it to be constructed around a key message to draw the reader and disseminate the critical details. Multiple articles recommended policy briefs not to go over one to two pages, with references to more detailed findings so the reader can investigate further (Dobbins et al., 2007 ; Ellen et al., 2014 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ).

Furthermore, policy briefs need to be visually engaging. Since policymakers spend on average 30 to 60 min reading information about a particular issue, it is a challenge to present the information in such a way to make them go for the policy brief (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Information can be displayed in different ways to be more memorable such as charts, bullets, graphs and photos (Ellen et al., 2014 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2018 ). One research study has reported that an overly esthetic document may seem expensive to produce, which can lead to policymakers wondering why funding was diverted from programs to the production of policy briefs (Schmidt et al., 2014 ). Another study found that “graded-entry” formats, meaning a short interpretation of the main findings and conclusions, combined with a short and contextually framed narrative report, followed by the full systematic review, were associated with a higher score for clarity and accessibility of information compared to systematic reviews alone (Opiyo et al., 2013 ). However, the exact format of the document does not seem to be as important for policymakers as its clarity. Indeed, policymakers do not appear to have a preference between electronic and hard copy formats (Dobbins et al., 2007 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ). This is also shown by another case study, where policymakers preferred the longest version of a policy brief, one easier to scan, leading to believe that a longer text may not necessarily be the condemnation of a policy brief, as long as it is written in an easily scannable way with small chunks of information dispersed through the document (Ellen et al., 2014 ).

Context-related

There is a preference for local information over global information by decision-makers (Brownson et al., 2011 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ; Orem et al., 2012 ). It allows for local council members to identify relevant issues in their communities as well as responses tailored to the socio-political nature of the issue, such as cultural values, historical-political sensitivities and election timing (de Goede et al., 2012 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Authors of policy briefs, depending on the study, must consider the latest insights as well as the complex power relations underpinning the policy process when writing their recommendations. The issue of the policy brief has a significant impact on whether it can influence the views of decision-makers. To have a better grasp on the relevance of the topic, policymakers want to have the data put into context instead of simply presenting the facts and statistics (Schmidt et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, such research needs to be transmitted in a time-sensitive matter to remain relevant (Ellen et al., 2016 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Orem et al., 2012 ; Rosenbaum et al., 2011 ; Uneke et al., 2015 ).

Given the time pressures on policymakers to make rapid and impactful decisions, the use of actionable, evidence-informed recommendations acknowledging the specific situation are much appreciated by policymakers. Decision-makers wish for realistic recommendations on an economic and strategic plan. They dislike a policy brief that is too general and without any propositions of concrete action (Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ; de Goede et al., 2012 ). Indeed, many policymakers claim that not concluding with recommendations is the least helpful feature for policy briefs (Moat et al., 2014 ). They prefer that the document provides more guidance on which actions should be taken and the steps to take as well as the possible implementations (Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ). However, it can also be a barrier to use if the content of the policy brief is not in line with the policy-maker’s system belief (de Geode et al., 2012 ).

Quality evidence

Quality, compelling evidence must be provided to facilitate the use of policy brief by decision-makers (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Therefore, it is required to know what kind of arguments are needed to promote research in the decision-making process. Although information about the situation and its context is appreciated, policymakers prefer having some guidance on what to do with such information afterwards. Some policymakers have reported a lack of details on the strategies to adopt, the tools to use and the processes required that would otherwise lead to a successful integration of the ideas proposed in the policy brief (Marquez et al., 2018 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ). There is a particular interest in detailed information about local applicability or costs, outcome measurements, broader framing of the research (Ellen et al., 2014 ; Rosenbaum et al., 2011 ), clear statements of the implication for practice from health service researchers (Dobbins et al., 2007 ), information about patient safety, effectiveness and cost savings (Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ).

On the other hand, less emphasis should be put on information steering away from important results. One study showed that researchers should more often than not forego acknowledgements, forest plot diagrams, conflicts of interest, methods, risk of bias, study characteristics, interventions that showed no significant effect and statistical information (e.g., confidence interval) (Marquez et al., 2018 ). Surprisingly, policymakers tend to prefer data-centered arguments rather than story-based arguments, the former containing data percentages and the latter containing personal stories (Brownson et al., 2011 ; Schmidt et al., 2014 ), hinting that the use of emotions might not be the most effective method in convincing policymakers to adopt research into their decision-making. However, a certain subjectivity is appreciated. Indeed, policymakers value researchers’ opinions about the policy implications of their findings (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Beynon et al. ( 2012 ) found that policy briefs, including an opinion piece acquire significance over time, possibly indicating that the effect of the opinion piece trickles in slowly.

Legitimacy however does not emerge solely from good evidence and arguments, but also from the source of those arguments, more specifically the authors involved. Policymakers specified that they pay attention to the authors of policy briefs and that it influences their acceptance of the evidence and arguments presented (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Authoritative messages were considered a key element of an effective policy brief. This is confirmed by Beynon et al. ( 2012 ), who found a clear authority effect on readers’ intentions to send the policy brief to someone else. Readers were more likely to share briefs with a recommendation from an authoritative figure rather than a recommendation from an unnamed researcher. It can be considered an obstacle to the use of the document if the latter is not perceived as coming from a credible source (Goede et al., 2012 ). Authoritative institutions, research groups and experts have been identified as the best mediators between researchers and decision-makers (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ).

The objectives of this study were to identify what the literature has concluded about the use of policy briefs and which elements made for an effective one.

The results showed that policy briefs were considered generally useful, easy to understand and credible, regardless of the group, the issue, the features of the brief or the country tested. Different types of use were assessed, notably the instrumental, conceptual and persuasive use. Many policymakers claimed to use the evidence given in their decision-making process, some even reporting an increased demand for knowledge transfer products by policymakers. This fact and the surge of knowledge transfer literature in the past few years might suggest that policy briefs and other short summaries of research could become a more commonly used tool in the next years for the decision-making process in policy. Given that policymakers oftentimes rely on multiple sources of information and that policy briefs facilitated discussions between different actors, future interventions should aim to combine a policy brief with other mechanisms of evidence use (Langer et al., 2016 ).

One factor linked to a greater use of policy briefs was the dissemination strategies. Arranging a meeting with policymakers following the reading of the document to receive feedback is a good strategy to get the policymakers to read attentively and consider the content of the policy brief (Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ). A greater implication by policymakers seems to encourage the use of the policy brief. This supports the findings of Langer et al. ( 2016 ) concerning interaction as a mechanism to promote evidence use. Indeed, improved attitudes towards evidence were found after holding joint discussions with other decision-makers who were motivated to apply the evidence. Increasing motivation to use research evidence through different techniques such as the framing and tailoring of the evidence, the development of policymakers’ skills in interpreting evidence and better access to the evidence could lead to an increase in evidence-informed decision-making (Langer et al., 2016 ). Instead of working independently, it has been often proposed that researchers and policymakers should work in collaboration to increase the pertinence and promote the use of evidence (Gagliardi et al., 2015 ; Langer et al., 2016 ). The collaboration between policymakers and researchers would allow researchers to better understand policymakers’ needs and the contexts in which the evidence is used, thus providing a well-tailored version of the document for a greater use for those in need of evidence-informed results (Boaz et al., 2018 ; Langer et al., 2016 ). However, multiple barriers are present to the collaboration between researchers and decision-makers, such as differing needs and priorities, a lack of skill or understanding of the process and attitudes towards research (Gagliardi et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, different dilemmas come into play when considering how much academics should engage in policymaking. Although recommendations are often made for researchers to invest time into building alliances with policymakers and getting to know the political context, there is no guarantee that these efforts will lead to the expected results. Influencing policy through evidence advocacy requires engaging in different networks and seeing windows of opportunity, which may blur the line between scientists and policymakers (Cairney and Oliver, 2020 ). To remain neutral, researchers should aim to listen to the needs of policymakers and inform them of new evidence, rather than striving to have policymakers use the evidence in a specific way.

When policymakers considered the policy brief of little importance for their decision-making, it could be partially explained by the fact that the document shared was not aligned with the groups’ belief systems (de Goede et al., 2012 ). Similarly, Beynon et al. ( 2012 ) had found that policy briefs are not as effective in changing opinions in respondents who held previous beliefs rather than forging an opinion on a new topic. Being presented with information opposite of one’s belief can be uncomfortable. This cognitive dissonance can influence the level of acceptance of new information, which can affect its use. To return to a feeling of consistency with their own thoughts, policymakers could easily discard a policy brief opposing their beliefs. The use of policy briefs is, therefore, determined largely by the type of audience and whether they agree with the content. To improve the acceptance, the policy brief should strive to be aligned with the needs of policymakers. This implies that when creating and disseminating the evidence, researchers must consider their audience. Therefore, there is no “one-size-fits-all” and a better solution to improve the use of research is to communicate information based on the type of policymaker (Brownson et al., 2011 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ).

These results should lead researchers to first determine who is the targeted audience and how can the format of the policy brief be attractive to them. Different versions of policy briefs can be made according to the different needs, priorities and positions of varying policy actors (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Furthermore, people directly targeted by the content of the evidence are more likely to read the policy brief. In the knowledge to action cycle, it seems essential to have a clear picture of who will be reading the policy brief and what kind of information to provide as a way to better reach them.

The lack of recommendations was cited as being the least helpful feature of evidence briefs (Moat et al., 2014 ). This, along with other studies claiming the importance of clear recommendations could lead to believe that policymakers prefer an advocacy brief rather than a neutral brief (Goede et al., 2012 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ). However, this brings the question of impartiality in research (Cairney and Oliver, 2017 ). The purpose of policy briefs and generally of knowledge transfer is to gather the best evidence and to disseminate it in a way to assure that it has an impact. Science is seen as neutral and providing only the facts, yet policymakers ask for precise recommendations and opinions. This seeming contradiction leads to wondering whether researchers should offer their opinion and how much co-production with policymakers should they be involved in to align the results with the policymakers’ agenda (Cairney and Oliver, 2017 ).

The credibility of the messenger is also an important factor in the decision-maker’s use of the document. Briefs were more likely to be shared when associated with an authoritative figure than with an unnamed research fellow. This authority effect may be due to the brief becoming more memorable when associated with an authoritative figure, which leads to a greater likelihood for the policymakers to share that message with other people (Beynon et al., 2012 ). Another possible explanation is the trust associated with authority. The results have shown that policymakers tend to forego the information about conflicts of interest, methodology, risks of bias and statistics. In other words, the details that would show the legitimacy of the data. Instead, they prefer going straight to the results and recommendation. This could lead to believe that policymakers would prefer to read a paper coming from a reputable source that they can already trust, so they can focus on analyzing the content rather than the legitimacy of it. Thus, the partnering between authoritative institutions, researchers and policymakers could help not only to better target the needs of policymakers but also to improve the legitimacy of the message communicated through the brief, in an effort to help policymakers focus more on the information being shared (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ).

Strengths and limitations

The use of all the similar terms related to policy briefs in the search strategy allowed for a wide search net during the literature search process, leading to finding more studies. Another strength was the framework assessing both the types of use and the format of the policy brief preferred by policymakers, which allowed a better understanding of the place policy briefs currently have in policymaking as well as an explanation of different content factors related to its use. As knowledge transfer is becoming a pillar in organizations across the globe, there remains however a gap in the use of research in decision-making. This review will enable researchers to better adapt the content of their research to their audience when writing a policy brief by adjusting the type of information that should be included in the document. One limit of the present scoping study is its susceptibility to a sampling bias. Although the articles assessed for eligibility were verified by two authors, the first records identified through database searching were carried out by a single author. The references of the selected articles were not searched systematically to find additional articles. This scoping study also does not assess the quality of the selected studies and evaluation since its objective is to map the current literature on a given subject.

Although the quality of the chosen articles was not assessed, it is possible to notice a few limits in their method, which can be found in the Table 2 . There is also something to be said about publication bias, meaning that papers with positive results tend to be published in greater proportion than papers failing to prove their hypotheses.

Furthermore, few studies determined the actual use or effect of the policy brief in decision-making but instead assessed self-reported use of the policy brief or other outcomes, such as perceived credibility or relevance of those briefs, since these may affect the likelihood of research use in decision-making. Few studies reported the persuasive use of policy briefs. This could be explained by the reticence of participants to report such information due to the implications that they would use research results only to further their agenda rather than using them to make better decisions, or simply because researchers did not question the participants on such matters. Although the inclusion criteria of this study were fairly large, it is worth noting that the number of selected articles was fairly low, with only 22 studies included. Further research on persuasive research would need to assess researchers’ observations rather than self-reported use by policymakers. Since the current research has shown that policy briefs could be more useful in creating or reinforcing a belief, future studies could assess the actual use of policy briefs in decision-making.

The findings indicate that while policy briefs are generally valued by decision-makers, it is still necessary for these documents to be written with the end reader in mind to meet their needs. Indeed, an appreciation towards having a synthesized research document does not necessarily translate to its use, although it is a good first step given that it shows an open-mindedness of decision-makers to be informed by research. Decision-making is a complex process, of which the policy brief can be one step to better inform the decision-makers on the matter at hand. A policy brief is not a one-size-fits-all solution to all policy-making processes. Evidence can be used to inform but it might not be able to, on its own, fix conflicts between the varying interests, ideas and values circulating the process of policymaking (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ). Since credibility is an important factor for decision-makers, researchers will have to take into consideration the context, the authors associated with writing policy briefs and the actors that will play a lead role in promoting better communication between the different stakeholders.

Given that the current literature on the use of policy briefs is not too extensive, more research needs to be done on the use of such documents by policymakers. Future studies should look into the ways researchers can take the context into consideration when writing a policy brief. It would also be interesting to search whether different formats are preferred by policymakers intending to use evidence in different ways. Furthermore, there are other types of summarized documents that were excluded in this scoping review such as rapid reviews, or even different formats such as infographics. The use of commissioned summaries could be an interesting avenue to explore, as the demand for these types of documents from policymakers would ensure their use in a significant manner.

Data availability

All data analyzed in this study are cited in this article and available in the public domain.

The studies were conducted in Zambia ( n = 3), Uganda ( n = 3), South Africa ( n = 2), Argentina ( n = 2), China ( n = 2), Cameroon ( n = 2), Cambodia ( n = 1), Norway ( n = 2), Ethiopia ( n = 2), India ( n = 1), Ghana ( n = 1), Nicaragua ( n = 1), Bolivia ( n = 1), Brazil ( n = 1), England ( n = 1), Wales ( n = 1), Finland ( n = 1), Germany ( n = 1), Burkina Faso ( n = 1), Italy ( n = 1), Scotland ( n = 1), Spain ( n = 1), Mozambique ( n = 1), Bangladesh ( n = 1), Nigeria ( n = 1), Central African Republic ( n = 1), Sudan ( n = 1), Colombia ( n = 1) and Australia ( n = 1).

Adam T, Moat KA, Ghaffar A, Lavis JN (2014) Towards a better understanding of the nomenclature used in information-packaging efforts to support evidence-informed policymaking in low-and middle-income countries. Implement Sci 9(1):67

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Anderson M, Cosby J, Swan B, Moore H, Broekhoven M (1999) The use of research in local health service agencies. Soc Sci Med 49(8):1007–1019

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Arcury TA, Wiggins MF, Brooke C, Jensen A, Summers P, Mora DC, Quandt SA (2017) Using “policy briefs” to present scientific results of CBPR: farmworkers in North Carolina. Prog Commun Health Partnerships: Res Educ Action 11(2):137

Article Google Scholar

Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19–32

Baekgaard M, Christensen J, Dahlmann CM, Mathiasen A, Petersen NBG (2019) The role of evidence in politics: motivated reasoning and persuasion among politicians. Br J Polit Sci 49(3):1117–1140

Beynon P, Chapoy C, Gaarder M, Masset, E (2012) What difference does a policy brief make? Full report of an IDS, 3ie, Norad study: Institute of Development Studies and the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)

Boaz A, Hanney S, Borst R, O’Shea A, Kok M (2018) How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst 16(1):60

Brownson RC et al. (2011) Communicating evidence-based information on cancer prevention to state-level policy makers. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(4):306–316

Cairney P, Heikkila T, Wood M (2019) Making policy in a complex world (1st edn.). Cambridge University Press

Cairney P, Kwiatkowski R (2017) How to communicate effectively with policymakers: Combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Commun 3(1):37

Cairney P, Oliver K (2017) Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Res Policy Syst 15:1

Cairney P, Oliver K (2020) How should academics engage in policymaking to achieve impact? Polit Stud Rev 18(2):228–244

Cambridge University Press (2019) Definition of a policymaker. https://dictionary.cambridge.org . Accessed 2019

Campbell DM et al. (2009) Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: Practice and views of policy makers and researchers. Aust N Z Health Policy 6(21):1–11

Google Scholar

Dagenais C, Ridde V (2018) Policy brief (PB) as a knowledge transfer tool: To “make a splash”, your PB must first be read. Gaceta Sanitaria

Davis K, Drey N, Gould D (2009) What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. Int J Nurs Stud 46(10):1386–1400

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Dobbins M, Jack S, Thomas H, Kothari A (2007) Public Health Decision-Makers’ informational needs and preferences for receiving research evidence. Worldview Evid-Based Nurs 4(3):156–163

El-Jardali F, Lavis J, Moat K, Pantoja T, Ataya N (2014) Capturing lessons learned from evidence-to-policy initiatives through structured reflection. Health Res Policy Syst 12(1):1–15

Ellen M et al. (2014) Health system decision makers’ feedback on summaries and tools supporting the use of systematic reviews: A qualitative study. Evid Policy 10(3):337–359

Ellen ME, Horowitz E, Vaknin S, Lavis JN (2016) Views of health system policymakers on the role of research in health policymaking in Israel. Israel J Health Policy Res 5:24

de Goede J, Putters K, Van Oers H (2012) Utilization of epidemiological research for the development of local public health policy in the Netherlands: a case study approach. Soc Sci Med 74(5):707–714

Gagliardi AR, Berta W, Kothari A, Boyko J, Urquhart R (2015) Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review. Implementation. Science 11(1):38

Hawkins B, Parkhurst J (2016) The ‘good governance’ of evidence in health policy. Evid Policy 12(4):575–592

Huang W, Tan CL (2007) A system for understanding imaged infographics and its applications. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on Document engineering, Association for Computing Machinery, Seoul, pp 9–18

Jones N, Walsh C (2008) Policy briefs as a communication tool for development research. ODI Background Note. ODI, London

Keepnews DM (2016) Developing a policy brief. Policy Polit Nurs Pract 17(2):61–65

Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D (2012) Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev 1:10

Kilpatrick K et al. (2015) The development of evidence briefs to transfer knowledge about advanced practice nursing roles to providers, policymakers and administrators. Nurs Leadership (Toronto, Ont.) 28(1):11–23

Koon AD, Rao KD, Tran NT, Abdul G (2013) Embedding health policy and systems research into decision-making processes in low- and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst 18:9

Langer L, Tripney J, Gough D (2016) The science of using science: researching the use of research evidence in decision-making. Social Science Research Unit, & Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre

Lavis JN, Posada FB, Haines A, Osei E (2004) Use of research to inform public policymaking. Lancet 364(9445):1615–1621

Lavis JN et al. (2012) Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: linking guidance development to policy development. PLoS Med 9:3

Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO (2013) Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PLoS ONE 8(10):e77404

Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Marquez C, Johnson AM, Jassemi S, Park J, Moore JE, Blaine C, Straus SE (2018) Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: What is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study. Implement Sci 13(1):84

Mays N, Roberts E, Popay J (2001) Synthesising research evidence. In: Fulop N, Allen P, Clarke A, Black N (eds) Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: research methods. Routledge, London, pp. 188–220

Mays N, Pope C, Popay J (2005) Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy 10(Suppl 1):6–20

Mc Sween-Cadieux E, Dagenais C, Somé PA, Ridde V (2017) Research dissemination workshops: Observations and implications based on an experience in Burkina Faso. Health Res Policy Syst 15(1):1–12

Mc Sween-Cadieux E, Dagenais C, Ridde V (2018) A deliberative dialogue as a knowledge translation strategy on road traffic injuries in Burkina Faso: a mixed-method evaluation. Health Res Policy Syst 16(1):1–13

Moat KA, Lavis JN, Clancy SJ, El-Jardali F, Pantoja T (2014) Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt. Bull World Health Organiz 20:8

Moore GM, Redman S, Turner T, Haines M (2016) Rapid reviews in health policy: a study of intended use in the New South Wales’ Evidence Check programme. Evid Policy 12(46):505–519

Nutley S, Boaz A, Davies H, Fraser A (2019) New development: What works now? Continuity and change in the use of evidence to improve public policy and service delivery. Public Money Manage 39(4):310–6

Nutley S, Powell AE, Davies HTO (2013) What counts as good evidence, Alliance for Useful Evidence, London

Oliver K, Boaz A (2019) Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations. Palgrave Commun 5(1):1

Oliver K, Cairney P (2019) The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Commun 5(1):21

Oliver KA, de Vocht F (2017) Defining ‘evidence’ in public health: a survey of policymakers’ uses and preferences. Eur J Public Health 1(27 May):112–7

Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res 14(1):2

Opiyo N, Shepperd S, Musila N, Allen E, Nyamai R, Fretheim A, English M (2013) Comparison of alternative evidence summary and presentation formats in clinical guideline development: a mixed-method study. PLoS ONE 8:1

Article CAS Google Scholar

Orandi BJ, Locke JE (2020) Engaging policymakers to disseminate research. In: Dimick J., Lubitz C. (eds) Health Serv Res. Springer, Cham, pp. 283–288

Chapter Google Scholar

Orem JN, Mafigiri DK, Marchal B, Ssengooba F, Macq J, Criel B (2012) Research, evidence and policymaking: The perspectives of policy actors on improving uptake of evidence in health policy development and implementation in Uganda. BMC Public Health 12(1):109

Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, Fretheim A (2009) SUPPORT Tools for evidence informed health policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking? Health Res Policy Syst 7:S1

Petkovic J, Welch V, Jacob MH, Yoganathan M, Ayala AP, Cunningham H, Tugwell P (2016) The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review. Implement Sci 11(1):1–14

Rajabi F (2012) Evidence-informed Health Policy Making: the role of policy brief. Int J Prevent Med 3(9):596–598

Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Wiysonge CS, Abalos E, Mignini L, Young T, Oxman AD (2011) Evidence summaries tailored to health policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ 89(1):54–61

Schmidt AM, Ranney LM, Goldstein AO (2014) Communicating program outcomes to encourage policymaker support for evidence-based state tobacco control. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11(12):12562–12574

Suter E, Armitage GD (2011) Use of a knowledge synthesis by decision makers and planners to facilitate system level integration in a large Canadian provincial health authority. Int J Integr Care, 11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107086 . Accessed 2019

Tessier C, Tessier C, Centre de collaboration nationale sur les politiques publiques et la santé (2019) The policy brief: a tool for knowledge transfer. http://collections.banq.qc.ca/ark:/52327/4002463 . Accessed 2020

Ti L, Hayashi K, Ti L, Kaplan K, Suwannawong P, Kerr T (2017) ”Knowledge translation to advance evidence-based health policy in Thailand. Evid Policy 13(4):723–731

Tricco AC, Antony J, Straus SE (2015) Systematic reviews vs. rapid reviews: What’s the difference? CADTH Rapid Review Summit

Uneke CJ, Ebeh Ezeoha A, Uro-Chukwu H, Ezeonu CT, Ogbu O, Onwe F, Edoga C (2015) ”Promoting evidence to policy link on the control of infectious diseases of poverty in Nigeria: outcome of a multi-stakeholders policy dialogue. Health Promot Perspect 5(2):104–115

Uzochukwu B, Onwujekwe O, Mbachu C, Okwuosa C, Etiaba E, Nyström ME, Gilson L (2016) The challenge of bridging the gap between researchers and policy makers: experiences of a Health Policy Research Group in engaging policy makers to support evidence informed policy making in Nigeria. Glob Health 12(1):1–15

van de Goor I, Hämäläinen RM, Syed A, Lau CJ, Sandu P, Spitters H, Karlsson LE, Dulf D, Valente A, Castellani T, Aro AR (2017) Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries. Health policy 121(3):273–81

Vogel JP, Oxman AD, Glenton C, Rosenbaum S, Lewin S, Gülmezoglu AM, Souza JP (2013) Policymakers' and other stakeholders' perceptions of key considerations for health system decisions and the presentation of evidence to inform those considerations: an international survey. Health Res Policy Syst 11(1):1–9

Wilson MG, Lavis JN, Gauvin FP (2015) Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue. Syst Rev 4(25):1–11

Wong SL, Green LA, Bazemore AW, Miller BF (2017) How to write a health policy brief. Fam Syst Health 35(1):21–24

World Bank (2019) Classification of low- and middle- income countries. https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/low-and-middle-income . Accessed 2020

World Health Organization (2004) Knowledge for better health: strengthening health systems. Ministerial Summit on Health Research:16-20

Yang CC, Chen H, Honga K (2003) Visualization of large category map for internet browsing. Decision Supp Syst 35(1):89–102

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Julie Desnoyers for her collaboration on developing the search strategy, Stéphanie Lebel for extracting data on the selected articles and Valéry Ridde for peer-reviewing the article. This study was conducted as part of the first author’s doctoral training in industrial-organizational psychology. The candidate received financial support from Équipe RENARD, a research team studying knowledge transfer, which is led by Christian Dagenais and funded by the FRQSC.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

Diana Arnautu & Christian Dagenais

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Arnautu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Arnautu, D., Dagenais, C. Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 211 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00885-9

Download citation

Received : 24 February 2020

Accepted : 25 February 2021

Published : 13 September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00885-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Disseminating health research to public health policy-makers and practitioners: a survey of source, message content and delivery modality preferences.

Sam McCrabb
Luke Wolfenden

Health Research Policy and Systems (2023)

Comparing two federal financing strategies on penetration and sustainment of the adolescent community reinforcement approach for substance use disorders: protocol for a mixed-method study

Alex R. Dopp
Sarah B. Hunter
Jonathan Purtle

Implementation Science Communications (2022)

When the messenger is more important than the message: an experimental study of evidence use in francophone Africa

Amandine Fillol
Esther McSween-Cadieux
Valéry Ridde

Health Research Policy and Systems (2022)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

What (Exactly) Is A Research Proposal?

A simple explainer with examples + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020 (Updated April 2023)

Whether you’re nearing the end of your degree and your dissertation is on the horizon, or you’re planning to apply for a PhD program, chances are you’ll need to craft a convincing research proposal . If you’re on this page, you’re probably unsure exactly what the research proposal is all about. Well, you’ve come to the right place.

Overview: Research Proposal Basics

What a research proposal is
What a research proposal needs to cover
How to structure your research proposal
Example /sample proposals
Proposal writing FAQs
Key takeaways & additional resources

What is a research proposal?

Simply put, a research proposal is a structured, formal document that explains what you plan to research (your research topic), why it’s worth researching (your justification), and how you plan to investigate it (your methodology).

The purpose of the research proposal (its job, so to speak) is to convince your research supervisor, committee or university that your research is suitable (for the requirements of the degree program) and manageable (given the time and resource constraints you will face).

The most important word here is “ convince ” – in other words, your research proposal needs to sell your research idea (to whoever is going to approve it). If it doesn’t convince them (of its suitability and manageability), you’ll need to revise and resubmit . This will cost you valuable time, which will either delay the start of your research or eat into its time allowance (which is bad news).

A research proposal is a formal document that explains what you plan to research , why it's worth researching and how you'll do it.

What goes into a research proposal?

A good dissertation or thesis proposal needs to cover the “ what “, “ why ” and” how ” of the proposed study. Let’s look at each of these attributes in a little more detail:

Your proposal needs to clearly articulate your research topic . This needs to be specific and unambiguous . Your research topic should make it clear exactly what you plan to research and in what context. Here’s an example of a well-articulated research topic:

An investigation into the factors which impact female Generation Y consumer’s likelihood to promote a specific makeup brand to their peers: a British context

As you can see, this topic is extremely clear. From this one line we can see exactly:

What’s being investigated – factors that make people promote or advocate for a brand of a specific makeup brand
Who it involves – female Gen-Y consumers
In what context – the United Kingdom

So, make sure that your research proposal provides a detailed explanation of your research topic . If possible, also briefly outline your research aims and objectives , and perhaps even your research questions (although in some cases you’ll only develop these at a later stage). Needless to say, don’t start writing your proposal until you have a clear topic in mind , or you’ll end up waffling and your research proposal will suffer as a result of this.

Need a helping hand?

As we touched on earlier, it’s not good enough to simply propose a research topic – you need to justify why your topic is original . In other words, what makes it unique ? What gap in the current literature does it fill? If it’s simply a rehash of the existing research, it’s probably not going to get approval – it needs to be fresh.

But, originality alone is not enough. Once you’ve ticked that box, you also need to justify why your proposed topic is important . In other words, what value will it add to the world if you achieve your research aims?

As an example, let’s look at the sample research topic we mentioned earlier (factors impacting brand advocacy). In this case, if the research could uncover relevant factors, these findings would be very useful to marketers in the cosmetics industry, and would, therefore, have commercial value . That is a clear justification for the research.

So, when you’re crafting your research proposal, remember that it’s not enough for a topic to simply be unique. It needs to be useful and value-creating – and you need to convey that value in your proposal. If you’re struggling to find a research topic that makes the cut, watch our video covering how to find a research topic .

Free Webinar: How To Write A Research Proposal

It’s all good and well to have a great topic that’s original and valuable, but you’re not going to convince anyone to approve it without discussing the practicalities – in other words:

How will you actually undertake your research (i.e., your methodology)?
Is your research methodology appropriate given your research aims?
Is your approach manageable given your constraints (time, money, etc.)?

While it’s generally not expected that you’ll have a fully fleshed-out methodology at the proposal stage, you’ll likely still need to provide a high-level overview of your research methodology . Here are some important questions you’ll need to address in your research proposal:

Will you take a qualitative , quantitative or mixed -method approach?
What sampling strategy will you adopt?
How will you collect your data (e.g., interviews, surveys, etc)?
How will you analyse your data (e.g., descriptive and inferential statistics , content analysis, discourse analysis, etc, .)?
What potential limitations will your methodology carry?

So, be sure to give some thought to the practicalities of your research and have at least a basic methodological plan before you start writing up your proposal. If this all sounds rather intimidating, the video below provides a good introduction to research methodology and the key choices you’ll need to make.

How To Structure A Research Proposal

Now that we’ve covered the key points that need to be addressed in a proposal, you may be wondering, “ But how is a research proposal structured? “.

While the exact structure and format required for a research proposal differs from university to university, there are four “essential ingredients” that commonly make up the structure of a research proposal:

A rich introduction and background to the proposed research
An initial literature review covering the existing research
An overview of the proposed research methodology
A discussion regarding the practicalities (project plans, timelines, etc.)

In the video below, we unpack each of these four sections, step by step.

Research Proposal Examples/Samples

In the video below, we provide a detailed walkthrough of two successful research proposals (Master’s and PhD-level), as well as our popular free proposal template.

Proposal Writing FAQs

How long should a research proposal be.

This varies tremendously, depending on the university, the field of study (e.g., social sciences vs natural sciences), and the level of the degree (e.g. undergraduate, Masters or PhD) – so it’s always best to check with your university what their specific requirements are before you start planning your proposal.

As a rough guide, a formal research proposal at Masters-level often ranges between 2000-3000 words, while a PhD-level proposal can be far more detailed, ranging from 5000-8000 words. In some cases, a rough outline of the topic is all that’s needed, while in other cases, universities expect a very detailed proposal that essentially forms the first three chapters of the dissertation or thesis.

The takeaway – be sure to check with your institution before you start writing.

How do I choose a topic for my research proposal?

Finding a good research topic is a process that involves multiple steps. We cover the topic ideation process in this video post.

How do I write a literature review for my proposal?

While you typically won’t need a comprehensive literature review at the proposal stage, you still need to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the key literature and are able to synthesise it. We explain the literature review process here.

How do I create a timeline and budget for my proposal?

We explain how to craft a project plan/timeline and budget in Research Proposal Bootcamp .

Which referencing format should I use in my research proposal?

The expectations and requirements regarding formatting and referencing vary from institution to institution. Therefore, you’ll need to check this information with your university.

What common proposal writing mistakes do I need to look out for?

We’ve create a video post about some of the most common mistakes students make when writing a proposal – you can access that here . If you’re short on time, here’s a quick summary:

The research topic is too broad (or just poorly articulated).
The research aims, objectives and questions don’t align.
The research topic is not well justified.
The study has a weak theoretical foundation.
The research design is not well articulated well enough.
Poor writing and sloppy presentation.
Poor project planning and risk management.
Not following the university’s specific criteria.

Key Takeaways & Additional Resources

As you write up your research proposal, remember the all-important core purpose: to convince . Your research proposal needs to sell your study in terms of suitability and viability. So, focus on crafting a convincing narrative to ensure a strong proposal.

At the same time, pay close attention to your university’s requirements. While we’ve covered the essentials here, every institution has its own set of expectations and it’s essential that you follow these to maximise your chances of approval.

By the way, we’ve got plenty more resources to help you fast-track your research proposal. Here are some of our most popular resources to get you started:

Proposal Writing 101 : A Introductory Webinar
Research Proposal Bootcamp : The Ultimate Online Course
Template : A basic template to help you craft your proposal

If you’re looking for 1-on-1 support with your research proposal, be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the proposal development process (and the entire research journey), step by step.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

51 Comments

I truly enjoyed this video, as it was eye-opening to what I have to do in the preparation of preparing a Research proposal.

I would be interested in getting some coaching.

I real appreciate on your elaboration on how to develop research proposal,the video explains each steps clearly.

Thank you for the video. It really assisted me and my niece. I am a PhD candidate and she is an undergraduate student. It is at times, very difficult to guide a family member but with this video, my job is done.

In view of the above, I welcome more coaching.

Wonderful guidelines, thanks

This is very helpful. Would love to continue even as I prepare for starting my masters next year.

Thanks for the work done, the text was helpful to me

Bundle of thanks to you for the research proposal guide it was really good and useful if it is possible please send me the sample of research proposal

You’re most welcome. We don’t have any research proposals that we can share (the students own the intellectual property), but you might find our research proposal template useful: https://gradcoach.com/research-proposal-template/

Cheruiyot Moses Kipyegon

Thanks alot. It was an eye opener that came timely enough before my imminent proposal defense. Thanks, again

thank you very much your lesson is very interested may God be with you

I am an undergraduate student (First Degree) preparing to write my project,this video and explanation had shed more light to me thanks for your efforts keep it up.

Very useful. I am grateful.

this is a very a good guidance on research proposal, for sure i have learnt something

Wonderful guidelines for writing a research proposal, I am a student of m.phil( education), this guideline is suitable for me. Thanks

You’re welcome 🙂

Thank you, this was so helpful.

A really great and insightful video. It opened my eyes as to how to write a research paper. I would like to receive more guidance for writing my research paper from your esteemed faculty.

Thank you, great insights

Thank you, great insights, thank you so much, feeling edified

Wow thank you, great insights, thanks a lot

Thank you. This is a great insight. I am a student preparing for a PhD program. I am requested to write my Research Proposal as part of what I am required to submit before my unconditional admission. I am grateful having listened to this video which will go a long way in helping me to actually choose a topic of interest and not just any topic as well as to narrow down the topic and be specific about it. I indeed need more of this especially as am trying to choose a topic suitable for a DBA am about embarking on. Thank you once more. The video is indeed helpful.

Have learnt a lot just at the right time. Thank you so much.

thank you very much ,because have learn a lot things concerning research proposal and be blessed u for your time that you providing to help us

Hi. For my MSc medical education research, please evaluate this topic for me: Training Needs Assessment of Faculty in Medical Training Institutions in Kericho and Bomet Counties

I have really learnt a lot based on research proposal and it’s formulation

Thank you. I learn much from the proposal since it is applied

Your effort is much appreciated – you have good articulation.

You have good articulation.

I do applaud your simplified method of explaining the subject matter, which indeed has broaden my understanding of the subject matter. Definitely this would enable me writing a sellable research proposal.

This really helping

Great! I liked your tutoring on how to find a research topic and how to write a research proposal. Precise and concise. Thank you very much. Will certainly share this with my students. Research made simple indeed.

Thank you very much. I an now assist my students effectively.

Thank you very much. I can now assist my students effectively.

I need any research proposal

Thank you for these videos. I will need chapter by chapter assistance in writing my MSc dissertation

Very helpfull

the videos are very good and straight forward

thanks so much for this wonderful presentations, i really enjoyed it to the fullest wish to learn more from you

Thank you very much. I learned a lot from your lecture.

I really enjoy the in-depth knowledge on research proposal you have given. me. You have indeed broaden my understanding and skills. Thank you

interesting session this has equipped me with knowledge as i head for exams in an hour’s time, am sure i get A++

This article was most informative and easy to understand. I now have a good idea of how to write my research proposal.

Thank you very much.

Wow, this literature is very resourceful and interesting to read. I enjoyed it and I intend reading it every now then.

Thank you for the clarity

Thank you. Very helpful.

Thank you very much for this essential piece. I need 1o1 coaching, unfortunately, your service is not available in my country. Anyways, a very important eye-opener. I really enjoyed it. A thumb up to Gradcoach

What is JAM? Please explain.

Thank you so much for these videos. They are extremely helpful! God bless!

very very wonderful…

thank you for the video but i need a written example

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

Print Friendly

Community Blog

Keep up-to-date on postgraduate related issues with our quick reads written by students, postdocs, professors and industry leaders.

What is Research? – Purpose of Research

By DiscoverPhDs
September 10, 2020

The purpose of research is to enhance society by advancing knowledge through the development of scientific theories, concepts and ideas. A research purpose is met through forming hypotheses, collecting data, analysing results, forming conclusions, implementing findings into real-life applications and forming new research questions.

What is Research

Simply put, research is the process of discovering new knowledge. This knowledge can be either the development of new concepts or the advancement of existing knowledge and theories, leading to a new understanding that was not previously known.

As a more formal definition of research, the following has been extracted from the Code of Federal Regulations :

While research can be carried out by anyone and in any field, most research is usually done to broaden knowledge in the physical, biological, and social worlds. This can range from learning why certain materials behave the way they do, to asking why certain people are more resilient than others when faced with the same challenges.

The use of ‘systematic investigation’ in the formal definition represents how research is normally conducted – a hypothesis is formed, appropriate research methods are designed, data is collected and analysed, and research results are summarised into one or more ‘research conclusions’. These research conclusions are then shared with the rest of the scientific community to add to the existing knowledge and serve as evidence to form additional questions that can be investigated. It is this cyclical process that enables scientific research to make continuous progress over the years; the true purpose of research.

What is the Purpose of Research

From weather forecasts to the discovery of antibiotics, researchers are constantly trying to find new ways to understand the world and how things work – with the ultimate goal of improving our lives.

The purpose of research is therefore to find out what is known, what is not and what we can develop further. In this way, scientists can develop new theories, ideas and products that shape our society and our everyday lives.

Although research can take many forms, there are three main purposes of research:

Exploratory: Exploratory research is the first research to be conducted around a problem that has not yet been clearly defined. Exploration research therefore aims to gain a better understanding of the exact nature of the problem and not to provide a conclusive answer to the problem itself. This enables us to conduct more in-depth research later on.
Descriptive: Descriptive research expands knowledge of a research problem or phenomenon by describing it according to its characteristics and population. Descriptive research focuses on the ‘how’ and ‘what’, but not on the ‘why’.
Explanatory: Explanatory research, also referred to as casual research, is conducted to determine how variables interact, i.e. to identify cause-and-effect relationships. Explanatory research deals with the ‘why’ of research questions and is therefore often based on experiments.

Characteristics of Research

There are 8 core characteristics that all research projects should have. These are:

Empirical – based on proven scientific methods derived from real-life observations and experiments.
Logical – follows sequential procedures based on valid principles.
Cyclic – research begins with a question and ends with a question, i.e. research should lead to a new line of questioning.
Controlled – vigorous measures put into place to keep all variables constant, except those under investigation.
Hypothesis-based – the research design generates data that sufficiently meets the research objectives and can prove or disprove the hypothesis. It makes the research study repeatable and gives credibility to the results.
Analytical – data is generated, recorded and analysed using proven techniques to ensure high accuracy and repeatability while minimising potential errors and anomalies.
Objective – sound judgement is used by the researcher to ensure that the research findings are valid.
Statistical treatment – statistical treatment is used to transform the available data into something more meaningful from which knowledge can be gained.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

Types of Research

Research can be divided into two main types: basic research (also known as pure research) and applied research.

Basic Research

Basic research, also known as pure research, is an original investigation into the reasons behind a process, phenomenon or particular event. It focuses on generating knowledge around existing basic principles.

Basic research is generally considered ‘non-commercial research’ because it does not focus on solving practical problems, and has no immediate benefit or ways it can be applied.

While basic research may not have direct applications, it usually provides new insights that can later be used in applied research.

Applied Research

Applied research investigates well-known theories and principles in order to enhance knowledge around a practical aim. Because of this, applied research focuses on solving real-life problems by deriving knowledge which has an immediate application.

Methods of Research

Research methods for data collection fall into one of two categories: inductive methods or deductive methods.

Inductive research methods focus on the analysis of an observation and are usually associated with qualitative research. Deductive research methods focus on the verification of an observation and are typically associated with quantitative research.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is a method that enables non-numerical data collection through open-ended methods such as interviews, case studies and focus groups .

It enables researchers to collect data on personal experiences, feelings or behaviours, as well as the reasons behind them. Because of this, qualitative research is often used in fields such as social science, psychology and philosophy and other areas where it is useful to know the connection between what has occurred and why it has occurred.

Quantitative Research

Quantitative research is a method that collects and analyses numerical data through statistical analysis.

It allows us to quantify variables, uncover relationships, and make generalisations across a larger population. As a result, quantitative research is often used in the natural and physical sciences such as engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, computer science, finance, and medical research, etc.

What does Research Involve?

Research often follows a systematic approach known as a Scientific Method, which is carried out using an hourglass model.

A research project first starts with a problem statement, or rather, the research purpose for engaging in the study. This can take the form of the ‘ scope of the study ’ or ‘ aims and objectives ’ of your research topic.

Subsequently, a literature review is carried out and a hypothesis is formed. The researcher then creates a research methodology and collects the data.

The data is then analysed using various statistical methods and the null hypothesis is either accepted or rejected.

In both cases, the study and its conclusion are officially written up as a report or research paper, and the researcher may also recommend lines of further questioning. The report or research paper is then shared with the wider research community, and the cycle begins all over again.

Although these steps outline the overall research process, keep in mind that research projects are highly dynamic and are therefore considered an iterative process with continued refinements and not a series of fixed stages.

Can you do a PhD part time while working answered

Is it really possible to do a PhD while working? The answer is ‘yes’, but it comes with several ‘buts’. Read our post to find out if it’s for you.

If you’re about to sit your PhD viva, make sure you don’t miss out on these 5 great tips to help you prepare.

This article will answer common questions about the PhD synopsis, give guidance on how to write one, and provide my thoughts on samples.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Browse PhDs Now

This post explains where and how to write the list of figures in your thesis or dissertation.

Stay up to date with current information being provided by the UK Government and Universities about the impact of the global pandemic on PhD research studies.

Christine is entering the 4th year of her PhD Carleton University, researching worker’s experiences of the changing conditions in the Non Profit and Social Service sector, pre and during COVID-19.

Freya’s in the final year of her PhD at the University of Leeds. Her project is about improving the precision of observations between collocated ground-based weather radar and airborne platforms.

Join Thousands of Students

Home » Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Methodology

Definition:

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

Structure of Research Methodology

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

I. Introduction

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

II. Research Design

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

III. Data Collection Methods

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

IV. Data Analysis Methods

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

V. Ethical Considerations

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

VI. Limitations

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

VII. Conclusion

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

Research Methodology Types

Types of Research Methodology are as follows:

Quantitative Research Methodology

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

Qualitative Research Methodology

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

Mixed-Methods Research Methodology

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

Case Study Research Methodology

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

Action Research Methodology

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

Experimental Research Methodology

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

Survey Research Methodology

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

Grounded Theory Research Methodology

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

Research Methodology Example

An Example of Research Methodology could be the following:

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

Introduction:

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

Research Design:

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

Participants:

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

Intervention :

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

Data Collection:

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

Data Analysis:

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

Ethical Considerations:

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

Data Management:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusion:

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

How to Write Research Methodology

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

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

When to Write Research Methodology

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

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

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

Applications of Research Methodology

Here are some of the applications of research methodology:

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

Purpose of Research Methodology

Research methodology serves several important purposes, including:

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

Advantages of Research Methodology

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

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

Research Methodology Vs Research Methods

About the author.

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Subscriber Services
For Authors
Publications
Archaeology
Art & Architecture
Bilingual dictionaries
Classical studies
Encyclopedias
English Dictionaries and Thesauri
Language reference
Linguistics
Media studies
Medicine and health
Names studies
Performing arts
Science and technology
Social sciences
Society and culture
Overview Pages
Subject Reference
English Dictionaries
Bilingual Dictionaries

research brief

Quick reference.

A short paper where data and statistics are used to explain things. Typically research briefs are not very in-depth but only give an overall view or impression of the deeper survey. See market researchs.

From: research brief in A Dictionary of Marketing »

Subjects: Social sciences — Business and Management

a research brief is used for what purpose

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

How to write an effective research brief

1. Preparation is key

2. Be clear on your objectives

3. Remember your audience

4. Structure your research brief

5. Make it thorough, yet succinct

6. Consider how prescriptive you want to be on the methodology

7. Define your timelines

8. Set expectations on cost

Cart review

Research Brief Format: Essential Guide for Clear & Concise Reports

Research Brief Basics

Key Differences from a Research Report:

Essential Elements of a Research Brief Format

Tips for Writing Clear & Concise Research Brief Format

Frequently Asked Questions

Survey Point Team

Research brief: Meaning, Components, Importance & Ways to Prepare

Components of a Research Brief

Importance of Research Brief

Example of Research Brief

Background:

Business and Project Objectives:

Market Objectives:

Stakeholders:

Ways to prepare Research Brief

Research Brief Template

Research Brief: Project Name

#2 Business objectives

#3 Marketing objectives

#6 Deliverables

#7 Contact information

Related posts:

About Hitesh Bhasin

All Knowledge Banks (Hub Pages)

Blockchain: The Revolutionary Technology of the Digital World

Defining the Target Audience

Determining the Research Methods

Developing a Detailed Research Plan

Reviewing and Refining the Research Brief

ABOUT THE AUTHOR | Ogün Tübek

Popular searches

Request consultation

Looking for an online survey platform?

Catherine Chipeta

Start your project faster with our market research brief template!

Business Background/ Project Background

Business Objectives/ Marketing Objectives

Research Objectives

Target Market

Action Standards/ Decision Rules

Methodology

Deliverables

Timing and Cost

Contacts and Responsibilities

Ready-to-use market research brief template with examples

Read these articles next:

Kano Model or MaxDiff Analysis?

How to get the most out of open-ended questions

Which one are you?

Do you want to be updated on new features from Conjointly?

Subscribe to updates from Conjointly

Ready to level up your insights?

Cost effective insights that scale

InsightHub on the Blog

Services on the Blog

Latest News

Featured Posts

Featured Stories

How to Write a Market Research Brief (+ Free Template)

Why Create a Market Research Brief?

Key Components

1. Contextual Information

2. Description of Research Purpose

3. Objectives

4. Research Methods

5. Business constraints

a. Research Deliverables

Free Template Example

About FlexMR