findings in research report

Generate accurate APA citations for free

• Knowledge Base
• APA Style 7th edition
• How to write an APA results section

Reporting Research Results in APA Style | Tips & Examples

Published on December 21, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on January 17, 2024.

The results section of a quantitative research paper is where you summarize your data and report the findings of any relevant statistical analyses.

The APA manual provides rigorous guidelines for what to report in quantitative research papers in the fields of psychology, education, and other social sciences.

Use these standards to answer your research questions and report your data analyses in a complete and transparent way.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What goes in your results section, introduce your data, summarize your data, report statistical results, presenting numbers effectively, what doesn’t belong in your results section, frequently asked questions about results in apa.

In APA style, the results section includes preliminary information about the participants and data, descriptive and inferential statistics, and the results of any exploratory analyses.

Include these in your results section:

• Participant flow and recruitment period. Report the number of participants at every stage of the study, as well as the dates when recruitment took place.
• Missing data . Identify the proportion of data that wasn’t included in your final analysis and state the reasons.
• Any adverse events. Make sure to report any unexpected events or side effects (for clinical studies).
• Descriptive statistics . Summarize the primary and secondary outcomes of the study.
• Inferential statistics , including confidence intervals and effect sizes. Address the primary and secondary research questions by reporting the detailed results of your main analyses.
• Results of subgroup or exploratory analyses, if applicable. Place detailed results in supplementary materials.

Write up the results in the past tense because you’re describing the outcomes of a completed research study.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Before diving into your research findings, first describe the flow of participants at every stage of your study and whether any data were excluded from the final analysis.

Participant flow and recruitment period

It’s necessary to report any attrition, which is the decline in participants at every sequential stage of a study. That’s because an uneven number of participants across groups sometimes threatens internal validity and makes it difficult to compare groups. Be sure to also state all reasons for attrition.

If your study has multiple stages (e.g., pre-test, intervention, and post-test) and groups (e.g., experimental and control groups), a flow chart is the best way to report the number of participants in each group per stage and reasons for attrition.

Also report the dates for when you recruited participants or performed follow-up sessions.

Missing data

Another key issue is the completeness of your dataset. It’s necessary to report both the amount and reasons for data that was missing or excluded.

Data can become unusable due to equipment malfunctions, improper storage, unexpected events, participant ineligibility, and so on. For each case, state the reason why the data were unusable.

Some data points may be removed from the final analysis because they are outliers—but you must be able to justify how you decided what to exclude.

If you applied any techniques for overcoming or compensating for lost data, report those as well.

Adverse events

For clinical studies, report all events with serious consequences or any side effects that occured.

Descriptive statistics summarize your data for the reader. Present descriptive statistics for each primary, secondary, and subgroup analysis.

Don’t provide formulas or citations for commonly used statistics (e.g., standard deviation) – but do provide them for new or rare equations.

Descriptive statistics

The exact descriptive statistics that you report depends on the types of data in your study. Categorical variables can be reported using proportions, while quantitative data can be reported using means and standard deviations . For a large set of numbers, a table is the most effective presentation format.

Include sample sizes (overall and for each group) as well as appropriate measures of central tendency and variability for the outcomes in your results section. For every point estimate , add a clearly labelled measure of variability as well.

Be sure to note how you combined data to come up with variables of interest. For every variable of interest, explain how you operationalized it.

According to APA journal standards, it’s necessary to report all relevant hypothesis tests performed, estimates of effect sizes, and confidence intervals.

When reporting statistical results, you should first address primary research questions before moving onto secondary research questions and any exploratory or subgroup analyses.

Present the results of tests in the order that you performed them—report the outcomes of main tests before post-hoc tests, for example. Don’t leave out any relevant results, even if they don’t support your hypothesis.

Inferential statistics

For each statistical test performed, first restate the hypothesis , then state whether your hypothesis was supported and provide the outcomes that led you to that conclusion.

Report the following for each hypothesis test:

• the test statistic value,
• the degrees of freedom ,
• the exact p- value (unless it is less than 0.001),
• the magnitude and direction of the effect.

When reporting complex data analyses, such as factor analysis or multivariate analysis, present the models estimated in detail, and state the statistical software used. Make sure to report any violations of statistical assumptions or problems with estimation.

Effect sizes and confidence intervals

For each hypothesis test performed, you should present confidence intervals and estimates of effect sizes .

Confidence intervals are useful for showing the variability around point estimates. They should be included whenever you report population parameter estimates.

Effect sizes indicate how impactful the outcomes of a study are. But since they are estimates, it’s recommended that you also provide confidence intervals of effect sizes.

Subgroup or exploratory analyses

Briefly report the results of any other planned or exploratory analyses you performed. These may include subgroup analyses as well.

Subgroup analyses come with a high chance of false positive results, because performing a large number of comparison or correlation tests increases the chances of finding significant results.

If you find significant results in these analyses, make sure to appropriately report them as exploratory (rather than confirmatory) results to avoid overstating their importance.

While these analyses can be reported in less detail in the main text, you can provide the full analyses in supplementary materials.

Are your APA in-text citations flawless?

The AI-powered APA Citation Checker points out every error, tells you exactly what’s wrong, and explains how to fix it. Say goodbye to losing marks on your assignment!

Get started!

To effectively present numbers, use a mix of text, tables , and figures where appropriate:

• To present three or fewer numbers, try a sentence ,
• To present between 4 and 20 numbers, try a table ,
• To present more than 20 numbers, try a figure .

Since these are general guidelines, use your own judgment and feedback from others for effective presentation of numbers.

Tables and figures should be numbered and have titles, along with relevant notes. Make sure to present data only once throughout the paper and refer to any tables and figures in the text.

Formatting statistics and numbers

It’s important to follow capitalization , italicization, and abbreviation rules when referring to statistics in your paper. There are specific format guidelines for reporting statistics in APA , as well as general rules about writing numbers .

If you are unsure of how to present specific symbols, look up the detailed APA guidelines or other papers in your field.

It’s important to provide a complete picture of your data analyses and outcomes in a concise way. For that reason, raw data and any interpretations of your results are not included in the results section.

It’s rarely appropriate to include raw data in your results section. Instead, you should always save the raw data securely and make them available and accessible to any other researchers who request them.

Making scientific research available to others is a key part of academic integrity and open science.

Interpretation or discussion of results

This belongs in your discussion section. Your results section is where you objectively report all relevant findings and leave them open for interpretation by readers.

While you should state whether the findings of statistical tests lend support to your hypotheses, refrain from forming conclusions to your research questions in the results section.

Explanation of how statistics tests work

For the sake of concise writing, you can safely assume that readers of your paper have professional knowledge of how statistical inferences work.

In an APA results section , you should generally report the following:

• Participant flow and recruitment period.
• Missing data and any adverse events.
• Descriptive statistics about your samples.
• Inferential statistics , including confidence intervals and effect sizes.
• Results of any subgroup or exploratory analyses, if applicable.

According to the APA guidelines, you should report enough detail on inferential statistics so that your readers understand your analyses.

• the test statistic value
• the degrees of freedom
• the exact p value (unless it is less than 0.001)
• the magnitude and direction of the effect

You should also present confidence intervals and estimates of effect sizes where relevant.

In APA style, statistics can be presented in the main text or as tables or figures . To decide how to present numbers, you can follow APA guidelines:

• To present three or fewer numbers, try a sentence,
• To present between 4 and 20 numbers, try a table,
• To present more than 20 numbers, try a figure.

Results are usually written in the past tense , because they are describing the outcome of completed actions.

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2024, January 17). Reporting Research Results in APA Style | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/apa-style/results-section/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, how to write an apa methods section, how to format tables and figures in apa style, reporting statistics in apa style | guidelines & examples, scribbr apa citation checker.

An innovative new tool that checks your APA citations with AI software. Say goodbye to inaccurate citations!

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write the Results/Findings Section in Research

What is the research paper Results section and what does it do?

The Results section of a scientific research paper represents the core findings of a study derived from the methods applied to gather and analyze information. It presents these findings in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation from the author, setting up the reader for later interpretation and evaluation in the Discussion section. A major purpose of the Results section is to break down the data into sentences that show its significance to the research question(s).

The Results section appears third in the section sequence in most scientific papers. It follows the presentation of the Methods and Materials and is presented before the Discussion section —although the Results and Discussion are presented together in many journals. This section answers the basic question “What did you find in your research?”

What is included in the Results section?

The Results section should include the findings of your study and ONLY the findings of your study. The findings include:

• Data presented in tables, charts, graphs, and other figures (may be placed into the text or on separate pages at the end of the manuscript)
• A contextual analysis of this data explaining its meaning in sentence form
• All data that corresponds to the central research question(s)
• All secondary findings (secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, etc.)

If the scope of the study is broad, or if you studied a variety of variables, or if the methodology used yields a wide range of different results, the author should present only those results that are most relevant to the research question stated in the Introduction section .

As a general rule, any information that does not present the direct findings or outcome of the study should be left out of this section. Unless the journal requests that authors combine the Results and Discussion sections, explanations and interpretations should be omitted from the Results.

How are the results organized?

The best way to organize your Results section is “logically.” One logical and clear method of organizing research results is to provide them alongside the research questions—within each research question, present the type of data that addresses that research question.

Let’s look at an example. Your research question is based on a survey among patients who were treated at a hospital and received postoperative care. Let’s say your first research question is:

“What do hospital patients over age 55 think about postoperative care?”

This can actually be represented as a heading within your Results section, though it might be presented as a statement rather than a question:

Attitudes towards postoperative care in patients over the age of 55

Now present the results that address this specific research question first. In this case, perhaps a table illustrating data from a survey. Likert items can be included in this example. Tables can also present standard deviations, probabilities, correlation matrices, etc.

Following this, present a content analysis, in words, of one end of the spectrum of the survey or data table. In our example case, start with the POSITIVE survey responses regarding postoperative care, using descriptive phrases. For example:

“Sixty-five percent of patients over 55 responded positively to the question “ Are you satisfied with your hospital’s postoperative care ?” (Fig. 2)

Include other results such as subcategory analyses. The amount of textual description used will depend on how much interpretation of tables and figures is necessary and how many examples the reader needs in order to understand the significance of your research findings.

Next, present a content analysis of another part of the spectrum of the same research question, perhaps the NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL responses to the survey. For instance:

  “As Figure 1 shows, 15 out of 60 patients in Group A responded negatively to Question 2.”

After you have assessed the data in one figure and explained it sufficiently, move on to your next research question. For example:

  “How does patient satisfaction correspond to in-hospital improvements made to postoperative care?”

This kind of data may be presented through a figure or set of figures (for instance, a paired T-test table).

Explain the data you present, here in a table, with a concise content analysis:

“The p-value for the comparison between the before and after groups of patients was .03% (Fig. 2), indicating that the greater the dissatisfaction among patients, the more frequent the improvements that were made to postoperative care.”

Let’s examine another example of a Results section from a study on plant tolerance to heavy metal stress . In the Introduction section, the aims of the study are presented as “determining the physiological and morphological responses of Allium cepa L. towards increased cadmium toxicity” and “evaluating its potential to accumulate the metal and its associated environmental consequences.” The Results section presents data showing how these aims are achieved in tables alongside a content analysis, beginning with an overview of the findings:

“Cadmium caused inhibition of root and leave elongation, with increasing effects at higher exposure doses (Fig. 1a-c).”

The figure containing this data is cited in parentheses. Note that this author has combined three graphs into one single figure. Separating the data into separate graphs focusing on specific aspects makes it easier for the reader to assess the findings, and consolidating this information into one figure saves space and makes it easy to locate the most relevant results.

Following this overall summary, the relevant data in the tables is broken down into greater detail in text form in the Results section.

• “Results on the bio-accumulation of cadmium were found to be the highest (17.5 mg kgG1) in the bulb, when the concentration of cadmium in the solution was 1×10G2 M and lowest (0.11 mg kgG1) in the leaves when the concentration was 1×10G3 M.”

Captioning and Referencing Tables and Figures

Tables and figures are central components of your Results section and you need to carefully think about the most effective way to use graphs and tables to present your findings . Therefore, it is crucial to know how to write strong figure captions and to refer to them within the text of the Results section.

The most important advice one can give here as well as throughout the paper is to check the requirements and standards of the journal to which you are submitting your work. Every journal has its own design and layout standards, which you can find in the author instructions on the target journal’s website. Perusing a journal’s published articles will also give you an idea of the proper number, size, and complexity of your figures.

Regardless of which format you use, the figures should be placed in the order they are referenced in the Results section and be as clear and easy to understand as possible. If there are multiple variables being considered (within one or more research questions), it can be a good idea to split these up into separate figures. Subsequently, these can be referenced and analyzed under separate headings and paragraphs in the text.

To create a caption, consider the research question being asked and change it into a phrase. For instance, if one question is “Which color did participants choose?”, the caption might be “Color choice by participant group.” Or in our last research paper example, where the question was “What is the concentration of cadmium in different parts of the onion after 14 days?” the caption reads:

 “Fig. 1(a-c): Mean concentration of Cd determined in (a) bulbs, (b) leaves, and (c) roots of onions after a 14-day period.”

Steps for Composing the Results Section

Because each study is unique, there is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to designing a strategy for structuring and writing the section of a research paper where findings are presented. The content and layout of this section will be determined by the specific area of research, the design of the study and its particular methodologies, and the guidelines of the target journal and its editors. However, the following steps can be used to compose the results of most scientific research studies and are essential for researchers who are new to preparing a manuscript for publication or who need a reminder of how to construct the Results section.

Step 1 : Consult the guidelines or instructions that the target journal or publisher provides authors and read research papers it has published, especially those with similar topics, methods, or results to your study.

• The guidelines will generally outline specific requirements for the results or findings section, and the published articles will provide sound examples of successful approaches.
• Note length limitations on restrictions on content. For instance, while many journals require the Results and Discussion sections to be separate, others do not—qualitative research papers often include results and interpretations in the same section (“Results and Discussion”).
• Reading the aims and scope in the journal’s “ guide for authors ” section and understanding the interests of its readers will be invaluable in preparing to write the Results section.

Step 2 : Consider your research results in relation to the journal’s requirements and catalogue your results.

• Focus on experimental results and other findings that are especially relevant to your research questions and objectives and include them even if they are unexpected or do not support your ideas and hypotheses.
• Catalogue your findings—use subheadings to streamline and clarify your report. This will help you avoid excessive and peripheral details as you write and also help your reader understand and remember your findings. Create appendices that might interest specialists but prove too long or distracting for other readers.
• Decide how you will structure of your results. You might match the order of the research questions and hypotheses to your results, or you could arrange them according to the order presented in the Methods section. A chronological order or even a hierarchy of importance or meaningful grouping of main themes or categories might prove effective. Consider your audience, evidence, and most importantly, the objectives of your research when choosing a structure for presenting your findings.

Step 3 : Design figures and tables to present and illustrate your data.

• Tables and figures should be numbered according to the order in which they are mentioned in the main text of the paper.
• Information in figures should be relatively self-explanatory (with the aid of captions), and their design should include all definitions and other information necessary for readers to understand the findings without reading all of the text.
• Use tables and figures as a focal point to tell a clear and informative story about your research and avoid repeating information. But remember that while figures clarify and enhance the text, they cannot replace it.

Step 4 : Draft your Results section using the findings and figures you have organized.

• The goal is to communicate this complex information as clearly and precisely as possible; precise and compact phrases and sentences are most effective.
• In the opening paragraph of this section, restate your research questions or aims to focus the reader’s attention to what the results are trying to show. It is also a good idea to summarize key findings at the end of this section to create a logical transition to the interpretation and discussion that follows.
• Try to write in the past tense and the active voice to relay the findings since the research has already been done and the agent is usually clear. This will ensure that your explanations are also clear and logical.
• Make sure that any specialized terminology or abbreviation you have used here has been defined and clarified in the  Introduction section .

Step 5 : Review your draft; edit and revise until it reports results exactly as you would like to have them reported to your readers.

• Double-check the accuracy and consistency of all the data, as well as all of the visual elements included.
• Read your draft aloud to catch language errors (grammar, spelling, and mechanics), awkward phrases, and missing transitions.
• Ensure that your results are presented in the best order to focus on objectives and prepare readers for interpretations, valuations, and recommendations in the Discussion section . Look back over the paper’s Introduction and background while anticipating the Discussion and Conclusion sections to ensure that the presentation of your results is consistent and effective.
• Consider seeking additional guidance on your paper. Find additional readers to look over your Results section and see if it can be improved in any way. Peers, professors, or qualified experts can provide valuable insights.

One excellent option is to use a professional English proofreading and editing service  such as Wordvice, including our paper editing service . With hundreds of qualified editors from dozens of scientific fields, Wordvice has helped thousands of authors revise their manuscripts and get accepted into their target journals. Read more about the  proofreading and editing process  before proceeding with getting academic editing services and manuscript editing services for your manuscript.

As the representation of your study’s data output, the Results section presents the core information in your research paper. By writing with clarity and conciseness and by highlighting and explaining the crucial findings of their study, authors increase the impact and effectiveness of their research manuscripts.

For more articles and videos on writing your research manuscript, visit Wordvice’s Resources page.

Wordvice Resources

• How to Write a Research Paper Introduction 
• Which Verb Tenses to Use in a Research Paper
• How to Write an Abstract for a Research Paper
• How to Write a Research Paper Title
• Useful Phrases for Academic Writing
• Common Transition Terms in Academic Papers
• Active and Passive Voice in Research Papers
• 100+ Verbs That Will Make Your Research Writing Amazing
• Tips for Paraphrasing in Research Papers

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Results Section – Writing Guide and Examples

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Research Results

Research results refer to the findings and conclusions derived from a systematic investigation or study conducted to answer a specific question or hypothesis. These results are typically presented in a written report or paper and can include various forms of data such as numerical data, qualitative data, statistics, charts, graphs, and visual aids.

Results Section in Research

The results section of the research paper presents the findings of the study. It is the part of the paper where the researcher reports the data collected during the study and analyzes it to draw conclusions.

In the results section, the researcher should describe the data that was collected, the statistical analysis performed, and the findings of the study. It is important to be objective and not interpret the data in this section. Instead, the researcher should report the data as accurately and objectively as possible.

Structure of Research Results Section

The structure of the research results section can vary depending on the type of research conducted, but in general, it should contain the following components:

• Introduction: The introduction should provide an overview of the study, its aims, and its research questions. It should also briefly explain the methodology used to conduct the study.
• Data presentation : This section presents the data collected during the study. It may include tables, graphs, or other visual aids to help readers better understand the data. The data presented should be organized in a logical and coherent way, with headings and subheadings used to help guide the reader.
• Data analysis: In this section, the data presented in the previous section are analyzed and interpreted. The statistical tests used to analyze the data should be clearly explained, and the results of the tests should be presented in a way that is easy to understand.
• Discussion of results : This section should provide an interpretation of the results of the study, including a discussion of any unexpected findings. The discussion should also address the study’s research questions and explain how the results contribute to the field of study.
• Limitations: This section should acknowledge any limitations of the study, such as sample size, data collection methods, or other factors that may have influenced the results.
• Conclusions: The conclusions should summarize the main findings of the study and provide a final interpretation of the results. The conclusions should also address the study’s research questions and explain how the results contribute to the field of study.
• Recommendations : This section may provide recommendations for future research based on the study’s findings. It may also suggest practical applications for the study’s results in real-world settings.

Outline of Research Results Section

The following is an outline of the key components typically included in the Results section:

I. Introduction

• A brief overview of the research objectives and hypotheses
• A statement of the research question

II. Descriptive statistics

• Summary statistics (e.g., mean, standard deviation) for each variable analyzed
• Frequencies and percentages for categorical variables

III. Inferential statistics

• Results of statistical analyses, including tests of hypotheses
• Tables or figures to display statistical results

IV. Effect sizes and confidence intervals

• Effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s d, odds ratio) to quantify the strength of the relationship between variables
• Confidence intervals to estimate the range of plausible values for the effect size

V. Subgroup analyses

• Results of analyses that examined differences between subgroups (e.g., by gender, age, treatment group)

VI. Limitations and assumptions

• Discussion of any limitations of the study and potential sources of bias
• Assumptions made in the statistical analyses

VII. Conclusions

• A summary of the key findings and their implications
• A statement of whether the hypotheses were supported or not
• Suggestions for future research

Example of Research Results Section

An Example of a Research Results Section could be:

• This study sought to examine the relationship between sleep quality and academic performance in college students.
• Hypothesis : College students who report better sleep quality will have higher GPAs than those who report poor sleep quality.
• Methodology : Participants completed a survey about their sleep habits and academic performance.

II. Participants

• Participants were college students (N=200) from a mid-sized public university in the United States.
• The sample was evenly split by gender (50% female, 50% male) and predominantly white (85%).
• Participants were recruited through flyers and online advertisements.

III. Results

• Participants who reported better sleep quality had significantly higher GPAs (M=3.5, SD=0.5) than those who reported poor sleep quality (M=2.9, SD=0.6).
• See Table 1 for a summary of the results.
• Participants who reported consistent sleep schedules had higher GPAs than those with irregular sleep schedules.

IV. Discussion

• The results support the hypothesis that better sleep quality is associated with higher academic performance in college students.
• These findings have implications for college students, as prioritizing sleep could lead to better academic outcomes.
• Limitations of the study include self-reported data and the lack of control for other variables that could impact academic performance.

V. Conclusion

• College students who prioritize sleep may see a positive impact on their academic performance.
• These findings highlight the importance of sleep in academic success.
• Future research could explore interventions to improve sleep quality in college students.

Example of Research Results in Research Paper :

Our study aimed to compare the performance of three different machine learning algorithms (Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and Neural Network) in predicting customer churn in a telecommunications company. We collected a dataset of 10,000 customer records, with 20 predictor variables and a binary churn outcome variable.

Our analysis revealed that all three algorithms performed well in predicting customer churn, with an overall accuracy of 85%. However, the Random Forest algorithm showed the highest accuracy (88%), followed by the Support Vector Machine (86%) and the Neural Network (84%).

Furthermore, we found that the most important predictor variables for customer churn were monthly charges, contract type, and tenure. Random Forest identified monthly charges as the most important variable, while Support Vector Machine and Neural Network identified contract type as the most important.

Overall, our results suggest that machine learning algorithms can be effective in predicting customer churn in a telecommunications company, and that Random Forest is the most accurate algorithm for this task.

Example 3 :

Title : The Impact of Social Media on Body Image and Self-Esteem

Abstract : This study aimed to investigate the relationship between social media use, body image, and self-esteem among young adults. A total of 200 participants were recruited from a university and completed self-report measures of social media use, body image satisfaction, and self-esteem.

Results: The results showed that social media use was significantly associated with body image dissatisfaction and lower self-esteem. Specifically, participants who reported spending more time on social media platforms had lower levels of body image satisfaction and self-esteem compared to those who reported less social media use. Moreover, the study found that comparing oneself to others on social media was a significant predictor of body image dissatisfaction and lower self-esteem.

Conclusion : These results suggest that social media use can have negative effects on body image satisfaction and self-esteem among young adults. It is important for individuals to be mindful of their social media use and to recognize the potential negative impact it can have on their mental health. Furthermore, interventions aimed at promoting positive body image and self-esteem should take into account the role of social media in shaping these attitudes and behaviors.

Importance of Research Results

Research results are important for several reasons, including:

• Advancing knowledge: Research results can contribute to the advancement of knowledge in a particular field, whether it be in science, technology, medicine, social sciences, or humanities.
• Developing theories: Research results can help to develop or modify existing theories and create new ones.
• Improving practices: Research results can inform and improve practices in various fields, such as education, healthcare, business, and public policy.
• Identifying problems and solutions: Research results can identify problems and provide solutions to complex issues in society, including issues related to health, environment, social justice, and economics.
• Validating claims : Research results can validate or refute claims made by individuals or groups in society, such as politicians, corporations, or activists.
• Providing evidence: Research results can provide evidence to support decision-making, policy-making, and resource allocation in various fields.

How to Write Results in A Research Paper

Here are some general guidelines on how to write results in a research paper:

• Organize the results section: Start by organizing the results section in a logical and coherent manner. Divide the section into subsections if necessary, based on the research questions or hypotheses.
• Present the findings: Present the findings in a clear and concise manner. Use tables, graphs, and figures to illustrate the data and make the presentation more engaging.
• Describe the data: Describe the data in detail, including the sample size, response rate, and any missing data. Provide relevant descriptive statistics such as means, standard deviations, and ranges.
• Interpret the findings: Interpret the findings in light of the research questions or hypotheses. Discuss the implications of the findings and the extent to which they support or contradict existing theories or previous research.
• Discuss the limitations : Discuss the limitations of the study, including any potential sources of bias or confounding factors that may have affected the results.
• Compare the results : Compare the results with those of previous studies or theoretical predictions. Discuss any similarities, differences, or inconsistencies.
• Avoid redundancy: Avoid repeating information that has already been presented in the introduction or methods sections. Instead, focus on presenting new and relevant information.
• Be objective: Be objective in presenting the results, avoiding any personal biases or interpretations.

When to Write Research Results

Here are situations When to Write Research Results”

• After conducting research on the chosen topic and obtaining relevant data, organize the findings in a structured format that accurately represents the information gathered.
• Once the data has been analyzed and interpreted, and conclusions have been drawn, begin the writing process.
• Before starting to write, ensure that the research results adhere to the guidelines and requirements of the intended audience, such as a scientific journal or academic conference.
• Begin by writing an abstract that briefly summarizes the research question, methodology, findings, and conclusions.
• Follow the abstract with an introduction that provides context for the research, explains its significance, and outlines the research question and objectives.
• The next section should be a literature review that provides an overview of existing research on the topic and highlights the gaps in knowledge that the current research seeks to address.
• The methodology section should provide a detailed explanation of the research design, including the sample size, data collection methods, and analytical techniques used.
• Present the research results in a clear and concise manner, using graphs, tables, and figures to illustrate the findings.
• Discuss the implications of the research results, including how they contribute to the existing body of knowledge on the topic and what further research is needed.
• Conclude the paper by summarizing the main findings, reiterating the significance of the research, and offering suggestions for future research.

Purpose of Research Results

The purposes of Research Results are as follows:

• Informing policy and practice: Research results can provide evidence-based information to inform policy decisions, such as in the fields of healthcare, education, and environmental regulation. They can also inform best practices in fields such as business, engineering, and social work.
• Addressing societal problems : Research results can be used to help address societal problems, such as reducing poverty, improving public health, and promoting social justice.
• Generating economic benefits : Research results can lead to the development of new products, services, and technologies that can create economic value and improve quality of life.
• Supporting academic and professional development : Research results can be used to support academic and professional development by providing opportunities for students, researchers, and practitioners to learn about new findings and methodologies in their field.
• Enhancing public understanding: Research results can help to educate the public about important issues and promote scientific literacy, leading to more informed decision-making and better public policy.
• Evaluating interventions: Research results can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, such as treatments, educational programs, and social policies. This can help to identify areas where improvements are needed and guide future interventions.
• Contributing to scientific progress: Research results can contribute to the advancement of science by providing new insights and discoveries that can lead to new theories, methods, and techniques.
• Informing decision-making : Research results can provide decision-makers with the information they need to make informed decisions. This can include decision-making at the individual, organizational, or governmental levels.
• Fostering collaboration : Research results can facilitate collaboration between researchers and practitioners, leading to new partnerships, interdisciplinary approaches, and innovative solutions to complex problems.

Advantages of Research Results

Some Advantages of Research Results are as follows:

• Improved decision-making: Research results can help inform decision-making in various fields, including medicine, business, and government. For example, research on the effectiveness of different treatments for a particular disease can help doctors make informed decisions about the best course of treatment for their patients.
• Innovation : Research results can lead to the development of new technologies, products, and services. For example, research on renewable energy sources can lead to the development of new and more efficient ways to harness renewable energy.
• Economic benefits: Research results can stimulate economic growth by providing new opportunities for businesses and entrepreneurs. For example, research on new materials or manufacturing techniques can lead to the development of new products and processes that can create new jobs and boost economic activity.
• Improved quality of life: Research results can contribute to improving the quality of life for individuals and society as a whole. For example, research on the causes of a particular disease can lead to the development of new treatments and cures, improving the health and well-being of millions of people.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Paper Introduction – Writing Guide and...

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Thesis – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

How to write the results section of a research paper

• 3 minute read

Table of Contents

At its core, a research paper aims to fill a gap in the research on a given topic. As a result, the results section of the paper, which describes the key findings of the study, is often considered the core of the paper. This is the section that gets the most attention from reviewers, peers, students, and any news organization reporting on your findings. Writing a clear, concise, and logical results section is, therefore, one of the most important parts of preparing your manuscript.

Difference between results and discussion

Before delving into how to write the results section, it is important to first understand the difference between the results and discussion sections. The results section needs to detail the findings of the study. The aim of this section is not to draw connections between the different findings or to compare it to previous findings in literature—that is the purview of the discussion section. Unlike the discussion section, which can touch upon the hypothetical, the results section needs to focus on the purely factual. In some cases, it may even be preferable to club these two sections together into a single section. For example, while writing  a review article, it can be worthwhile to club these two sections together, as the main results in this case are the conclusions that can be drawn from the literature.

Structure of the results section

Although the main purpose of the results section in a research paper is to report the findings, it is necessary to present an introduction and repeat the research question. This establishes a connection to the previous section of the paper and creates a smooth flow of information.

Next, the results section needs to communicate the findings of your research in a systematic manner. The section needs to be organized such that the primary research question is addressed first, then the secondary research questions. If the research addresses multiple questions, the results section must individually connect with each of the questions. This ensures clarity and minimizes confusion while reading.

Consider representing your results visually. For example, graphs, tables, and other figures can help illustrate the findings of your paper, especially if there is a large amount of data in the results.

Remember, an appealing results section can help peer reviewers better understand the merits of your research, thereby increasing your chances of publication.

Practical guidance for writing an effective results section for a research paper

• Always use simple and clear language. Avoid the use of uncertain or out-of-focus expressions.
• The findings of the study must be expressed in an objective and unbiased manner. While it is acceptable to correlate certain findings in the discussion section, it is best to avoid overinterpreting the results.
• If the research addresses more than one hypothesis, use sub-sections to describe the results. This prevents confusion and promotes understanding.
• Ensure that negative results are included in this section, even if they do not support the research hypothesis.
• Wherever possible, use illustrations like tables, figures, charts, or other visual representations to showcase the results of your research paper. Mention these illustrations in the text, but do not repeat the information that they convey.
• For statistical data, it is adequate to highlight the tests and explain their results. The initial or raw data should not be mentioned in the results section of a research paper.

The results section of a research paper is usually the most impactful section because it draws the greatest attention. Regardless of the subject of your research paper, a well-written results section is capable of generating interest in your research.

For detailed information and assistance on writing the results of a research paper, refer to Elsevier Author Services.

Writing a good review article

Why is data validation important in research?

You may also like.

Submission 101: What format should be used for academic papers?

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 7. The Results
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The results section is where you report the findings of your study based upon the methodology [or methodologies] you applied to gather information. The results section should state the findings of the research arranged in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation. A section describing results should be particularly detailed if your paper includes data generated from your own research.

Annesley, Thomas M. "Show Your Cards: The Results Section and the Poker Game." Clinical Chemistry 56 (July 2010): 1066-1070.

Importance of a Good Results Section

When formulating the results section, it's important to remember that the results of a study do not prove anything . Findings can only confirm or reject the hypothesis underpinning your study. However, the act of articulating the results helps you to understand the problem from within, to break it into pieces, and to view the research problem from various perspectives.

The page length of this section is set by the amount and types of data to be reported . Be concise. Use non-textual elements appropriately, such as figures and tables, to present findings more effectively. In deciding what data to describe in your results section, you must clearly distinguish information that would normally be included in a research paper from any raw data or other content that could be included as an appendix. In general, raw data that has not been summarized should not be included in the main text of your paper unless requested to do so by your professor.

Avoid providing data that is not critical to answering the research question . The background information you described in the introduction section should provide the reader with any additional context or explanation needed to understand the results. A good strategy is to always re-read the background section of your paper after you have written up your results to ensure that the reader has enough context to understand the results [and, later, how you interpreted the results in the discussion section of your paper that follows].

Bavdekar, Sandeep B. and Sneha Chandak. "Results: Unraveling the Findings." Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 63 (September 2015): 44-46; Brett, Paul. "A Genre Analysis of the Results Section of Sociology Articles." English for Specific Speakers 13 (1994): 47-59; Go to English for Specific Purposes on ScienceDirect;Burton, Neil et al. Doing Your Education Research Project . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2008; Results. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Results Section. San Francisco Edit; "Reporting Findings." In Making Sense of Social Research Malcolm Williams, editor. (London;: SAGE Publications, 2003) pp. 188-207.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Organization and Approach

For most research papers in the social and behavioral sciences, there are two possible ways of organizing the results . Both approaches are appropriate in how you report your findings, but use only one approach.

• Present a synopsis of the results followed by an explanation of key findings . This approach can be used to highlight important findings. For example, you may have noticed an unusual correlation between two variables during the analysis of your findings. It is appropriate to highlight this finding in the results section. However, speculating as to why this correlation exists and offering a hypothesis about what may be happening belongs in the discussion section of your paper.
• Present a result and then explain it, before presenting the next result then explaining it, and so on, then end with an overall synopsis . This is the preferred approach if you have multiple results of equal significance. It is more common in longer papers because it helps the reader to better understand each finding. In this model, it is helpful to provide a brief conclusion that ties each of the findings together and provides a narrative bridge to the discussion section of the your paper.

NOTE:   Just as the literature review should be arranged under conceptual categories rather than systematically describing each source, you should also organize your findings under key themes related to addressing the research problem. This can be done under either format noted above [i.e., a thorough explanation of the key results or a sequential, thematic description and explanation of each finding].

II.  Content

In general, the content of your results section should include the following:

• Introductory context for understanding the results by restating the research problem underpinning your study . This is useful in re-orientating the reader's focus back to the research problem after having read a review of the literature and your explanation of the methods used for gathering and analyzing information.
• Inclusion of non-textual elements, such as, figures, charts, photos, maps, tables, etc. to further illustrate key findings, if appropriate . Rather than relying entirely on descriptive text, consider how your findings can be presented visually. This is a helpful way of condensing a lot of data into one place that can then be referred to in the text. Consider referring to appendices if there is a lot of non-textual elements.
• A systematic description of your results, highlighting for the reader observations that are most relevant to the topic under investigation . Not all results that emerge from the methodology used to gather information may be related to answering the " So What? " question. Do not confuse observations with interpretations; observations in this context refers to highlighting important findings you discovered through a process of reviewing prior literature and gathering data.
• The page length of your results section is guided by the amount and types of data to be reported . However, focus on findings that are important and related to addressing the research problem. It is not uncommon to have unanticipated results that are not relevant to answering the research question. This is not to say that you don't acknowledge tangential findings and, in fact, can be referred to as areas for further research in the conclusion of your paper. However, spending time in the results section describing tangential findings clutters your overall results section and distracts the reader.
• A short paragraph that concludes the results section by synthesizing the key findings of the study . Highlight the most important findings you want readers to remember as they transition into the discussion section. This is particularly important if, for example, there are many results to report, the findings are complicated or unanticipated, or they are impactful or actionable in some way [i.e., able to be pursued in a feasible way applied to practice].

NOTE:   Always use the past tense when referring to your study's findings. Reference to findings should always be described as having already happened because the method used to gather the information has been completed.

III.  Problems to Avoid

When writing the results section, avoid doing the following :

• Discussing or interpreting your results . Save this for the discussion section of your paper, although where appropriate, you should compare or contrast specific results to those found in other studies [e.g., "Similar to the work of Smith [1990], one of the findings of this study is the strong correlation between motivation and academic achievement...."].
• Reporting background information or attempting to explain your findings. This should have been done in your introduction section, but don't panic! Often the results of a study point to the need for additional background information or to explain the topic further, so don't think you did something wrong. Writing up research is rarely a linear process. Always revise your introduction as needed.
• Ignoring negative results . A negative result generally refers to a finding that does not support the underlying assumptions of your study. Do not ignore them. Document these findings and then state in your discussion section why you believe a negative result emerged from your study. Note that negative results, and how you handle them, can give you an opportunity to write a more engaging discussion section, therefore, don't be hesitant to highlight them.
• Including raw data or intermediate calculations . Ask your professor if you need to include any raw data generated by your study, such as transcripts from interviews or data files. If raw data is to be included, place it in an appendix or set of appendices that are referred to in the text.
• Be as factual and concise as possible in reporting your findings . Do not use phrases that are vague or non-specific, such as, "appeared to be greater than other variables..." or "demonstrates promising trends that...." Subjective modifiers should be explained in the discussion section of the paper [i.e., why did one variable appear greater? Or, how does the finding demonstrate a promising trend?].
• Presenting the same data or repeating the same information more than once . If you want to highlight a particular finding, it is appropriate to do so in the results section. However, you should emphasize its significance in relation to addressing the research problem in the discussion section. Do not repeat it in your results section because you can do that in the conclusion of your paper.
• Confusing figures with tables . Be sure to properly label any non-textual elements in your paper. Don't call a chart an illustration or a figure a table. If you are not sure, go here .

Annesley, Thomas M. "Show Your Cards: The Results Section and the Poker Game." Clinical Chemistry 56 (July 2010): 1066-1070; Bavdekar, Sandeep B. and Sneha Chandak. "Results: Unraveling the Findings." Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 63 (September 2015): 44-46; Burton, Neil et al. Doing Your Education Research Project . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2008;  Caprette, David R. Writing Research Papers. Experimental Biosciences Resources. Rice University; Hancock, Dawson R. and Bob Algozzine. Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers . 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press, 2011; Introduction to Nursing Research: Reporting Research Findings. Nursing Research: Open Access Nursing Research and Review Articles. (January 4, 2012); Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Results Section. San Francisco Edit ; Ng, K. H. and W. C. Peh. "Writing the Results." Singapore Medical Journal 49 (2008): 967-968; Reporting Research Findings. Wilder Research, in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Human Services. (February 2009); Results. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Schafer, Mickey S. Writing the Results. Thesis Writing in the Sciences. Course Syllabus. University of Florida.

Writing Tip

Why Don't I Just Combine the Results Section with the Discussion Section?

It's not unusual to find articles in scholarly social science journals where the author(s) have combined a description of the findings with a discussion about their significance and implications. You could do this. However, if you are inexperienced writing research papers, consider creating two distinct sections for each section in your paper as a way to better organize your thoughts and, by extension, your paper. Think of the results section as the place where you report what your study found; think of the discussion section as the place where you interpret the information and answer the "So What?" question. As you become more skilled writing research papers, you can consider melding the results of your study with a discussion of its implications.

Driscoll, Dana Lynn and Aleksandra Kasztalska. Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

• << Previous: Insiderness
• Next: Using Non-Textual Elements >>
• Last Updated: Aug 13, 2024 12:57 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Writing up a Research Report

• First Online: 04 January 2024

Cite this chapter

• Stefan Hunziker 3 &
• Michael Blankenagel 3  

664 Accesses

A research report is one big argument about how and why you came up with your conclusions. To make it a convincing argument, a typical guiding structure has developed. In the different chapters, there are distinct issues that need to be addressed to explain to the reader why your conclusions are valid. The governing principle for writing the report is full disclosure: to explain everything and ensure replicability by another researcher.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Barros, L. O. (2016). The only academic phrasebook you’ll ever need . Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.

Google Scholar  

Field, A. (2016). An adventure in statistics. The reality enigma . SAGE.

Field, A. (2020). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.

Früh, M., Keimer, I., & Blankenagel, M. (2019). The impact of Balanced Scorecard excellence on shareholder returns. IFZ Working Paper No. 0003/2019. https://zenodo.org/record/2571603#.YMDUafkzZaQ . Accessed: 9 June 2021.

Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. Basic Books.

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wirtschaft/IFZ, Campus Zug-Rotkreuz, Hochschule Luzern, Zug-Rotkreuz, Zug, Switzerland

Stefan Hunziker & Michael Blankenagel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2024). Writing up a Research Report. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_4

Published : 04 January 2024

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-42738-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-42739-9

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• How it works

How to Write the Dissertation Findings or Results – Tips

Published by Grace Graffin at August 11th, 2021 , Revised On August 13, 2024

Each  part of the dissertation is unique, and some general and specific rules must be followed. The dissertation’s findings section presents the key results of your research without interpreting their meaning .

Theoretically, this is an exciting section of a dissertation because it involves writing what you have observed and found. However, it can be a little tricky if there is too much information to confuse the readers.

The goal is to include only the essential and relevant findings in this section. The results must be presented in an orderly sequence to provide clarity to the readers.

This section of the dissertation should be easy for the readers to follow, so you should avoid going into a lengthy debate over the interpretation of the results.

It is vitally important to focus only on clear and precise observations. The findings chapter of the  dissertation  is theoretically the easiest to write.

It includes  statistical analysis and a brief write-up about whether or not the results emerging from the analysis are significant. This segment should be written in the past sentence as you describe what you have done in the past.

This article will provide detailed information about  how to   write the findings of a dissertation .

When to Write Dissertation Findings Chapter

As soon as you have gathered and analysed your data, you can start to write up the findings chapter of your dissertation paper. Remember that it is your chance to report the most notable findings of your research work and relate them to the research hypothesis  or  research questions set out in  the introduction chapter of the dissertation .

You will be required to separately report your study’s findings before moving on to the discussion chapter  if your dissertation is based on the  collection of primary data  or experimental work.

However, you may not be required to have an independent findings chapter if your dissertation is purely descriptive and focuses on the analysis of case studies or interpretation of texts.

• Always report the findings of your research in the past tense.
• The dissertation findings chapter varies from one project to another, depending on the data collected and analyzed.
• Avoid reporting results that are not relevant to your research questions or research hypothesis.

Does your Dissertation Have the Following?

• Great Research/Sources
• Perfect Language
• Accurate Sources

If not, we can help. Our panel of experts makes sure to keep the 3 pillars of the Dissertation strong.

1. Reporting Quantitative Findings

The best way to present your quantitative findings is to structure them around the research  hypothesis or  questions you intend to address as part of your dissertation project.

Report the relevant findings for each research question or hypothesis, focusing on how you analyzed them.

Analysis of your findings will help you determine how they relate to the different research questions and whether they support the hypothesis you formulated.

While you must highlight meaningful relationships, variances, and tendencies, it is important not to guess their interpretations and implications because this is something to save for the discussion  and  conclusion  chapters.

Any findings not directly relevant to your research questions or explanations concerning the data collection process  should be added to the dissertation paper’s appendix section.

Use of Figures and Tables in Dissertation Findings

Suppose your dissertation is based on quantitative research. In that case, it is important to include charts, graphs, tables, and other visual elements to help your readers understand the emerging trends and relationships in your findings.

Repeating information will give the impression that you are short on ideas. Refer to all charts, illustrations, and tables in your writing but avoid recurrence.

The text should be used only to elaborate and summarize certain parts of your results. On the other hand, illustrations and tables are used to present multifaceted data.

It is recommended to give descriptive labels and captions to all illustrations used so the readers can figure out what each refers to.

How to Report Quantitative Findings

Here is an example of how to report quantitative results in your dissertation findings chapter;

Two hundred seventeen participants completed both the pretest and post-test and a Pairwise T-test was used for the analysis. The quantitative data analysis reveals a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the pretest and posttest scales from the Teachers Discovering Computers course. The pretest mean was 29.00 with a standard deviation of 7.65, while the posttest mean was 26.50 with a standard deviation of 9.74 (Table 1). These results yield a significance level of .000, indicating a strong treatment effect (see Table 3). With the correlation between the scores being .448, the little relationship is seen between the pretest and posttest scores (Table 2). This leads the researcher to conclude that the impact of the course on the educators’ perception and integration of technology into the curriculum is dramatic.

Paired Samples

Paired Samples Correlation

Paired Samples Test

Also Read: How to Write the Abstract for the Dissertation.

2. Reporting Qualitative Findings

A notable issue with reporting qualitative findings is that not all results directly relate to your research questions or hypothesis.

The best way to present the results of qualitative research is to frame your findings around the most critical areas or themes you obtained after you examined the data.

In-depth data analysis will help you observe what the data shows for each theme. Any developments, relationships, patterns, and independent responses directly relevant to your research question or hypothesis should be mentioned to the readers.

Additional information not directly relevant to your research can be included in the appendix .

How to Report Qualitative Findings

Here is an example of how to report qualitative results in your dissertation findings chapter;

The last question of the interview focused on the need for improvement in Thai ready-to-eat products and the industry at large, emphasizing the need for enhancement in the current products being offered in the market. When asked if there was any particular need for Thai ready-to-eat meals to be improved and how to improve them in case of ‘yes,’ the males replied mainly by saying that the current products need improvement in terms of the use of healthier raw materials and preservatives or additives. There was an agreement amongst all males concerning the need to improve the industry for ready-to-eat meals and the use of more healthy items to prepare such meals. The females were also of the opinion that the fast-food items needed to be improved in the sense that more healthy raw materials such as vegetable oil and unsaturated fats, including whole-wheat products, to overcome risks associated with trans fat leading to obesity and hypertension should be used for the production of RTE products. The frozen RTE meals and packaged snacks included many preservatives and chemical-based flavouring enhancers that harmed human health and needed to be reduced. The industry is said to be aware of this fact and should try to produce RTE products that benefit the community in terms of healthy consumption.

Looking for dissertation help?

Research prospect to the rescue then.

We have expert writers on our team who are skilled at helping students with dissertations across a variety of disciplines. Guaranteeing 100% satisfaction!

What to Avoid in Dissertation Findings Chapter

• Avoid using interpretive and subjective phrases and terms such as “confirms,” “reveals,” “suggests,” or “validates.” These terms are more suitable for the discussion chapter , where you will be expected to interpret the results in detail.
• Only briefly explain findings in relation to the key themes, hypothesis, and research questions. You don’t want to write a detailed subjective explanation for any research questions at this stage.

The Do’s of Writing the Findings or Results Section

• Ensure you are not presenting results from other research studies in your findings.
• Observe whether or not your hypothesis is tested or research questions answered.
• Illustrations and tables present data and are labelled to help your readers understand what they relate to.
• Use software such as Excel, STATA, and SPSS to analyse results and important trends.

Essential Guidelines on How to Write Dissertation Findings

The dissertation findings chapter should provide the context for understanding the results. The research problem should be repeated, and the research goals should be stated briefly.

This approach helps to gain the reader’s attention toward the research problem. The first step towards writing the findings is identifying which results will be presented in this section.

The results relevant to the questions must be presented, considering whether the results support the hypothesis. You do not need to include every result in the findings section. The next step is ensuring the data can be appropriately organized and accurate.

You will need to have a basic idea about writing the findings of a dissertation because this will provide you with the knowledge to arrange the data chronologically.

Start each paragraph by writing about the most important results and concluding the section with the most negligible actual results.

A short paragraph can conclude the findings section, summarising the findings so readers will remember as they transition to the next chapter. This is essential if findings are unexpected or unfamiliar or impact the study.

Our writers can help you with all parts of your dissertation, including statistical analysis of your results . To obtain free non-binding quotes, please complete our online quote form here .

Be Impartial in your Writing

When crafting your findings, knowing how you will organize the work is important. The findings are the story that needs to be told in response to the research questions that have been answered.

Therefore, the story needs to be organized to make sense to you and the reader. The findings must be compelling and responsive to be linked to the research questions being answered.

Always ensure that the size and direction of any changes, including percentage change, can be mentioned in the section. The details of p values or confidence intervals and limits should be included.

The findings sections only have the relevant parts of the primary evidence mentioned. Still, it is a good practice to include all the primary evidence in an appendix that can be referred to later.

The results should always be written neutrally without speculation or implication. The statement of the results mustn’t have any form of evaluation or interpretation.

Negative results should be added in the findings section because they validate the results and provide high neutrality levels.

The length of the dissertation findings chapter is an important question that must be addressed. It should be noted that the length of the section is directly related to the total word count of your dissertation paper.

The writer should use their discretion in deciding the length of the findings section or refer to the dissertation handbook or structure guidelines.

It should neither belong nor be short nor concise and comprehensive to highlight the reader’s main findings.

Ethically, you should be confident in the findings and provide counter-evidence. Anything that does not have sufficient evidence should be discarded. The findings should respond to the problem presented and provide a solution to those questions.

Structure of the Findings Chapter

The chapter should use appropriate words and phrases to present the results to the readers. Logical sentences should be used, while paragraphs should be linked to produce cohesive work.

You must ensure all the significant results have been added in the section. Recheck after completing the section to ensure no mistakes have been made.

The structure of the findings section is something you may have to be sure of primarily because it will provide the basis for your research work and ensure that the discussions section can be written clearly and proficiently.

One way to arrange the results is to provide a brief synopsis and then explain the essential findings. However, there should be no speculation or explanation of the results, as this will be done in the discussion section.

Another way to arrange the section is to present and explain a result. This can be done for all the results while the section is concluded with an overall synopsis.

This is the preferred method when you are writing more extended dissertations. It can be helpful when multiple results are equally significant. A brief conclusion should be written to link all the results and transition to the discussion section.

Numerous data analysis dissertation examples are available on the Internet, which will help you improve your understanding of writing the dissertation’s findings.

Problems to Avoid When Writing Dissertation Findings

One of the problems to avoid while writing the dissertation findings is reporting background information or explaining the findings. This should be done in the introduction section .

You can always revise the introduction chapter based on the data you have collected if that seems an appropriate thing to do.

Raw data or intermediate calculations should not be added in the findings section. Always ask your professor if raw data needs to be included.

If the data is to be included, then use an appendix or a set of appendices referred to in the text of the findings chapter.

Do not use vague or non-specific phrases in the findings section. It is important to be factual and concise for the reader’s benefit.

The findings section presents the crucial data collected during the research process. It should be presented concisely and clearly to the reader. There should be no interpretation, speculation, or analysis of the data.

The significant results should be categorized systematically with the text used with charts, figures, and tables. Furthermore, avoiding using vague and non-specific words in this section is essential.

It is essential to label the tables and visual material properly. You should also check and proofread the section to avoid mistakes.

The dissertation findings chapter is a critical part of your overall dissertation paper. If you struggle with presenting your results and statistical analysis, our expert dissertation writers can help you get things right. Whether you need help with the entire dissertation paper or individual chapters, our dissertation experts can provide customized dissertation support .

FAQs About Findings of a Dissertation

How do i report quantitative findings.

The best way to present your quantitative findings is to structure them around the research hypothesis or research questions you intended to address as part of your dissertation project. Report the relevant findings for each of the research questions or hypotheses, focusing on how you analyzed them.

How do I report qualitative findings?

The best way to present the qualitative research results is to frame your findings around the most important areas or themes that you obtained after examining the data.

An in-depth analysis of the data will help you observe what the data is showing for each theme. Any developments, relationships, patterns, and independent responses that are directly relevant to your research question or hypothesis should be clearly mentioned for the readers.

Can I use interpretive phrases like ‘it confirms’ in the finding chapter?

No, It is highly advisable to avoid using interpretive and subjective phrases in the finding chapter. These terms are more suitable for the discussion chapter , where you will be expected to provide your interpretation of the results in detail.

Can I report the results from other research papers in my findings chapter?

NO, you must not be presenting results from other research studies in your findings.

You May Also Like

A literature review is a survey of theses, articles, books and other academic sources. Here are guidelines on how to write dissertation literature review.

Dissertation discussion is where you explore the relevance and significance of results. Here are guidelines to help you write the perfect discussion chapter.

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

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

• Discoveries
• Right Journal
• Journal Metrics
• Journal Fit
• Abbreviation
• In-Text Citations
• Bibliographies
• Writing an Article
• Peer Review Types
• Acknowledgements
• Withdrawing a Paper
• Form Letter
• ISO, ANSI, CFR
• Google Scholar
• Journal Manuscript Editing
• Research Manuscript Editing

Book Editing

• Manuscript Editing Services

Medical Editing

• Bioscience Editing
• Physical Science Editing
• PhD Thesis Editing Services
• PhD Editing
• Master’s Proofreading
• Bachelor’s Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading Services
• Best Dissertation Proofreaders
• Masters Dissertation Proofreading
• PhD Proofreaders
• Proofreading PhD Thesis Price
• Journal Article Editing
• Book Editing Service
• Editing and Proofreading Services
• Research Paper Editing
• Medical Manuscript Editing
• Academic Editing
• Social Sciences Editing
• Academic Proofreading
• PhD Theses Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading
• Proofreading Rates UK
• Medical Proofreading
• PhD Proofreading Services UK
• Academic Proofreading Services UK

Medical Editing Services

• Life Science Editing
• Biomedical Editing
• Environmental Science Editing
• Pharmaceutical Science Editing
• Economics Editing
• Psychology Editing
• Sociology Editing
• Archaeology Editing
• History Paper Editing
• Anthropology Editing
• Law Paper Editing
• Engineering Paper Editing
• Technical Paper Editing
• Philosophy Editing
• PhD Dissertation Proofreading
• Lektorat Englisch
• Akademisches Lektorat
• Lektorat Englisch Preise
• Wissenschaftliches Lektorat
• Lektorat Doktorarbeit

PhD Thesis Editing

• Thesis Proofreading Services
• PhD Thesis Proofreading
• Proofreading Thesis Cost
• Proofreading Thesis
• Thesis Editing Services
• Professional Thesis Editing
• Thesis Editing Cost
• Proofreading Dissertation
• Dissertation Proofreading Cost
• Dissertation Proofreader
• Correção de Artigos Científicos
• Correção de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Correção de Inglês
• Correção de Dissertação
• Correção de Textos Precos
• 定額 ネイティブチェック
• Copy Editing
• FREE Courses
• Revision en Ingles
• Revision de Textos en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis
• Revision Medica en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis Precio
• Revisão de Artigos Científicos
• Revisão de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Revisão de Inglês
• Revisão de Dissertação
• Revisão de Textos Precos
• Corrección de Textos en Ingles
• Corrección de Tesis
• Corrección de Tesis Precio
• Corrección Medica en Ingles
• Corrector ingles

Select Page

How To Write the Findings Section of a Research Paper

Posted by Rene Tetzner | Sep 2, 2021 | Paper Writing Advice | 0 |

How To Write the Findings Section of a Research Paper Each research project is unique, so it is natural for one researcher to make use of somewhat different strategies than another when it comes to designing and writing the section of a research paper dedicated to findings. The academic or scientific discipline of the research, the field of specialisation, the particular author or authors, the targeted journal or other publisher and the editor making the decisions about publication can all have a significant impact. The practical steps outlined below can be effectively applied to writing about the findings of most advanced research, however, and will prove especially helpful for early-career scholars who are preparing a research paper for a first publication.

Step 1 : Consult the guidelines or instructions that the targeted journal (or other publisher) provides for authors and read research papers it has already published, particularly ones similar in topic, methods or results to your own. The guidelines will generally outline specific requirements for the results or findings section, and the published articles will provide sound examples of successful approaches. Watch particularly for length limitations and restrictions on content. Interpretation, for instance, is usually reserved for a later discussion section, though not always – qualitative research papers often combine findings and interpretation. Background information and descriptions of methods, on the other hand, almost always appear in earlier sections of a research paper. In most cases it is appropriate in a findings section to offer basic comparisons between the results of your study and those of other studies, but knowing exactly what the journal wants in the report of research findings is essential. Learning as much as you can about the journal’s aims and scope as well as the interests of its readers is invaluable as well.

Step 2 : Reflect at some length on your research results in relation to the journal’s requirements while planning the findings section of your paper. Choose for particular focus experimental results and other research discoveries that are particularly relevant to your research questions and objectives, and include them even if they are unexpected or do not support your ideas and hypotheses. Streamline and clarify your report, especially if it is long and complex, by using subheadings that will help you avoid excessive and peripheral details as you write and also help your reader understand and remember your findings. Consider appendices for raw data that might interest specialists but prove too long or distracting for other readers. The opening paragraph of a findings section often restates research questions or aims to refocus the reader’s attention, and it is always wise to summarise key findings at the end of the section, providing a smooth intellectual transition to the interpretation and discussion that follows in most research papers. There are many effective ways in which to organise research findings. The structure of your findings section might be determined by your research questions and hypotheses or match the arrangement of your methods section. A chronological order or hierarchy of importance or meaningful grouping of main themes or categories might prove effective. It may be best to present all the relevant findings and then explain them and your analysis of them, or explaining the results of each trial or test immediately after reporting it may render the material clearer and more comprehensible for your readers. Keep your audience, your most important evidence and your research goals in mind.

Step 3 : Design effective visual presentations of your research results to enhance the textual report of your findings. Tables of various styles and figures of all kinds such as graphs, maps and photos are used in reporting research findings, but do check the journal guidelines for instructions on the number of visual aids allowed, any required design elements and the preferred formats for numbering, labelling and placement in the manuscript. As a general rule, tables and figures should be numbered according to first mention in the main text of the paper, and each one should be clearly introduced and explained at least briefly in that text so that readers know what is presented and what they are expected to see in a particular visual element. Tables and figures should also be self-explanatory, however, so their design should include all definitions and other information necessary for a reader to understand the findings you intend to show without returning to your text. If you construct your tables and figures before drafting your findings section, they can serve as focal points to help you tell a clear and informative story about your findings and avoid unnecessary repetition. Some authors will even work on tables and figures before organising the findings section (Step 2), which can be an extremely effective approach, but it is important to remember that the textual report of findings remains primary. Visual aids can clarify and enrich the text, but they cannot take its place.

Step 4 : Write your findings section in a factual and objective manner. The goal is to communicate information – in some cases a great deal of complex information – as clearly, accurately and precisely as possible, so well-constructed sentences that maintain a simple structure will be far more effective than convoluted phrasing and expressions. The active voice is often recommended by publishers and the authors of writing manuals, and the past tense is appropriate because the research has already been done. Make sure your grammar, spelling and punctuation are correct and effective so that you are conveying the meaning you intend. Statements that are vague, imprecise or ambiguous will often confuse and mislead readers, and a verbose style will add little more than padding while wasting valuable words that might be put to far better use in clear and logical explanations. Some specialised terminology may be required when reporting findings, but anything potentially unclear or confusing that has not already been defined earlier in the paper should be clarified for readers, and the same principle applies to unusual or nonstandard abbreviations. Your readers will want to understand what you are reporting about your results, not waste time looking up terms simply to understand what you are saying. A logical approach to organising your findings section (Step 2) will help you tell a logical story about your research results as you explain, highlight, offer analysis and summarise the information necessary for readers to understand the discussion section that follows.

Step 5 : Review the draft of your findings section and edit and revise until it reports your key findings exactly as you would have them presented to your readers. Check for accuracy and consistency in data across the section as a whole and all its visual elements. Read your prose aloud to catch language errors, awkward phrases and abrupt transitions. Ensure that the order in which you have presented results is the best order for focussing readers on your research objectives and preparing them for the interpretations, speculations, recommendations and other elements of the discussion that you are planning. This will involve looking back over the paper’s introductory and background material as well as anticipating the discussion and conclusion sections, and this is precisely the right point in the process for reviewing and reflecting. Your research results have taken considerable time to obtain and analyse, so a little more time to stand back and take in the wider view from the research door you have opened is a wise investment. The opinions of any additional readers you can recruit, whether they are professional mentors and colleagues or family and friends, will often prove invaluable as well.

You might be interested in Services offered by Proof-Reading-Service.com

Journal editing.

Journal article editing services

PhD thesis editing services

Scientific Editing

Manuscript editing.

Manuscript editing services

Expert Editing

Expert editing for all papers

Research Editing

Research paper editing services

Professional book editing services

How To Write the Findings Section of a Research Paper These five steps will help you write a clear & interesting findings section for a research paper

Related Posts

How To Write a Journal Article

September 6, 2021

Tips on How To Write a Journal Article

August 30, 2021

How To Write Highlights for an Academic or Scientific Paper

September 7, 2021

Tips on How To Write an Effective Figure Legend

August 27, 2021

Our Recent Posts

Our review ratings

• Examples of Research Paper Topics in Different Study Areas Score: 98%
• Dealing with Language Problems – Journal Editor’s Feedback Score: 95%
• Making Good Use of a Professional Proofreader Score: 92%
• How To Format Your Journal Paper Using Published Articles Score: 95%
• Journal Rejection as Inspiration for a New Perspective Score: 95%

Explore our Categories

• Abbreviation in Academic Writing (4)
• Career Advice for Academics (5)
• Dealing with Paper Rejection (11)
• Grammar in Academic Writing (5)
• Help with Peer Review (7)
• How To Get Published (146)
• Paper Writing Advice (17)
• Referencing & Bibliographies (16)

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Pediatr Psychol

Commentary: Writing and Evaluating Qualitative Research Reports

Yelena p. wu.

1 Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah,

2 Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute,

Deborah Thompson

3 Department of Pediatrics-Nutrition, USDA/ARS Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine,

Karen J. Aroian

4 College of Nursing, University of Central Florida,

Elizabeth L. McQuaid

5 Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University, and

Janet A. Deatrick

6 School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania

Objective  To provide an overview of qualitative methods, particularly for reviewers and authors who may be less familiar with qualitative research. Methods  A question and answer format is used to address considerations for writing and evaluating qualitative research. Results and Conclusions  When producing qualitative research, individuals are encouraged to address the qualitative research considerations raised and to explicitly identify the systematic strategies used to ensure rigor in study design and methods, analysis, and presentation of findings. Increasing capacity for review and publication of qualitative research within pediatric psychology will advance the field’s ability to gain a better understanding of the specific needs of pediatric populations, tailor interventions more effectively, and promote optimal health.

The Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP) has a long history of emphasizing high-quality, methodologically rigorous research in social and behavioral aspects of children’s health ( Palermo, 2013 , 2014 ). Traditionally, research published in JPP has focused on quantitative methodologies. Qualitative approaches are of interest to pediatric psychologists given the important role of qualitative research in developing new theories ( Kelly & Ganong, 2011 ), illustrating important clinical themes ( Kars, Grypdonck, de Bock, & van Delden, 2015 ), developing new instruments ( Thompson, Bhatt, & Watson, 2013 ), understanding patients’ and families’ perspectives and needs ( Bevans, Gardner, Pajer, Riley, & Forrest, 2013 ; Lyons, Goodwin, McCreanor, & Griffin, 2015 ), and documenting new or rarely examined issues ( Haukeland, Fjermestad, Mossige, & Vatne, 2015 ; Valenzuela et al., 2011 ). Further, these methods are integral to intervention development ( Minges et al., 2015 ; Thompson et al., 2007 ) and understanding intervention outcomes ( de Visser et al., 2015 ; Hess & Straub, 2011 ). For example, when designing an intervention, qualitative research can identify patient and family preferences for and perspectives on desirable intervention characteristics and perceived needs ( Cassidy et al., 2013 ; Hess & Straub, 2011 ; Thompson, 2014 ), which may lead to a more targeted, effective intervention.

Both qualitative and quantitative approaches are concerned with issues such as generalizability of study findings (e.g., to whom the study findings can be applied) and rigor. However, qualitative and quantitative methods have different approaches to these issues. The purpose of qualitative research is to contribute knowledge or understanding by describing phenomenon within certain groups or populations of interest. As such, the purpose of qualitative research is not to provide generalizable findings. Instead, qualitative research has a discovery focus and often uses an iterative approach. Thus, qualitative work is often foundational to future qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods studies.

At the time of this writing, three of six current calls for papers for special issues of JPP specifically note that manuscripts incorporating qualitative approaches would be welcomed. Despite apparent openness to broadening JPP’s emphasis beyond its traditional quantitative approach, few published articles have used qualitative methods. For example, of 232 research articles published in JPP from 2012 to 2014 (excluding commentaries and reviews), only five used qualitative methods (2% of articles).

The goal of the current article is to present considerations for writing and evaluating qualitative research within the context of pediatric psychology to provide a framework for writing and reviewing manuscripts reporting qualitative findings. The current article may be especially useful to reviewers and authors who are less familiar with qualitative methods. The tenets presented here are grounded in the well-established literature on reporting and evaluating qualitative research, including guidelines and checklists ( Eakin & Mykhalovskiy, 2003 ; Elo et al., 2014 ; Mays & Pope, 2000 ; Tong, Sainsbury, & Craig, 2007 ). For example, the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist describes essential elements for reporting qualitative findings ( Tong et al., 2007 ). Although the considerations presented in the current manuscript have broad applicability to many fields, examples were purposively selected for the field of pediatric psychology.

Our goal is that this article will stimulate publication of more qualitative research in pediatric psychology and allied fields. More specifically, the goal is to encourage high-quality qualitative research by addressing key issues involved in conducting qualitative studies, and the process of conducting, reporting, and evaluating qualitative findings. Readers interested in more in-depth information on designing and implementing qualitative studies, relevant theoretical frameworks and approaches, and analytic approaches are referred to the well-developed literature in this area ( Clark, 2003 ; Corbin & Strauss, 2008 ; Creswell, 1994 ; Eakin & Mykhalovskiy, 2003 ; Elo et al., 2014 ; Mays & Pope, 2000 ; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013 ; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 ; Saldaña, 2012 ; Sandelowski, 1995 , 2010 ; Tong et al., 2007 ; Yin, 2015 ). Researchers new to qualitative research are also encouraged to obtain specialized training in qualitative methods and/or to collaborate with a qualitative expert in an effort to ensure rigor (i.e., validity).

We begin the article with a definition of qualitative research and an overview of the concept of rigor. While we recognize that qualitative methods comprise multiple and distinct approaches with unique purposes, we present an overview of considerations for writing and evaluating qualitative research that cut across qualitative methods. Specifically, we present basic principles in three broad areas: (1) study design and methods, (2) analytic considerations, and (3) presentation of findings (see Table 1 for a summary of the principles addressed in each area). Each area is addressed using a “question and answer” format. We present a brief explanation of each question, options for how one could address the issue raised, and a suggested recommendation. We recognize, however, that there are no absolute “right” or “wrong” answers and that the most “right” answer for each situation depends on the specific study and its purpose. In fact, our strongest recommendation is that authors of qualitative research manuscripts be explicit about their rationale for design, analytic choices, and strategies so that readers and reviewers can evaluate the rationale and rigor of the study methods.

Summary of Overarching Principles to Address in Qualitative Research Manuscripts

What Is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative methods are used across many areas of health research, including health psychology ( Gough & Deatrick, 2015 ), to study the meaning of people’s lives in their real-world roles, represent their views and perspectives, identify important contextual conditions, discover new or additional insights about existing social and behavioral concepts, and acknowledge the contribution of multiple perspectives ( Yin, 2015 ). Qualitative research is a family of approaches rather than a single approach. There are multiple and distinct qualitative methodologies or stances (e.g., constructivism, post-positivism, critical theory), each with different underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions ( Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011 ). However, certain features are common to most qualitative approaches and distinguish qualitative research from quantitative research ( Creswell, 1994 ).

Key to all qualitative methodologies is that multiple perspectives about a phenomenon of interest are essential, and that those perspectives are best inductively derived or discovered from people with personal experience regarding that phenomenon. These perspectives or definitions may differ from “conventional wisdom.” Thus, meanings need to be discovered from the population under study to ensure optimal understanding. For instance, in a recent qualitative study about texting while driving, adolescents said that they did not approve of texting while driving. The investigators, however, discovered that the respondents did not consider themselves driving while a vehicle was stopped at a red light. In other words, the respondents did approve of texting while stopped at a red light. In addition, the adolescents said that they highly valued being constantly connected via texting. Thus, what is meant by “driving” and the value of “being connected” need to be considered when approaching the issue of texting while driving with adolescents ( McDonald & Sommers, 2015 ).

Qualitative methods are also distinct from a mixed-method approach (i.e., integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches; Creswell, 2013b ). A mixed-methods study may include a first phase of quantitative data collection that provides results that inform a second phase of the study that includes qualitative data collection, or vice versa. A mixed-methods study may also include concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection. The timing, priority, and stage of integration of the two approaches (quantitative and qualitative) are complex and vary depending on the research question; they also dictate how to attend to differing qualitative and quantitative principles ( Creswell et al., 2011 ). Understanding the basic tenets of qualitative research is preliminary to integrating qualitative research with another approach that has different tenets. A full discussion of the integration of qualitative and quantitative research approaches is beyond the scope of this article. Readers interested in the topic are referred to one of the many excellent resources on the topic ( Creswell, 2013b ).

What Are Typical Qualitative Research Questions?

Qualitative research questions are typically open-ended and are framed in the spirit of discovery and exploration and to address existing knowledge gaps. The current manuscript provides exemplar pediatric qualitative studies that illustrate key issues that arise when reporting and evaluating qualitative studies. Example research questions that are contained in the studies cited in the current manuscript are presented in Table 2 .

Example Qualitative Research Questions From the Pediatric Literature

What Are Rigor and Transparency in Qualitative Research?

There are several overarching principles with unique application in qualitative research, including definitions of scientific rigor and the importance of transparency. Quantitative research generally uses the terms reliability and validity to describe the rigor of research, while in qualitative research, rigor refers to the goal of seeking to understand the tacit knowledge of participants’ conception of reality ( Polanyi, 1958 ). For example, Haukeland and colleagues (2015) used qualitative analysis to identify themes describing the emotional experiences of a unique and understudied population—pediatric siblings of children with rare medical conditions such as Turner syndrome and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Within this context, the authors’ rendering of the diverse and contradictory emotions experienced by siblings of children with these rare conditions represents “rigor” within a qualitative framework.

While debate exists regarding the terminology describing and strategies for strengthening scientific rigor in qualitative studies ( Guba, 1981 ; Morse, 2015a , 2015b ; Sandelowski, 1993a ; Whittemore, Chase, & Mandle, 2001 ), little debate exists regarding the importance of explaining strategies used to strengthen rigor. Such strategies should be appropriate for the specific study; therefore, it is wise to clearly describe what is relevant for each study. For example, in terms of strengthening credibility or the plausibility of data analysis and interpretation, prolonged engagement with participants is appropriate when conducting an observational study (e.g., observations of parent–child mealtime interactions; Hughes et al., 2011 ; Power et al., 2015 ). For an interview-only study, however, it would be more practical to strengthen credibility through other strategies (e.g., keeping detailed field notes about the interviews included in the analysis).

Dependability is the stability of a data analysis protocol. For instance, stepwise development of a coding system from an “a priori” list of codes based on the underlying conceptual framework or existing literature (e.g., creating initial codes for potential barriers to medication adherence based on prior studies) may be essential for analysis of data from semi-structured interviews using multiple coders. But this may not be the ideal strategy if the purpose is to inductively derive all possible coding categories directly from data in an area where little is known. For some research questions, the strategy may be to strengthen confirmability or to verify a specific phenomenon of interest using different sources of data before generating conclusions. This process, which is commonly referred to in the research literature as triangulation, may also include collecting different types of data (e.g., interview data, observational data), using multiple coders to incorporate different ways of interpreting the data, or using multiple theories ( Krefting, 1991 ; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 ). Alternatively, another investigator may use triangulation to provide complementarity data ( Krefting, 1991 ) to garner additional information to deepen understanding. Because the purpose of qualitative research is to discover multiple perspectives about a phenomenon, it is not necessarily appropriate to attain concordance across studies or investigators when independently analyzing data. Some qualitative experts also believe that it is inappropriate to use triangulation to confirm findings, but this debate has not been resolved within the field ( Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 ; Tobin & Begley, 2004 ). More agreement exists, however, regarding the value of triangulation to complement, deepen, or expand understanding of a particular topic or issue ( Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 ). Finally, instead of basing a study on a sample that allows for generalizing statistical results to other populations, investigators in qualitative research studies are focused on designing a study and conveying the results so that the reader understands the transferability of the results. Strategies for transferability may include explanations of how the sample was selected and descriptive characteristics of study participants, which provides a context for the results and enables readers to decide if other samples share critical attributes. A study is deemed transferable if relevant contextual features are common to both the study sample and the larger population.

Strategies to enhance rigor should be used systematically across each phase of a study. That is, rigor needs to be identified, managed, and documented throughout the research process: during the preparation phase (data collection and sampling), organization phase (analysis and interpretation), and reporting phase (manuscript or final report; Elo et al., 2014 ). From this perspective, the strategies help strengthen the trustworthiness of the overall study (i.e., to what extent the study findings are worth heeding; Eakin & Mykhalovskiy, 2003 ; Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ).

A good example of managing and documenting rigor and trustworthiness can be found in a study of family treatment decisions for children with cancer ( Kelly & Ganong, 2011 ). The researchers describe how they promoted the rigor of the study and strengthening its credibility by triangulating data sources (e.g., obtaining data from children’s custodial parents, stepparents, etc.), debriefing (e.g., holding detailed conversations with colleagues about the data and interpretations of the data), member checking (i.e., presenting preliminary findings to participants to obtain their feedback and interpretation), and reviewing study procedure decisions and analytic procedures with a second party.

Transparency is another key concept in written reports of qualitative research. In other words, enough detail should be provided for the reader to understand what was done and why ( Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 ). Examples of information that should be included are a clear rationale for selecting a particular population or people with certain characteristics, the research question being investigated, and a meaningful explanation of why this research question was selected (i.e., the gap in knowledge or understanding that is being investigated; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 ). Clearly describing recruitment, enrollment, data collection, and data analysis or extraction methods are equally important ( Dixon-Woods, Shaw, Agarwal, & Smith, 2004 ). Coherency among methods and transparency about research decisions adds to the robustness of qualitative research ( Tobin & Begley, 2004 ) and provides a context for understanding the findings and their implications.

Study Design and Methods

Is qualitative research hypothesis driven.

In contrast to quantitative research, qualitative research is not typically hypothesis driven ( Creswell, 1994 ; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 ). A risk associated with using hypotheses in qualitative research is that the findings could be biased by the hypotheses. Alternatively, qualitative research is exploratory and typically guided by a research question or conceptual framework rather than hypotheses ( Creswell, 1994 ; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 ). As previously stated, the goal of qualitative research is to increase understanding in areas where little is known by developing deeper insight into complex situations or processes. According to Richards and Morse (2013) , “If you know what you are likely to find, …  you should not be working qualitatively” (p. 28). Thus, we do not recommend that a hypothesis be stated in manuscripts presenting qualitative data.

What Is the Role of Theory in Qualitative Research?

Consistent with the exploratory nature of qualitative research, one particular qualitative method, grounded theory, is used specifically for discovering substantive theory (i.e., working theories of action or processes developed for a specific area of concern; Bryant & Charmaz, 2010 ; Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ). This method uses a series of structured steps to break down qualitative data into codes, organize the codes into conceptual categories, and link the categories into a theory that explains the phenomenon under study. For example, Kelly and Ganong (2011) used grounded theory methods to produce a substantive theory about how single and re-partnered parents (e.g., households with a step-parent) made treatment decisions for children with childhood cancer. The theory of decision making developed in this study included “moving to place,” which described the ways in which parents from different family structures (e.g., single and re-partnered parents) were involved in the child’s treatment decision-making. The resulting theory also delineated the causal conditions, context, and intervening factors that contributed to the strategies used for moving to place.

Theories may be used in other types of qualitative research as well, serving as the impetus or organizing framework for the study ( Sandelowski, 1993b ). For example, Izaguirre and Keefer (2014) used Social Cognitive Theory ( Bandura, 1986 ) to investigate self-efficacy among adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease. The impetus for selecting the theory was to inform the development of a self-efficacy measure for adolescent self-management. In another study on health care transition in youth with Type 1 Diabetes ( Pierce, Wysocki, & Aroian, 2016 ), the investigators adapted a social-ecological model—the Socio-ecological Model of Adolescent and Young Adult Transition Readiness (SMART) model ( Schwartz, Tuchman, Hobbie, & Ginsberg, 2011 )—to their study population ( Pierce & Wysocki, 2015 ). Pierce et al. (2016) are currently using the adapted SMART model to focus their data collection and structure the preliminary analysis of their data about diabetes health care transition.

Regardless of whether theory is induced from data or selected in advance to guide the study, consistent with the principle of transparency , its role should be clearly identified and justified in the research publication ( Bradbury-Jones, Taylor, & Herber, 2014 ; Kelly, 2010 ). Methodological congruence is an important guiding principle in this regard ( Richards & Morse, 2013 ). If a theory frames the study at the outset, it should guide and direct all phases. The resulting publication(s) should relate the phenomenon of interest and the research question(s) to the theory and specify how the theory guided data collection and analysis. The publication(s) should also discuss how the theory fits with the finished product. For instance, authors should describe how the theory provided a framework for the presentation of the findings and discuss the findings in context with the relevant theoretical literature.

A study examining parents’ motivations to promote vegetable consumption in their children ( Hingle et al., 2012 ) provides an example of methodological congruence. The investigators adapted the Model of Goal Directed Behavior ( Bagozzi & Pieters, 1998 ) for parenting practices relevant to vegetable consumption (Model of Goal Directed Vegetable Parenting Practices; MGDVPP). Consistent with the adapted theoretical model and in keeping with the congruence principle, interviews were guided by the theoretical constructs contained within the MGDVPP, including parents’ attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control related to promoting vegetable consumption in children ( Hingle et al., 2012 ). The study discovered that the adapted model successfully identified parents’ motivations to encourage their children to eat more vegetables.

The use of the theory should be consistent with the basic goal of qualitative research, which is discovery. Alternatively stated, theories should be used as broad orienting frameworks for exploring topical areas without imposing preconceived ideas and biases. The theory should be consistent with the study findings and not be used to force-fit the researcher’s interpretation of the data ( Sandelowski, 1993b ). Divergence from the theory when it does not fit the study findings is illustrated in a qualitative study of hypertension prevention beliefs in Hispanics ( Aroian, Peters, Rudner, & Waser, 2012 ). This study used the Theory of Planned Behavior as a guiding theoretical framework but found that coding separately for normative and control beliefs was not the best organizing schema for presenting the study findings. When divergence from the original theory occurs, the research report should explain and justify how and why the theory was modified ( Bradbury-Jones et al., 2014 ).

What Are Typical Sampling Methods in Qualitative Studies?

Qualitative sampling methods should be “purposeful” ( Coyne, 1997 ; Patton, 2015 ; Tuckett, 2004 ). Purposeful sampling is based on the study purpose and investigator judgments about which people and settings will provide the richest information for the research questions. The logic underlying this type of sampling differs from the logic underlying quantitative sampling ( Patton, 2015 ). Quantitative research strives for empirical generalization. In qualitative studies, generalizability beyond the study sample is typically not the intent; rather, the focus is on deriving depth and context-embedded meaning for the relevant study population.

Purposeful sampling is a broad term. Theoretical sampling is one particular type of purposeful sampling unique to grounded theory methods ( Coyne, 1997 ). In theoretical sampling, study participants are chosen according to theoretical categories that emerge from ongoing data collection and analyses ( Bryant & Charmaz, 2010 ). Data collection and analysis are conducted concurrently to allow generating and testing hypotheses that emerge from analyzing incoming data. The following example from the previously mentioned qualitative interview study about transition from pediatric to adult care in adolescents with type 1 diabetes ( Pierce et al., 2016 ) illustrates the process of theoretical sampling: An adolescent study participant stated that he was “turned off” by the “childish” posters in his pediatrician’s office. He elaborated that he welcomed transitioning to adult care because his diabetes was discovered when he was 18, an age when he reportedly felt more “mature” than most pediatric patients. These data were coded as “developmental misfit” and prompted a tentative hypothesis about developmental stage at entry for pediatric diabetes care and readiness for health care transition. Examining this hypothesis prompted seeking study participants who varied according to age or developmental stage at time of diagnosis to examine the theoretical relevance of an emerging theme about developmental fit.

Not all purposeful sampling, however, is “theoretical.” For example, ethnographic studies typically seek to understand a group’s cultural beliefs and practices ( Creswell, 2013a ). Consistent with this purpose, researchers conducting an ethnographic study might purposefully select study participants according to specific characteristics that reflect the social roles and positions in a given group or society (e.g., socioeconomic status, education; Johnson, 1990 ).

Random sampling is generally not used in qualitative research. Random selection requires a sufficiently large sample to maximize the potential for chance and, as will be discussed below, sample size is intentionally small in qualitative studies. However, random sampling may be used to verify or clarify findings ( Patton, 2015 ). Validating study findings with a randomly selected subsample can be used to address the possibility that a researcher is inadvertently giving greater attention to cases that reinforce his or her preconceived ideas.

Regardless of the sampling method used, qualitative researchers should clearly describe the sampling strategy and justify how it fits the study when reporting study findings (transparency). A common error is to refer to theoretical sampling when the cases were not chosen according to emerging theoretical concepts. Another common error is to apply sampling principles from quantitative research (e.g., cluster sampling) to convince skeptical reviewers about the rigor or validity of qualitative research. Rigor is best achieved by being purposeful, making sound decisions, and articulating the rationale for those decisions. As mentioned earlier in the discussion of transferability , qualitative researchers are encouraged to describe their methods of sample selection and descriptive characteristics about their sample so that readers and reviewers can judge how the current sample may differ from others. Understanding the characteristics of each qualitative study sample is essential for the iterative nature of qualitative research whereby qualitative findings inform the development of future qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods studies. Reviewers should evaluate sampling decisions based on how they fit the study purpose and how they influence the quality of the end product.

What Sample Size Is Needed for Qualitative Research?

No definitive rules exist about sample size in qualitative research. However, sample sizes are typically smaller than those in quantitative studies ( Patton, 2015 ). Small samples often generate a large volume of data and information-rich cases, ultimately leading to insight regarding the phenomenon under study ( Patton, 2015 ; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 ). Sample sizes of 20–30 cases are typical, but a qualitative sample can be even smaller under some circumstances ( Mason, 2010 ).

Sample size adequacy is evaluated based on the quality of the study findings, specifically the full development of categories and inter-relationships or the adequacy of information about the phenomenon under study ( Corbin & Strauss, 2008 ; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 ). Small sample sizes are of concern if they do not result in these outcomes. Data saturation (i.e., the point at which no new information, categories, or themes emerge) is often used to judge informational adequacy ( Morgan, 1998 ; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 ). Although enough participants should be included to obtain saturation ( Morgan, 1998 ), informational adequacy pertains to more than sample size. It is also a function of the quality of the data, which is influenced by study participant characteristics (e.g., cognitive ability, knowledge, representativeness) and the researcher’s data-gathering skills and analytical ability to generate meaningful findings ( Morse, 2015b ; Patton, 2015 ).

Sample size is also influenced by type of qualitative research, the study purpose, the sample, the depth and complexity of the topic investigated, and the method of data collection. In general, the more heterogeneous the sample, the larger the sample size, particularly if the goal is to investigate similarities and differences by specific characteristics ( Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 ). For instance, in a study to conduct an initial exploration of factors underlying parents’ motivations to use good parenting practices, theoretical saturation (i.e., the point at which no new information, categories, or themes emerge) was obtained with a small sample ( n  = 15), most likely because the study was limited to parents of young children ( Hingle et al., 2012 ). If the goal of the study had been, for example, to identify racial/ethnic, gender, or age differences in food parenting practices, a larger sample would likely be needed to obtain saturation or informational adequacy.

Studies that seek to understand maximum variation in a phenomenon might also need a larger sample than one that is seeking to understand extreme or atypical cases. For example, a qualitative study of diet and physical activity in young Australian men conducted focus groups to identify perceived motivators and barriers to healthy eating and physical activity and examine the influence of body weight on their perceptions. Examining the influence of body weight status required 10 focus groups to allow for group assignment based on body mass index ( Ashton et al., 2015 ). More specifically, 61 men were assigned to a healthy-weight focus group ( n  = 3), an overweight/obese focus group ( n  = 3), or a mixed-weight focus group ( n  = 4). Had the researcher not been interested in whether facilitators and barriers differed by weight status, its likely theoretical saturation could have been obtained with fewer groups. Depth of inquiry also influences sample size ( Sandelowski, 1995 ). For instance, an in-depth analysis of an intervention for children with cancer and their families included 16 family members from three families. Study data comprised 52 hrs of videotaped intervention sessions and 10 interviews ( West, Bell, Woodgate, & Moules, 2015 ). Depth was obtained through multiple data points and types of data, which justified sampling only a few families.

Authors of publications describing qualitative findings should show evidence that the data were “saturated” by a sample with sufficient variation to permit detailing shared and divergent perspectives, meanings, or experiences about the topic of inquiry. Decisions related to the sample (e.g., targeted recruitment) should be detailed in publications so that peer reviewers have the context for evaluating the sample and determining how the sample influenced the study findings ( Patton, 2015 ).

Qualitative Data Analysis

When conducting qualitative research, voluminous amounts of data are gathered and must be prepared (i.e., transcribed) and managed. During the analytic process, data are systematically transformed through identifying, defining, interpreting, and describing findings that are meant to comprehensively describe the phenomenon or the abstract qualities that they have in common. The process should be systematic ( dependability ) and well-documented in the analysis section of a qualitative manuscript. For example, Kelly and Ganong (2011) , in their study of medical treatment decisions made by families of children with cancer, described their analytic procedure by outlining their approach to coding and use of memoing (e.g., keeping careful notes about emerging ideas about the data throughout the analytic process), comparative analysis (e.g., comparing data against one another and looking for similarities and differences), and diagram drawing (e.g., pictorially representing the data structure, including relationships between codes).

How Should Researchers Document Coding Reliability?

Because the intent of qualitative research is to account for multiple perspectives, the goal of qualitative analysis is to comprehensively incorporate those perspectives into discernible findings. Researchers accustomed to doing quantitative studies may expect authors to quantify interrater reliability (e.g., kappa statistic) but this is not typical in qualitative research. Rather, the emphasis in qualitative research is on (1) training those gathering data to be rigorous and produce high-quality data and on (2) using systematic processes to document key decisions (e.g., code book), clear direction, and open communication among team members during data analysis. The goal is to make the most of the collective insight of the investigative team to triangulate or complement each other’s efforts to process and interpret the data. Instead of evaluating if two independent raters came to the same numeric rating, reviewers of qualitative manuscripts should judge to what extent the overall process of coding, data management, and data interpretation were systematic and rigorous. Authors of qualitative reports should articulate their coding procedures for others to evaluate. Together, these strategies promote trustworthiness of the study findings.

An example of how these processes are described in the report of a qualitative study is as follows:

The first two authors independently applied the categories to a sample of two interviews and compared their application of the categories to identify lack of clarity and overlap in categories. The investigators created a code book that contained a definition of categories, guidelines for their application, and excerpts of data exemplifying the categories. The first two authors independently coded the data and compared how they applied the categories to the data and resolved any differences during biweekly meetings. ATLAS.ti, version 6.2, was used to document and accommodate ongoing changes and additions to the coding structure ( Palma et al., 2015 , p. 224).

Do I Need to Use a Specialized Qualitative Data Software Program for Analysis?

Multiple computer software packages for qualitative data analysis are currently available ( Silver & Lewins, 2014 ; Yin, 2015 ). These packages allow the researcher to import qualitative data (e.g., interview transcripts) into the software program and organize data segments (e.g., delineate which interview excerpts are relevant to particular themes). Qualitative analysis software can be useful for organizing and sorting through data, including during the analysis phase. Some software programs also offer sophisticated coding and visualization capabilities that facilitate and enhance interpretation and understanding. For example, if data segments are coded by specific characteristics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity), the data can be sorted and analyzed by these characteristics, which may contribute to an understanding of whether and/or how a particular phenomenon may vary by these characteristics.

The strength of computer software packages for qualitative data analysis is their potential to contribute to methodological rigor by organizing the data for systematic analyses ( John & Johnson, 2000 ; MacMillan & Koenig, 2004 ). However, the programs do not replace the researchers’ analyses. The researcher or research team is ultimately responsible for analyzing the data, identifying the themes and patterns, and placing the findings within the context of the literature. In other words, qualitative data analysis software programs contribute to, but do not ensure scientific rigor or “objectivity” in, the analytic process. In fact, using a software program for analysis is not essential if the researcher demonstrates the use of alternative tools and procedures for rigor.

Presentation of Findings

Should there be overlap between presentation of themes in the results and discussion sections.

Qualitative papers sometimes combine results and discussion into one section to provide a cohesive presentation of the findings along with meaningful linkages to the existing literature ( Burnard, 2004 ; Burnard, Gill, Stewart, Treasure, & Chadwick, 2008 ). Although doing so is an acceptable method for reporting qualitative findings, some journals prefer the two sections to be distinct.

When the journal style is to distinguish the two sections, the results section should describe the findings, that is, the themes, while the discussion section should pull the themes together to make larger-level conclusions and place the findings within the context of the existing literature. For instance, the findings section of a study of how rural African-American adolescents, parents, and community leaders perceived obesity and topics for a proposed obesity prevention program, contained a description of themes about adolescent eating patterns, body shape, and feedback on the proposed weight gain prevention program according to each subset of participants (i.e., adolescents, parents, community leaders). The discussion section then put these themes within the context of findings from prior qualitative and intervention studies in related populations ( Cassidy et al., 2013 ). In the Discussion, when making linkages to the existing literature, it is important to avoid the temptation to extrapolate beyond the findings or to over-interpret them ( Burnard, 2004 ). Linkages between the findings and the existing literature should be supported by ample evidence to avoid spurious or misleading connections ( Burnard, 2004 ).

What Should I Include in the Results Section?

The results section of a qualitative research report is likely to contain more material than customary in quantitative research reports. Findings in a qualitative research paper typically include researcher interpretations of the data as well as data exemplars and the logic that led to researcher interpretations ( Sandelowski & Barroso, 2002 ). Interpretation pertains to the researcher breaking down and recombining the data and creating new meanings (e.g., abstract categories, themes, conceptual models). Select quotes from interviews or other types of data (e.g., participant observation, focus groups) are presented to illustrate or support researcher interpretations. Researchers trained in the quantitative tradition, where interpretation is restricted to the discussion section, may find this surprising; however, in qualitative methods, researcher interpretations represent an important component of the study results. The presentation of the findings, including researcher interpretations (e.g., themes) and data (e.g., quotes) supporting those interpretations, adds to the trustworthiness of the study ( Elo et al., 2014 ).

The Results section should contain a balance between data illustrations (i.e., quotes) and researcher interpretations ( Lofland & Lofland, 2006 ; Sandelowski, 1998 ). Because interpretation arises out of the data, description and interpretation should be combined. Description should be sufficient to support researcher interpretations, and quotes should be used judiciously ( Morrow, 2005 ; Sandelowski, 1994 ). Not every theme needs to be supported by multiple quotes. Rather, quotes should be carefully selected to provide “voice” to the participants and to help the reader understand the phenomenon from the participant’s perspective within the context of the researcher’s interpretation ( Morrow, 2005 ; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 ). For example, researchers who developed a grounded theory of sexual risk behavior of urban American Indian adolescent girls identified desire for better opportunities as a key deterrent to neighborhood norms for early sexual activity. They illustrated this theme with the following quote: “I don’t want to live in the ‘hood and all that…My sisters are stuck there because they had babies. That isn’t going to happen to me” ( Saftner, Martyn, Momper, Loveland-Cherry, & Low, 2015 , p. 372).

There is no precise formula for the proportion of description to interpretation. Both descriptive and analytic excess should be avoided ( Lofland & Lofland, 2006 ). The former pertains to presentation of unedited field notes or interview transcripts rather than selecting and connecting data to analytic concepts that explain or summarize the data. The latter pertains to focusing on the mechanics of analysis and interpretation without substantiating researcher interpretations with quotes. Reviewer requests for methodological rigor can result in researchers writing qualitative research papers that suffer from analytic excess ( Sandelowski & Barroso, 2002 ). Page limitations of most journals provide a safeguard against descriptive excess, but page limitations should not circumvent researchers from providing the basis for their interpretations.

Additional potential problems with qualitative results sections include under-elaboration, where themes are too few and not clearly defined. The opposite problem, over-elaboration, pertains to too many analytic distinctions that could be collapsed under a higher level of abstraction. Quotes can also be under- or over-interpreted. Care should be taken to ensure the quote(s) selected clearly support the theme to which they are attached. And finally, findings from a qualitative study should be interesting and make clear contributions to the literature ( Lofland & Lofland, 2006 ; Morse, 2015b ).

Should I Quantify My Results? (e.g., Frequency With Which Themes Were Endorsed)

There is controversy over whether to quantify qualitative findings, such as providing counts for the frequency with which particular themes are endorsed by study participants ( Morgan, 1993 ; Sandelowski, 2001 ). Qualitative papers usually report themes and patterns that emerge from the data without quantification ( Dey, 1993 ). However, it is possible to quantify qualitative findings, such as in qualitative content analysis. Qualitative content analysis is a method through which a researcher identifies the frequency with which a phenomenon, such as specific words, phrases, or concepts, is mentioned ( Elo et al., 2014 ; Morgan, 1993 ). Although this method may appeal to quantitative reviewers, it is important to note that this method only fits specific study purposes, such as studies that investigate the language used by a particular group when communicating about a specific topic. In addition, results may be quantified to provide information on whether themes appeared to be common or atypical. Authors should avoid using imprecise language, such as “some participants” or “many participants.” A good example of quantification of results to illustrate more or less typical themes comes from a manuscript describing a qualitative study of school nurses’ perceived barriers to addressing obesity with students and their families. The authors described that all but one nurse reported not having the resources they needed to discuss weight with students and families whereas one-quarter of nurses reported not feeling competent to discuss weight issues ( Steele et al., 2011 ). If quantification of findings is used, authors should provide justification that explains how quantification is consistent with the aims or goals of the study ( Sandelowski, 2001 ).

Conclusions

This article highlighted key theoretical and logistical considerations that arise in designing, conducting, and reporting qualitative research studies (see Table 1 for a summary). This type of research is vital for obtaining patient, family, community, and other stakeholder perspectives about their needs and interests, and will become increasingly critical as our models of health care delivery evolve. For example, qualitative research could contribute to the study of health care providers and systems with the goal of optimizing our health care delivery models. Given the increasing diversity of the populations we serve, qualitative research will also be critical in providing guidance in how to tailor health interventions to key characteristics and increase the likelihood of acceptable, effective treatment approaches. For example, applying qualitative research methods could enhance our understanding of refugee experiences in our health care system, clarify treatment preferences for emerging adults in the midst of health care transitions, examine satisfaction with health care delivery, and evaluate the applicability of our theoretical models of health behavior changes across racial and ethnic groups. Incorporating patient perspectives into treatment is essential to meeting this nation’s priority on patient-centered health care ( Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, 2001 ). Authors of qualitative studies who address the methodological choices addressed in this review will make important contributions to the field of pediatric psychology. Qualitative findings will lead to a more informed field that addresses the needs of a wide range of patient populations and produces effective and acceptable population-specific interventions to promote health.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Bridget Grahmann for her assistance with manuscript preparation.

This work was supported by National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (K07CA196985 to Y.W.). This work is a publication of the United States Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Center (USDA/ARS), Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. It is also a publication of the USDA/ARS, Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and funded in part with federal funds from the USDA/ARS under Cooperative Agreement No. 58‐6250‐0‐008 (to D.T.). The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the USDA, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement from the U.S. government. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Conflicts of interest : None declared.

• Aroian K. J., Peters R. M., Rudner N., Waser L. (2012). Hypertension prevention beliefs of hispanics . Journal of Transcultural Nursing , 23 , 134–142. doi:10.1177/1043659611433871. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashton L. M., Hutchesson M. J., Rollo M. E., Morgan P. J., Thompson D. I., Collins C. E. (2015). Young adult males’ motivators and perceived barriers towards eating healthily and being active: A qualitative study . The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 12 , 93 doi:10.1186/s12966‐015‐0257‐6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bagozzi R., Pieters R. (1998). Goal-directed emotions . Cognition & Emotion , 12 ( 1 ), 1–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bevans K. B., Gardner W., Pajer K., Riley A. W., Forrest C. B. (2013). Qualitative development of the PROMIS ® pediatric stress response item banks . Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 38 , 173–191. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jss107. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradbury-Jones C., Taylor J., Herber O. (2014). How theory is used and articulated in qualitative research: Development of a new typology . Social Science and Medicine , 120 , 135–141. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.014. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryant A., Charmaz K. (2010). The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnard P. (2004). Writing a qualitative research report . Nurse Education Today , 24 , 174–179. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.11.005. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnard P., Gill P., Stewart K., Treasure E., Chadwick B. (2008). Analysing and presenting qualitative data . British Dental Journal , 204 , 429–432. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.292. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassidy O., Sbrocco T., Vannucci A., Nelson B., Jackson-Bowen D., Heimdal J., Heimdal J., Mirza N., Wilfley D. E., Osborn R., Shomaker L. B., Young J. F., Waldron H., Carter M., Tanofsky-Kraff M., (2013). Adapting interpersonal psychotherapy for the prevention of excessive weight gain in rural African American girls . Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 38 , 965–977. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jst029. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark J. (2003). How to peer review a qualitative manuscript . Peer Review in Health Sciences , 2 , 219–235. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbin S., Strauss A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coyne I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing , 26 , 623–630. doi:10.1046/j.1365‐2648.1997.t01‐25‐00999.x. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches . Journal of Marketing Research , 33 , 252 doi:10.2307/3152153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W. (2013a). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W. (2013b). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W., Klassen A. C., Plano Clark V. L., Smith K. C.;for the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences . Retrieved from National Institutes of Health: http://obssr.od.nih.gov/mixed_methods_research .
• de Visser R. O., Graber R., Hart A., Abraham C., Scanlon T., Watten P., Memon A. (2015). Using qualitative methods within a mixed-methods approach to developing and evaluating interventions to address harmful alcohol use among young people . Health Psychology , 34 , 349–360. doi:10.1037/hea0000163. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dey I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists . New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M., Shaw R. L., Agarwal S., Smith J. A. (2004). The problem of appraising qualitative research . Quality and Safety in Health Care , 13 , 223–225. doi:10.1136/qhc.13.3.223. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eakin J. M., Mykhalovskiy E. (2003). Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: Reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences . Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice , 9 , 187–194. doi:10.1046/j.1365‐2753.2003.00392.x. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elo S., Kääriäinen M., Kanste O., Pölkki T., Utriainen K., Kyngäs H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness . SAGE Open , 4 ( 1 ), 1–10. doi:10.1177/2158244014522633. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B., Strauss A. (1967). The discovery grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative inquiry . Nursing Research , 17 , 364 doi:10.1097/00006199‐196807000‐00014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough B., Deatrick J. A. (2015). Qualitative health psychology research: Diversity, power, and impact . Health Psychology , 34 , 289–292. doi:10.1037/hea0000206. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guba E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries . Educational Communication and Technology , 29 , 75–91. doi:10.1007/BF02766777. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haukeland Y. B., Fjermestad K. W., Mossige S., Vatne T. M. (2015). Emotional experiences among siblings of children with rare disorders . Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 40 , 12–20. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsv022. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hess J. S., Straub D. M. (2011). Brief report: Preliminary findings from a pilot health care transition education intervention for adolescents and young adults with special health care needs . Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 36 , 172–178. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsq091. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hingle M., Beltran A., O’Connor T., Thompson D., Baranowski J., Baranowski T. (2012). A model of goal directed vegetable parenting practices . Appetite , 58 , 444–449. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.12.011. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes S. O., Power T. G., Papaioannou M. A., Cross M. B., Nicklas T. A., Hall S. K., Shewchuk R. M. (2011). Emotional climate, feeding practices, and feeding styles: An observational analysis of the dinner meal in Head Start families . The International Journal of Behavavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 8 , 60 doi:10.1186/1479‐5868‐8‐60. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century . National Academies Press. Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Izaguirre M. R., Keefer L. (2014). Development of a self-efficacy scale for adolescents and young adults with inflammatory bowel disease . Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition , 59 , 29–32. doi:10.1097/mpg.0000000000000357. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• John W. S., Johnson P. (2000). The pros and cons of data analysis software for qualitative research . Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 32 , 393–397. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson J. C. (1990). Selecting ethnographic informants . Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kars M. C., Grypdonck M. H., de Bock L. C., van Delden J. J. (2015). The parents’ ability to attend to the “voice of their child” with incurable cancer during the palliative phase . Health Psychology , 34 , 446–452. doi:10.1037/hea0000166. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly K., Ganong L. (2011). Moving to place: Childhood cancer treatment decision making in single-parent and repartnered family structures . Qualitative Health Research , 21 , 349–364. doi:10.1177/1049732310385823. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly M. (2010). The role of theory in qualitative health research . Family Practice , 27 , 285–290. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmp077. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krefting L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness . The American Journal of Occupational Therapy , 45 , 214–222. doi:10.5014/ajot.45.3.214. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln Y. S., Guba E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln Y. S., Lynham S. A., Guba E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited . In Denzin N. K., Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lofland J., Lofland L. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyons A. C., Goodwin I., McCreanor T., Griffin C. (2015). Social networking and young adults’ drinking practices: Innovative qualitative methods for health behavior research . Health Psychology , 34 , 293–302. doi:10.1037/hea0000168. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacMillan K., Koenig T. (2004). The wow factor: Preconceptions and expectations for data analysis software in qualitative research . Social Science Computer Review , 22 , 179–186. doi:10.1177/0894439303262625. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mason M. (Producer). (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews . Forum: Qualitative Social Research . Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs100387 .
• Mays N., Pope C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research . British Medical Journal , 320 , 50 doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald C. C., Sommers M. S. (2015). Teen drivers’ perceptions of inattention and cell phone use while eriving . Traffic Injury Prevention , 16 ( Suppl 2 ), S52–S58. doi:10.1080/15389588.2015.1062886. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles M. B., Huberman A. M., Saldaña J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Minges K. E., Owen N., Salmon J., Chao A., Dunstan D. W., Whittemore R. (2015). Reducing youth screen time: Qualitative metasynthesis of findings on barriers and facilitators . Health Psychology , 34 , 381–397. doi:10.1037/hea0000172. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan D. L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken . Qualitative Health Research , 3 , 112–121. doi:10.1177/104973239300300107. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan D. L. (1998). Planning Focus Groups: Focus Group Kit #2 . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morrow S. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology . Journal of Counseling Psychology , 52 , 250–260. doi:10.1037/0022‐0167.52.2.250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse J. M. (2015a). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry . Qualitative Health Research , 25 , 1212–1222. doi:10.1177/1049732315588501. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse J. M. (2015b). Data were saturated . Qualitative Health Research , 25 , 587–588. doi:10.1177/1049732315576699. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Palermo T. M. (2013). New guidelines for publishing review articles in JPP: Systematic reviews and topical reviews . Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 38 , 5–9. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jss124. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Palermo T. M. (2014). Evidence-based interventions in pediatric psychology: Progress over the decades . Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 39 , 753–762. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsu048. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Palma E., Deatrick J., Hobbie W., Ogle S., Kobayashi K., Maldonado L. (2015). Maternal caregiving demands for adolescent and young adult survivors of pediatric brain tumors . Oncology Nursing Forum , 42 , 222–229. doi:10.1188/15.ONF.. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pierce J. S., Wysocki T. (2015). Topical Review: Advancing research on the transition to adult care for type 1 diabetes . Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 40 , 1041–1047. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsv064. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pierce J. S., Wysocki T., Aroian K. (2016). Multiple stakeholder perspectives on health care transition outcomes in Type 1 Diabetes . Unpublished data. [ Google Scholar ]
• Polanyi M. (1958). Personal knowledge . New York, NY: Harper & Row. [ Google Scholar ]
• Power T. G., Hughes S. O., Goodell L. S., Johnson S. L., Duran J. A., Williams K., Beck A. D., Frankel L. A. (2015). Feeding practices of low-income mothers: How do they compare to current recommendations? The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 12 , 34 doi:10.1186/s12966‐015‐0179‐3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richards L., Morse J. M. (2013). Readdme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie J., Lewis J. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saftner M. A., Martyn K. K., Momper S. L., Loveland-Cherry C. J., Low L. K. (2015). Urban American Indian adolescent girls framing sexual risk behavior . Journal of Transcultural Nursing , 26 , 365–375. doi:10.1177/1043659614524789. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saldaña J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M. (1993a). Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited . Advances in Nursing Science , 16 , 1–8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M. (1993b). Theory unmasked: The uses and guises of theory in qualitative research . Research in Nursing & Health , 16 , 213–218. doi:10.1002/nur.4770160308. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M. (1994). The use of quotes in qualitative research . Research in Nursing and Health , 17 , 479–482. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research . Research in Nursing and Health , 18 , 179–183. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M. (1998). Writing a good read: Strategies for re-presenting qualitative data . Research in Nursing and Health , 21 , 375–382. doi:10.1016/s1361‐3111(98)80052‐6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M. (2001). Real qualitative researchers do not count: The use of numbers in qualitative research . Research in Nursing and Health , 24 , 230–240. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited . Research in Nursing and Health , 33 , 77–84. doi:10.1002/nur.20362.. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M., Barroso J. (2002). Finding the findings in qualitative studies . Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 34 , 213–219. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz L. A., Tuchman L. K., Hobbie W. L., Ginsberg J. P. (2011). A social-ecological model of readiness for transition to adult-oriented care for adolescents and young adults with chronic health conditions . Child: Care, Health, and Development , 37 , 883–895. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐2214.2011.01282.x. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silver C., Lewins A. (2014). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steele R. G., Wu Y. P., Jensen C. D., Pankey S., Davis A. M., Aylward B. S. (2011). School nurses’ perceived barriers to discussing weight with children and their families: A qualitative approach . Journal of School Health , 81 , 128–137. doi:10.1111/j.1746‐1561.2010.00571.x. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson D. (2014). Talk to me, please!: The importance of qualitative research to games for health . Games for Health: Research, Development, and Clinical Applications , 3 , 117–118. doi:10.1089/g4h.2014.0023. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson D., Baranowski T., Buday R., Baranowski J., Juliano M., Frazior M., Wilsdon J., Jago R. (2007). In pursuit of change: Youth response to intensive goal setting embedded in a serious video game . Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology , 1 , 907–917. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson D., Bhatt R., Watson K. (2013). Physical activity problem-solving inventory for adolescents: Development and initial validation . Pediatric Exercise Science , 25 , 448–467. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobin G. A., Begley C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 48 , 388–396. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐2648.2004.03207.x. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong A., Sainsbury P., Craig J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups . International Journal for Quality in Health Care , 19 , 349–357. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tuckett A. G. (2004). Qualitative research sampling: The very real complexities . Nurse Researcher , 12 , 47–61. doi:10.7748/nr2004.07.12.1.47.c5930. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valenzuela J. M., Buchanan C. L., Radcliffe J., Ambrose C., Hawkins L. A., Tanney M., Rudy B. J. (2011). Transition to adult services among behaviorally infected adolescents with HIV—a qualitative study . Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 36 , 134–140. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsp051. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West C. H., Bell J. M., Woodgate R. L., Moules N. J. (2015). Waiting to return to normal: An exploration of family systems intervention in childhood cancer . Journal of Family Nursing , 21 , 261–294. doi:10.1177/1074840715576795. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whittemore R., Chase S. K., Mandle C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research . Qualitative Health Research , 11 , 522–537. doi:10.1177/104973201129119299. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin R. K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Section 1- Evidence-based practice (EBP)

Chapter 6: Components of a Research Report

Components of a research report.

Partido, B.B.

Elements of  research report

The research report contains four main areas:

• Introduction – What is the issue? What is known? What is not known? What are you trying to find out? This sections ends with the purpose and specific aims of the study.
• Methods – The recipe for the study. If someone wanted to perform the same study, what information would they need? How will you answer your research question? This part usually contains subheadings: Participants, Instruments, Procedures, Data Analysis,
• Results – What was found? This is organized by specific aims and provides the results of the statistical analysis.
• Discussion – How do the results fit in with the existing  literature? What were the limitations and areas of future research?

Formalized Curiosity for Knowledge and Innovation Copyright © by partido1. All Rights Reserved.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Research Reports: Definition and How to Write Them

Reports are usually spread across a vast horizon of topics but are focused on communicating information about a particular topic and a niche target market. The primary motive of research reports is to convey integral details about a study for marketers to consider while designing new strategies.

Certain events, facts, and other information based on incidents need to be relayed to the people in charge, and creating research reports is the most effective communication tool. Ideal research reports are extremely accurate in the offered information with a clear objective and conclusion. These reports should have a clean and structured format to relay information effectively.

What are Research Reports?

Research reports are recorded data prepared by researchers or statisticians after analyzing the information gathered by conducting organized research, typically in the form of surveys or qualitative methods .

A research report is a reliable source to recount details about a conducted research. It is most often considered to be a true testimony of all the work done to garner specificities of research.

The various sections of a research report are:

• Background/Introduction
• Implemented Methods
• Results based on Analysis
• Deliberation

Learn more: Quantitative Research

Components of Research Reports

Research is imperative for launching a new product/service or a new feature. The markets today are extremely volatile and competitive due to new entrants every day who may or may not provide effective products. An organization needs to make the right decisions at the right time to be relevant in such a market with updated products that suffice customer demands.

The details of a research report may change with the purpose of research but the main components of a report will remain constant. The research approach of the market researcher also influences the style of writing reports. Here are seven main components of a productive research report:

• Research Report Summary: The entire objective along with the overview of research are to be included in a summary which is a couple of paragraphs in length. All the multiple components of the research are explained in brief under the report summary.  It should be interesting enough to capture all the key elements of the report.
• Research Introduction: There always is a primary goal that the researcher is trying to achieve through a report. In the introduction section, he/she can cover answers related to this goal and establish a thesis which will be included to strive and answer it in detail.  This section should answer an integral question: “What is the current situation of the goal?”.  After the research design was conducted, did the organization conclude the goal successfully or they are still a work in progress –  provide such details in the introduction part of the research report.
• Research Methodology: This is the most important section of the report where all the important information lies. The readers can gain data for the topic along with analyzing the quality of provided content and the research can also be approved by other market researchers . Thus, this section needs to be highly informative with each aspect of research discussed in detail.  Information needs to be expressed in chronological order according to its priority and importance. Researchers should include references in case they gained information from existing techniques.
• Research Results: A short description of the results along with calculations conducted to achieve the goal will form this section of results. Usually, the exposition after data analysis is carried out in the discussion part of the report.

Learn more: Quantitative Data

• Research Discussion: The results are discussed in extreme detail in this section along with a comparative analysis of reports that could probably exist in the same domain. Any abnormality uncovered during research will be deliberated in the discussion section.  While writing research reports, the researcher will have to connect the dots on how the results will be applicable in the real world.
• Research References and Conclusion: Conclude all the research findings along with mentioning each and every author, article or any content piece from where references were taken.

Learn more: Qualitative Observation

15 Tips for Writing Research Reports

Writing research reports in the manner can lead to all the efforts going down the drain. Here are 15 tips for writing impactful research reports:

• Prepare the context before starting to write and start from the basics:  This was always taught to us in school – be well-prepared before taking a plunge into new topics. The order of survey questions might not be the ideal or most effective order for writing research reports. The idea is to start with a broader topic and work towards a more specific one and focus on a conclusion or support, which a research should support with the facts.  The most difficult thing to do in reporting, without a doubt is to start. Start with the title, the introduction, then document the first discoveries and continue from that. Once the marketers have the information well documented, they can write a general conclusion.
• Keep the target audience in mind while selecting a format that is clear, logical and obvious to them:  Will the research reports be presented to decision makers or other researchers? What are the general perceptions around that topic? This requires more care and diligence. A researcher will need a significant amount of information to start writing the research report. Be consistent with the wording, the numbering of the annexes and so on. Follow the approved format of the company for the delivery of research reports and demonstrate the integrity of the project with the objectives of the company.
• Have a clear research objective: A researcher should read the entire proposal again, and make sure that the data they provide contributes to the objectives that were raised from the beginning. Remember that speculations are for conversations, not for research reports, if a researcher speculates, they directly question their own research.
• Establish a working model:  Each study must have an internal logic, which will have to be established in the report and in the evidence. The researchers’ worst nightmare is to be required to write research reports and realize that key questions were not included.

Learn more: Quantitative Observation

• Gather all the information about the research topic. Who are the competitors of our customers? Talk to other researchers who have studied the subject of research, know the language of the industry. Misuse of the terms can discourage the readers of research reports from reading further.
• Read aloud while writing. While reading the report, if the researcher hears something inappropriate, for example, if they stumble over the words when reading them, surely the reader will too. If the researcher can’t put an idea in a single sentence, then it is very long and they must change it so that the idea is clear to everyone.
• Check grammar and spelling. Without a doubt, good practices help to understand the report. Use verbs in the present tense. Consider using the present tense, which makes the results sound more immediate. Find new words and other ways of saying things. Have fun with the language whenever possible.
• Discuss only the discoveries that are significant. If some data are not really significant, do not mention them. Remember that not everything is truly important or essential within research reports.

Learn more: Qualitative Data

• Try and stick to the survey questions. For example, do not say that the people surveyed “were worried” about an research issue , when there are different degrees of concern.
• The graphs must be clear enough so that they understand themselves. Do not let graphs lead the reader to make mistakes: give them a title, include the indications, the size of the sample, and the correct wording of the question.
• Be clear with messages. A researcher should always write every section of the report with an accuracy of details and language.
• Be creative with titles – Particularly in segmentation studies choose names “that give life to research”. Such names can survive for a long time after the initial investigation.
• Create an effective conclusion: The conclusion in the research reports is the most difficult to write, but it is an incredible opportunity to excel. Make a precise summary. Sometimes it helps to start the conclusion with something specific, then it describes the most important part of the study, and finally, it provides the implications of the conclusions.
• Get a couple more pair of eyes to read the report. Writers have trouble detecting their own mistakes. But they are responsible for what is presented. Ensure it has been approved by colleagues or friends before sending the find draft out.

Learn more: Market Research and Analysis

MORE LIKE THIS

Jotform vs SurveyMonkey: Which Is Best in 2024

Aug 15, 2024

360 Degree Feedback Spider Chart is Back!

Aug 14, 2024

Jotform vs Wufoo: Comparison of Features and Prices

Aug 13, 2024

Product or Service: Which is More Important? — Tuesday CX Thoughts

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

• Library of Congress
• Research Guides
• Science & Technology

Technical Reports & Standards Collection Guide

Introduction.

• Technical Reports Collections
• Standards Collection
• American Documentation Institute (ADI)
• Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) Collection
• Synthetic Rubber Project
• Technical Translations (TT) Series
• Locating Technical Reports and Standards
• Research Assistance and Reproductions
• Online Resources and Databases
• Using the Library of Congress
• Jennifer Harbster, Head, Science Section, Researcher Engagement & General Collections Division
• Sean Bryant, Reference Librarian, Researcher Engagement & General Collections Division
• Ashley Fielder,  Librarian for Medicine and Life Science. Science Section, Researcher Engagement & General Collections
• Created:  September 22, 2023

Last Updated: May 7, 2024

Science & Technical Reports : Ask a Librarian

Have a question? Need assistance? Use our online form to ask a librarian for help.

Get connected to the Library’s large and diverse collections related to science, technology, and business through our Inside Adams Blog. This blog also features upcoming events and collection displays, classes and orientations, new research guides, and more.

The Library of Congress is completing a project to update and modernize Library reading room websites. As a part of the process, “The Technical Reports and Standards Collection” is in the process of being updated and migrated to this new platform. The process has not yet been completed and the guide remains subject to change.

Researchers with questions about the collection are encouraged to contact a science or business librarian using the Ask-a-Librarian: Science and Technical Reports or Ask a Librarian: Business online form, by phone, at (202) 707-5639, or in person, at the reference desk, in the Science and Business Reading Room, on the fifth floor of the Library's John Adams Building.

Technical Reports

Technical reports are designed to quickly alert researchers to recent findings and developments in scientific and technical research. These reports are issued for a variety of purposes:

• to communicate results or describe progress of a research project
• to convey background information on an emerging or critical research topic
• to provide lists of instructions or procedures for current practices
• to determine the feasibility of a technology and recommend if research should be continued (and how to evaluate any further progress made)
• to detail technical specifications (materials, functions, features, operation, market potential, etc.)

Technical reports first appeared in the early part of the 20th century. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published a series of professional papers beginning in 1902, and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) issued its first report in 1915. But, the format gained importance during World War II, emerged in the postwar era, and remains, to this day, a major tool for reporting progress in science and technology, as well as in education, business, and social sciences research. The names given to series of these publications vary, but are often such generic terms as "technical reports," "working papers," "research memoranda," "internal notes," "occasional papers," "discussion papers" or "gray (or grey) literature." In the physical and natural sciences, "technical report" seems to be the preferred designation. For reports dealing with business, education, and the social sciences, on the other hand, the terms "working paper," "occasional paper," and "memorandum" are often the designations of choice. Other, more specific types of technical reports include "preprints" and "reprints." Preprints generally are versions of papers issued by researchers before their final papers are published by commercial publishers. Preprints allow researchers to communicate their findings quickly, but usually have not been peer reviewed. Reprints are typically released to heighten awareness of the research being conducted in a particular field or at a single institution. The term, "technical report" encompasses all of these designations.

Since many of these publications are intended to provide just a temporary snapshot of current research in a particular field or topic, they may contain the some of following distinctions:

• Rapid communication of new research results
• Dissemination to a targeted audience.
• Detailed methodologies, in order to facilitate review of research results by others
• No peer review, though there is often another selection process for publication (grant, contract, or institutional affiliation)
• Not published by typical commercial publishers (instead reports are issued or sponsored by government agencies, professional associations, societies, councils, foundations, laboratories, universities, etc.)
• Corporate authorship, where present, is typically emphasized

Unfortunately, uncertain availability, limited print runs, and decentralized distribution patterns with little bibliographic information are also often characteristics of this literature.

The Federal Government issues many different types of technical reports. An overview of some of these can be found in a May 2001 GAO report, " Information Management: Dissemination of Technical Reports ." Government issued or sponsored reports contain an additional characteristic - they may be subject to distribution restrictions linked to their classification status. Although references to classified reports may be found in technical reports literature, the security status or limited distribution of reports may make them unavailable to the general public and to the Library as well, as the Library holds only titles in the public domain. Those interested in locating such materials can consult the U.S. Department of Justice's Freedom of Information Act  site for guidance in obtaining these reports.

To enable them to be identified and located, technical reports are assigned report codes by agencies or organizations involved in their production or distribution. These codes may be referred to as "accession numbers," "agency report series numbers," "contract numbers," "grant numbers" or by other names, and include dates and individual report numbers. Typically, reports are assigned multiple codes and these codes help to identify the sponsoring agency, the organization performing the research or the organization disseminating the report.  Most technical reports held by the Library of Congress are not cataloged, and, for these reports, one or more report codes is required for Library staff to check the collections for a report or to locate and retrieve it. For more information about the current Standard Technical Report Number format (STRN) see ANSI/NISO Z39.23- 1997 (S2015) Standard Technical Reports Number Format and Creation . 

Standards are specifications which define products, methods, processes or practices, and are known to have existed as early as 7000 B.C., when cylindrical stones were used as units of weight in Egypt. According to  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 , as revised in 2016, the term "standard" or "technical standard" refers to:

• common and repeated use of rules, conditions, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods, and related management systems practices;
• the definition of terms; classification of components; delineation of procedures; specification of dimensions, materials, performance, designs, or operations; measurement of quality and quantity in describing materials, processes, products, systems, services, or practices; test methods and sampling procedures; or descriptions of fit and measurements of size or strength; and
• terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labeling requirements as they apply to a product, process, or production method.

Technical standards are not "professional standards of personal conduct; or institutional codes of ethics." (p. 15).

Standards are typically generated by governments or by professional associations and organizations interested in or affected by the subject matter of particular standards. For example, U.S. government standards mandated by the  Fair Packaging & Labeling Act (FPLA)  have standardized the labeling required for packaging in which consumer commodities is sold. Standards set the basis for determining consistent and acceptable minimum levels of reliability and safety, and are adhered to either voluntarily or as mandated by law. For a more complete overview, see the NIST report  " The ABC's of Standards Activities " by Maureen A. Breitenberg (2009).

The Library of Congress standards collection includes military and other federal standards, industry standards, and a few older international standards from Russia, China, and South Africa. Material from the collection is available in various formats, including digital, print, and microform materials. The majority of the Library's standards collection held in the Science Section's Technical Reports and Standards Collection. The collection remains largely uncatalogued, and as a result, most items from this collection are not discoverable in the Library's online catalog. Inquires on Library holdings can be sent to the Science Section using the Science and Technical Reports Ask-a-Librarian form . Some standards, however, are housed in the Library's general collections and discoverable by searching the  online catalog -- the ASTM standards are one example. Other standards are in custody of appropriate specialized research centers, such as the Law Library , which maintains  OSHA standards and some building codes.

About the Science Section

Part of the  Science & Business Reading Room  at the Library of Congress, the Science Section is the starting point for conducting research at the Library of Congress in the subject areas of science, medicine and engineering. Here, reference specialists in specific subject areas of science and engineering  assist patrons in formulating search strategies and gaining access to the information and materials contained in the Library's rich collections of science, medicine, and engineering materials.

• Next: Technical Reports Collections >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 11:51 AM
• URL: https://guides.loc.gov/technical-reports

Higgins Releases Preliminary Investigative Report

Aug 15, 2024 | Law & Crime , Media , Press Releases

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Clay Higgins (R-LA), a member of the Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald J. Trump, released his preliminary investigative report, candidly discussing some of his objective findings following his “boots on the ground” trip to Butler, PA on August 4th, 5th and 6th.

The preliminary investigative report was submitted to Task Force Chairman Mike Kelly (R-PA) on August 12, 2024. The document was intended to foster discussion amongst Task Force members. It has been embargoed for several days pending authorization to release from the Task Force chain of command.

“As I have said, every question will be answered, every theory explored, and every doubt erased. The American people deserve the full truth on the attempted assassination of President Trump,” said Congressman Higgins. “Our investigative efforts are moving forward in good faith. The release of my preliminary investigative report is reflective of my desire to deliver transparency and reassurance to the American people.”

The preliminary report details some of Congressman Higgins’ findings thus far. However, it is not exhaustive, nor final.

Notable observations include:

• “U.S. Secret Service did not retrieve the radios that had been set aside for them by Butler County tactical command. The radio comms were properly and perfectly arranged during the extensive pre-mission planning.”
• “All 8 casings (from shots fired by Crooks) were recovered and are allegedly in proper possession of the FBI.”
• “The 9th shot fired on J13 was from a Butler SWAT operator from the ground about 100 yards away from the AGR building. Shot 9 hit Crooks’ rifle stock and fragged his face/neck/right shoulder area from the stock breaking up.”
• “The 10th (and, I believe, final) shot was fired from the southern counter-sniper team.”
• “My effort to examine Crooks’ body on Monday, August 5, caused quite a stir and revealed a disturbing fact… the FBI released the body for cremation 10 days after J13.”
• “The water tower was cleared by drone J13 AM by the County tactical commander, ESU Commander Lenz himself.”

Read Congressman Higgins’ preliminary investigative report here.

Signup to receive our Email Newsletters

The Latest News

Higgins Announces Additional $2.9M in Hurricane Recovery Efforts

Aug 1, 2024

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Clay Higgins (R-LA) announced today that FEMA is awarding an additional $2,991,177.90...

Higgins to Serve on Bipartisan Task Force to Investigate the Attempted Assassination of President Trump

Jul 29, 2024

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Clay Higgins (R-LA) will serve on the bipartisan House Task Force charged with...

Higgins Announces $3.7M for 3rd District Airports

Jul 24, 2024

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Clay Higgins (R-LA) announced today that three airports in Louisiana’s 3rd District...

• Solutions Corporate Market Analysis Customer Experience Product Lifecycle Brand Strategy Research & Insights Higher Education Enrollment Management Academic Program Development Student Success Operations & Finance Advancement Marketing Grants Research & Insights K-12 Education Curriculum and Instruction Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Academic Program Planning and Impact Strategic Planning Teacher Recruitment and Retention Operational Planning School Climate Research & Insights
• Data Analysis
• Qualitative Research
• Strategic Advising
• Benchmarking & Best Practices
• Market Modeling
• Research & Insights By Industry Corporate Higher Education K–12 Education By Type Insights Blog Reports & Briefs Case Studies Webinars All Research & Insights
• Client Testimonials
• Careers Overview
• Current Openings
• Recruitment Process
• Social Impact
• Careers in Research
• Careers in Sales and Account Management
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Client Login

10 Key Findings in Hiring Trends for H1 2024

• Posted on: August 15, 2024
• Topic: Higher Education

Are your programs meeting labor market demands?

Within a fast-changing job market, it is critical for higher education institutions to align their academic programs with the education and skills that employers are seeking in new hires. This takes on heightened importance as institutions revisit their academic portfolio in the post-pandemic environment.

Our latest report analyzes notable domestic hiring trends based on job postings data from H1 2024. Through JobsEQ, Hanover analyzes real-time job postings data to assess the extent to which current and proposed academic programs align with labor market demands. 

Our report, 10 Key Findings in Employer Hiring Trends , discusses the skills most sought-after by employers in January – June 2024 and confirms the occupations that experienced the:

• Largest number of job postings
• Highest hiring rates
• Fastest growth

Download the report today!

Discover which employers and occupations experienced the

Align your academic programs with labor market demands.

Are your programs meeting labor market demands download the report, 10 key findings in employer hiring trends , to discover the skills most sought-after by employers in january to june 2024.

Research & Insights

Receive industry-leading insights directly in your inbox.

If you have difficulty accessing any part of this website or the products or services offered by Hanover Research, please contact us at [email protected] for support.

Become a client

Access the best custom research to help hit your organization’s goals . Request your custom consult below and a member of our team will be in touch.

Have questions? Please visit our contact page .

Let us come to you!

Receive industry insights directly in your inbox.

Our newsletters are packed with helpful tips, industry guides, best practices, case studies, and more. Enter your email address below to opt in:

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
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 14 August 2024

A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone of Stonehenge

• Anthony J. I. Clarke   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0304-0484 1 ,
• Christopher L. Kirkland   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3367-8961 1 ,
• Richard E. Bevins 2 ,
• Nick J. G. Pearce   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3157-9564 2 ,
• Stijn Glorie 3 &
• Rob A. Ixer 4  

Nature volume  632 ,  pages 570–575 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

70k Accesses

1 Citations

4461 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Archaeology

Understanding the provenance of megaliths used in the Neolithic stone circle at Stonehenge, southern England, gives insight into the culture and connectivity of prehistoric Britain. The source of the Altar Stone, the central recumbent sandstone megalith, has remained unknown, with recent work discounting an Anglo-Welsh Basin origin 1 , 2 . Here we present the age and chemistry of detrital zircon, apatite and rutile grains from within fragments of the Altar Stone. The detrital zircon load largely comprises Mesoproterozoic and Archaean sources, whereas rutile and apatite are dominated by a mid-Ordovician source. The ages of these grains indicate derivation from an ultimate Laurentian crystalline source region that was overprinted by Grampian (around 460 million years ago) magmatism. Detrital age comparisons to sedimentary packages throughout Britain and Ireland reveal a remarkable similarity to the Old Red Sandstone of the Orcadian Basin in northeast Scotland. Such a provenance implies that the Altar Stone, a 6 tonne shaped block, was sourced at least 750 km from its current location. The difficulty of long-distance overland transport of such massive cargo from Scotland, navigating topographic barriers, suggests that it was transported by sea. Such routing demonstrates a high level of societal organization with intra-Britain transport during the Neolithic period.

Similar content being viewed by others

The expansion of Acheulean hominins into the Nefud Desert of Arabia

Cryptic geological histories accessed through entombed and matrix geochronometers in dykes

The earliest evidence of Acheulian occupation in Northwest Europe and the rediscovery of the Moulin Quignon site, Somme valley, France

Stonehenge, the Neolithic standing stone circle located on the Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire, England, offers valuable insight into prehistoric Britain. Construction at Stonehenge began as early as 3000  bc , with subsequent modifications during the following two millennia 3 , 4 . The megaliths of Stonehenge are divided into two major categories: sarsen stones and bluestones (Fig. 1a ). The larger sarsens comprise duricrust silcrete predominantly sourced from the West Woods, Marlborough, approximately 25 km north of Stonehenge 5 , 6 . Bluestone, the generic term for rocks considered exotic to the local area, includes volcanic tuff, rhyolite, dolerite and sandstone lithologies 4 (Fig. 1a ). Some lithologies are linked with Neolithic quarrying sites in the Mynydd Preseli area of west Wales 7 , 8 . An unnamed Lower Palaeozoic sandstone, associated with the west Wales area on the basis of acritarch fossils 9 , is present only as widely disseminated debitage at Stonehenge and possibly as buried stumps (Stones 40g and 42c).

a , Plan view of Stonehenge showing exposed constituent megaliths and their provenance. The plan of Stonehenge was adapted from ref.  6 under a CC BY 4.0 license. Changes in scale and colour were made, and annotations were added. b , An annotated photograph shows the Altar Stone during a 1958 excavation. The Altar Stone photograph is from the Historic England archive. Reuse is not permitted.

The central megalith of Stonehenge, the Altar Stone (Stone 80), is the largest of the bluestones, measuring 4.9 × 1.0 × 0.5 m, and is a recumbent stone (Fig. 1b ), weighing 6 t and composed of pale green micaceous sandstone with distinctive mineralogy 1 , 2 , 10 (containing baryte, calcite and clay minerals, with a notable absence of K-feldspar) (Fig. 2 ).

Minerals with a modal abundance above 0.5% are shown with compositional values averaged across both thin sections. U–Pb ablation pits from laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP–MS) are shown with age (in millions of years ago, Ma), with uncertainty at the 2 σ level.

Previous petrographic work on the Altar Stone has implied an association to the Old Red Sandstone 10 , 11 , 12 (ORS). The ORS is a late Silurian to Devonian sedimentary rock assemblage that crops out widely throughout Great Britain and Ireland (Extended Data Fig. 1 ). ORS lithologies are dominated by terrestrial siliciclastic sedimentary rocks deposited in continental fluvial, lacustrine and aeolian environments 13 . Each ORS basin reflects local subsidence and sediment infill and thus contains proximal crystalline signatures 13 , 14 .

Constraining the provenance of the Altar Stone could give insights into the connectivity of Neolithic people who left no written record 15 . When the Altar Stone arrived at Stonehenge is uncertain; however, it may have been placed within the central trilithon horseshoe during the second construction phase around 2620–2480  bc 3 . Whether the Altar Stone once stood upright as an approximately 4 m high megalith is unclear 15 ; nevertheless, the current arrangement has Stones 55b and 156 from the collapsed Great Trilithon resting atop the prone and broken Altar Stone (Fig. 1b ).

An early proposed source for the Altar Stone from Mill Bay, Pembrokeshire (Cosheston Subgroup of the Anglo-Welsh ORS Basin), close to the Mynydd Preseli source of the doleritic and rhyolitic bluestones, strongly influenced the notion of a sea transport route via the Bristol Channel 12 . However, inconsistencies in petrography and detrital zircon ages between the Altar Stone and the Cosheston Subgroup have ruled this source out 1 , 11 . Nonetheless, a source from elsewhere in the ORS of the Anglo-Welsh Basin was still considered likely, with an inferred collection and overland transport of the Altar Stone en route to Stonehenge from the Mynydd Preseli 1 . However, a source from the Senni Formation (Cosheston Subgroup) is inconsistent with geochemical and petrographic data, which shows that the Anglo-Welsh Basin is highly unlikely to be the source 2 . Thus, the ultimate provenance of the Altar Stone had remained an open question.

Studies of detrital mineral grains are widely deployed to address questions throughout the Earth sciences and have utility in archaeological investigations 16 , 17 . Sedimentary rocks commonly contain a detrital component derived from a crystalline igneous basement, which may reflect a simple or complex history of erosion, transport and deposition cycles. This detrital cargo can fingerprint a sedimentary rock and its hinterland. More detailed insights become evident when a multi-mineral strategy is implemented, which benefits from the varying degrees of robustness to sedimentary transportation in the different minerals 18 , 19 , 20 .

Here, we present in situ U–Pb, Lu–Hf and trace element isotopic data for zircon, apatite and rutile from two fragments of the Altar Stone collected at Stonehenge: MS3 and 2010K.240 21 , 22 . In addition, we present comparative apatite U–Pb dates for the Orcadian Basin from Caithness and Orkney. We utilize statistical tools (Fig. 3 ) to compare the obtained detrital mineral ages and chemistry (Supplementary Information  1 – 3 ) to crystalline terranes and ORS successions across Great Britain, Ireland and Europe (Fig. 4 and Extended Data Fig. 1 ).

a , Multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot of concordant zircon U–Pb ages from the Altar Stone and comparative age datasets, with ellipses at the 95% confidence level 58 . DIM 1 and DIM 2, dimensions 1 and 2. b , Cumulative probability plot of zircon U–Pb ages from crystalline terranes, the Orcadian Basin and the Altar Stone. For a cumulative probability plot of all ORS basins, see Extended Data Fig. 8 .

a , Schematic map of Britain, showing outcrops of ORS and other Devonian sedimentary rocks, basement terranes and major faults. Potential Caledonian source plutons are colour-coded on the basis of age 28 . b , Kernel density estimate diagrams displaying zircon U–Pb age (histogram) and apatite Lu–Hf age (dashed line) spectra from the Altar Stone, the Orcadian Basin 25 and plausible crystalline source terranes. The apatite age components for the Altar Stone and Orcadian Basins are shown below their respective kernel density estimates. Extended Data Fig. 3 contains kernel density estimates of other ORS and New Red Sandstone (NRS) age datasets.

Laurentian basement signatures

The crystalline basement terranes of Great Britain and Ireland, from north to south, are Laurentia, Ganderia, Megumia and East Avalonia (Fig. 4a and Extended Data Fig. 1 ). Cadomia-Armorica is south of the Rheic Suture and encompasses basement rocks in western Europe, including northern France and Spain. East Avalonia, Megumia and Ganderia are partly separated by the Menai Strait Fault System (Fig. 4a ). Each terrane has discrete age components, which have imparted palaeogeographic information into overlying sedimentary basins 13 , 14 , 23 . Laurentia was a palaeocontinent that collided with Baltica and Avalonia (a peri-Gondwanan microcontinent) during the early Palaeozoic Caledonian Orogeny to form Laurussia 14 , 24 . West Avalonia is a terrane that includes parts of eastern Canada and comprised the western margin of Avalonia (Extended Data Fig. 1 ).

Statistical comparisons, using a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, between zircon ages from the Laurentian crystalline basement and the Altar Stone indicate that at a 95% confidence level, no distinction in provenance is evident between Altar Stone detrital zircon U–Pb ages and those from the Laurentian basement. That is, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that both samples are from the same underlying age distribution (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: P  > 0.05) (Fig. 3a ).

Detrital zircon age components, defined by concordant analyses from at least 4 grains in the Altar Stone, include maxima at 1,047, 1,091, 1,577, 1,663 and 1,790 Ma (Extended Data Fig. 2 ), corresponding to known tectonomagmatic events and sources within Laurentia and Baltica, including the Grenville (1,095–980 Ma), Labrador (1,690–1,590 Ma), Gothian (1,660–1,520 Ma) and Svecokarellian (1,920–1,770 Ma) orogenies 25 .

Laurentian terranes are crystalline lithologies north of the Iapetus Suture Zone (which marks the collision zone between Laurentia and Avalonia) and include the Southern Uplands, Midland Valley, Grampian, Northern Highlands and Hebridean Terranes (Fig. 4a ). Together, these terranes preserve a Proterozoic to Archaean record of zircon production 24 , distinct from the southern Gondwanan-derived terranes of Britain 20 , 26 (Fig. 4a and Extended Data Fig. 3 ).

Age data from Altar Stone rutile grains also point towards an ultimate Laurentian source with several discrete age components (Extended Data Fig. 4 and Supplementary Information  1 ). Group 2 rutile U–Pb analyses from the Altar Stone include Proterozoic ages from 1,724 to 591 Ma, with 3 grains constituting an age peak at 1,607 Ma, overlapping with Laurentian magmatism, including the Labrador and Pinwarian (1,690–1,380 Ma) orogenies 24 . Southern terranes in Britain are not characterized by a large Laurentian (Mesoproterozoic) crystalline age component 25 (Fig. 4b and Extended Data Fig. 3 ). Instead, terranes south of the Iapetus Suture are defined by Neoproterozoic to early Palaeozoic components, with a minor component from around two billion years ago (Figs. 3b and  4b ).

U–Pb analyses of apatite from the Altar Stone define two distinct age groupings. Group 2 apatite U–Pb analyses define a lower intercept age of 1,018 ± 24 Ma ( n  = 9) (Extended Data Fig. 5 ), which overlaps, within uncertainty, to a zircon age component at 1,047 Ma, consistent with a Grenville source 25 . Apatite Lu–Hf dates at 1,496 and 1,151 Ma also imply distinct Laurentian sources 25 (Fig. 4b , Extended Data Fig. 6 and Supplementary Information  2 ). Ultimately, the presence of Grenvillian apatite in the Altar Stone suggests direct derivation from the Laurentian basement, given the lability of apatite during prolonged chemical weathering 20 , 27 .

Grampian Terrane detrital grains

Apatite and rutile U–Pb analyses from the Altar Stone are dominated by regressions from common Pb that yield lower intercepts of 462 ± 4 Ma ( n  = 108) and 451 ± 8 Ma ( n  = 83), respectively (Extended Data Figs. 4 and 5 ). A single concordant zircon analysis also yields an early Palaeozoic age of 498 ± 17 Ma. Hence, with uncertainty from both lower intercepts, Group 1 apatite and rutile analyses demonstrate a mid-Ordovician (443–466 Ma) age component in the Altar Stone. These mid-Ordovician ages are confirmed by in situ apatite Lu–Hf analyses, which define a lower intercept of 470 ± 29 Ma ( n  = 16) (Extended Data Fig. 6 and Supplementary Information  2 ).

Throughout the Altar Stone are sub-planar 100–200-µm bands of concentrated heavy resistive minerals. These resistive minerals are interpreted to be magmatic in origin, given internal textures (oscillatory zonation), lack of mineral overgrowths (in all dated minerals) (Fig. 2 ) and the igneous apatite trace element signatures 27 (Extended Data Fig. 7 and Supplementary Information  3 ). Moreover, there is a general absence of detrital metamorphic zircon grains, further supporting a magmatic origin for these grains.

The most appropriate source region for such mid-Ordovician grains within Laurentian basement is the Grampian Terrane of northeast Scotland (Fig. 4a ). Situated between the Great Glen Fault to the north and the Highland Boundary Fault to the south, the terrane comprises Neoproterozoic to Lower Palaeozoic metasediments termed the Dalradian Supergroup 28 , which are intruded by a compositionally diverse suite of early Palaeozoic granitoids and gabbros (Fig. 4a ). The 466–443 Ma age component from Group 1 apatite and rutile U–Pb analyses overlaps with the terminal stages of Grampian magmatism and subsequent granite pluton emplacement north of the Highland Boundary Fault 28 (Fig. 4a ).

Geochemical classification plots for the Altar Stone apatite imply a compositionally diverse source, much like the lithological diversity within the Grampian Terrane 28 , with 61% of apatite classified as coming from felsic sources, 35% from mafic sources and 4% from alkaline sources (Extended Data Fig. 7 and Supplementary Information  3 ). Specifically, igneous rocks within the Grampian Terrane are largely granitoids, thus accounting for the predominance of felsic-classified apatite grains 29 . We posit that the dominant supply of detritus from 466–443 Ma came from the numerous similarly aged granitoids formed on the Laurentian margin 28 , which are present in both the Northern Highlands and the Grampian Terranes 28 (Fig. 4a ). The alkaline to calc-alkaline suites in these terranes are volumetrically small, consistent with the scarcity of alkaline apatite grains within the Altar Stone (Extended Data Fig. 7 ). Indeed, the Glen Dessary syenite at 447 ± 3 Ma is the only age-appropriate felsic-alkaline pluton in the Northern Highlands Terrane 30 .

The Stacey and Kramers 31 model of terrestrial Pb isotopic evolution predicts a 207 Pb/ 206 Pb isotopic ratio ( 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i ) of 0.8601 for 465 Ma continental crust. Mid-Ordovician regressions through Group 1 apatite and rutile U–Pb analyses yield upper intercepts for 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i of 0.8603 ± 0.0033 and 0.8564 ± 0.0014, respectively (Extended Data Figs. 4 and 5 and Supplementary Information  1 ). The similarity between apatite and rutile 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i implies they were sourced from the same Mid-Ordovician magmatic fluids. Ultimately, the calculated 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i value is consistent with the older (Laurentian) crust north of the Iapetus Suture in Britain 32 (Fig. 4a ).

Orcadian Basin ORS

The detrital zircon age spectra confirm petrographic associations between the Altar Stone and the ORS. Furthermore, the Altar Stone cannot be a New Red Sandstone (NRS) lithology of Permo-Triassic age. The NRS, deposited from around 280–240 Ma, unconformably overlies the ORS 14 . NRS, such as that within the Wessex Basin (Extended Data Fig. 1 ), has characteristic detrital zircon age components, including Carboniferous to Permian zircon grains, which are not present in the Altar Stone 1 , 23 , 26 , 33 , 34 (Extended Data Fig. 3 ).

An ORS classification for the Altar Stone provides the basis for further interpretation of provenance (Extended Data Figs. 1 and 8 ), given that the ORS crops out in distinct areas of Great Britain and Ireland, including the Anglo-Welsh border and south Wales, the Midland Valley and northeast Scotland, reflecting former Palaeozoic depocentres 14 (Fig. 4a ).

Previously reported detrital zircon ages and petrography show that ORS outcrops of the Anglo-Welsh Basin in the Cosheston Subgroup 1 and Senni Formation 2 are unlikely to be the sources of the Altar Stone (Fig. 4a ). ORS within the Anglo-Welsh Basin is characterized by mid-Palaeozoic zircon age maxima and minor Proterozoic components (Fig. 4a ). Ultimately, the detrital zircon age spectra of the Altar Stone are statistically distinct from the Anglo-Welsh Basin (Fig. 3a ). In addition, the ORS outcrops of southwest England (that is, south of the Variscan front), including north Devon and Cornwall (Cornubian Basin) (Fig. 4a ), show characteristic facies, including marine sedimentary structures and fossils along with a metamorphic fabric 13 , 26 , inconsistent with the unmetamorphosed, terrestrial facies of the Altar Stone 1 , 11 .

Another ORS succession with published age data for comparison is the Dingle Peninsula Basin, southwest Ireland. However, the presence of late Silurian (430–420 Ma) and Devonian (400–350 Ma) apatite, zircon and muscovite from the Dingle Peninsula ORS discount a source for the Altar Stone from southern Ireland 20 . The conspicuous absence of apatite grains of less than 450 Ma in age in the Altar Stone precludes the input of Late Caledonian magmatic grains to the source sediment of the Altar Stone and demonstrates that the ORS of the Altar Stone was deposited prior to or distally from areas of Late Caledonian magmatism, unlike the ORS of the Dingle Peninsula 20 . Notably, no distinction in provenance between the Anglo-Welsh Basin and the Dingle Peninsula ORS is evident (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: P  > 0.05), suggesting that ORS basins south of the Iapetus Suture are relatively more homogenous in terms of their detrital zircon age components (Fig. 4a ).

In Scotland, ORS predominantly crops out in the Midland Valley and Orcadian Basins (Fig. 4a ). The Midland Valley Basin is bound between the Highland Boundary Fault and the Iapetus Suture and is located within the Midland Valley and Southern Uplands Terranes. Throughout Midland Valley ORS stratigraphy, detrital zircon age spectra broadly show a bimodal age distribution between Lower Palaeozoic and Mesoproterozoic components 35 , 36 (Extended Data Fig. 3 ). Indeed, throughout 9 km of ORS stratigraphy in the Midland Valley Basin and across the Sothern Uplands Fault, no major changes in provenance are recognized 36 (Fig. 4a ). Devonian zircon, including grains as young as 402 ± 5 Ma from the northern ORS in the Midland Valley Basin 36 , further differentiates this basin from the Altar Stone (Fig. 3a and Extended Data Fig. 3 ). The scarcity of Archaean to late Palaeoproterozoic zircon grains within the Midland Valley ORS shows that the Laurentian basement was not a dominant detrital source for those rocks 35 . Instead, ORS of the Midland Valley is primarily defined by zircon from 475 Ma interpreted to represent the detrital remnants of Ordovician volcanism within the Midland Valley Terrane, with only minor and periodic input from Caledonian plutonism 35 .

The Orcadian Basin of northeast Scotland, within the Grampian and Northern Highlands terranes, contains a thick package of mostly Mid-Devonian ORS, around 4 km thick in Caithness and up to around 8 km thick in Shetland 14 (Fig. 4a ). The detrital zircon age spectra from Orcadian Basin ORS provides the closest match to the Altar Stone detrital ages 25 (Fig. 3 and Extended Data Fig. 8 ). A Kolmogorov–Smirnov test on age spectra from the Altar Stone and the Orcadian Basin fails to reject the null hypothesis that they are derived from the same underlying distribution (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: P  > 0.05) (Fig. 3a ). To the north, ORS on the Svalbard archipelago formed on Laurentian and Baltican basement rocks 37 . Similar Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results, where each detrital zircon dataset is statistically indistinguishable, are obtained for ORS from Svalbard, the Orcadian Basin and the Altar Stone.

Apatite U–Pb age components from Orcadian Basin samples from Spittal, Caithness (AQ1) and Cruaday, Orkney (CQ1) (Fig. 4a ) match those from the Altar Stone. Group 2 apatite from the Altar Stone at 1,018 ± 24 Ma is coeval with a Grenvillian age from Spittal at 1,013 ± 35 Ma. Early Palaeozoic apatite components at 473 ± 25 Ma and 466 ± 6 Ma, from Caithness and Orkney, respectively (Extended Data Fig. 5 and Supplementary Information  1 ), are also identical, within uncertainty, to Altar Stone Group 1 (462 ± 4 Ma) apatite U–Pb analyses and a Lu–Hf component at 470 ± 28 Ma supporting a provenance from the Orcadian Basin for the Altar Stone (Extended Data Fig. 6 and Supplementary Information  2 ).

During the Palaeozoic, the Orcadian Basin was situated between Laurentia and Baltica on the Laurussian palaeocontinent 14 . Correlations between detrital zircon age components imply that both Laurentia and Baltica supplied sediment into the Orcadian Basin 25 , 36 . Detrital grains from more than 900 Ma within the Altar Stone are consistent with sediment recycling from intermediary Neoproterozoic supracrustal successions (for example, Dalradian Supergroup) within the Grampian Terrane but also from the Särv and Sparagmite successions of Baltica 25 , 36 . At around 470 Ma, the Grampian Terrane began to denude 28 . Subsequently, first-cycle detritus, such as that represented by Group 1 apatite and rutile, was shed towards the Orcadian Basin from the southeast 25 .

Thus, the resistive mineral cargo in the Altar Stone represents a complex mix of first and multi-cycle grains from multiple sources. Regardless of total input from Baltica versus Laurentia into the Orcadian Basin, crystalline terranes north of the Iapetus Suture (Fig. 4a ) have distinct age components that match the Altar Stone in contrast to Gondwanan-derived terranes to the south.

The Altar Stone and Neolithic Britain

Isotopic data for detrital zircon and rutile (U–Pb) and apatite (U–Pb, Lu–Hf and trace elements) indicate that the Altar Stone of Stonehenge has a provenance from the ORS in the Orcadian Basin of northeast Scotland (Fig. 4a ). Given this detrital mineral provenance, the Altar Stone cannot have been sourced from southern Britain (that is, south of the Iapetus Suture) (Fig. 4a ), including the Anglo-Welsh Basin 1 , 2 .

Some postulate a glacial transport mechanism for the Mynydd Preseli (Fig. 4a ) bluestones to Salisbury Plain 38 , 39 . However, such transport for the Altar Stone is difficult to reconcile with ice-sheet reconstructions that show a northwards movement of glaciers (and erratics) from the Grampian Mountains towards the Orcadian Basin during the Last Glacial Maximum and, indeed, previous Pleistocene glaciations 40 , 41 . Moreover, there is little evidence of extensive glacial deposition in central southern Britain 40 , nor are Scottish glacial erratics found at Stonehenge 42 . Sr and Pb isotopic signatures from animal and human remains from henges on Salisbury Plain demonstrate the mobility of Neolithic people within Britain 32 , 43 , 44 , 45 . Furthermore, shared architectural elements and rock art motifs between Neolithic monuments in Orkney, northern Britain, and Ireland point towards the long-distance movement of people and construction materials 46 , 47 .

Thus, we posit that the Altar Stone was anthropogenically transported to Stonehenge from northeast Scotland, consistent with evidence of Neolithic inhabitation in this region 48 , 49 . Whereas the igneous bluestones were brought around 225 km from the Mynydd Preseli to Stonehenge 50 (Fig. 4a ), a Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone demands a transport distance of at least 750 km (Fig. 4a ). Nonetheless, even with assistance from beasts of burden 51 , rivers and topographical barriers, including the Grampians, Southern Uplands and the Pennines, along with the heavily forested landscape of prehistoric Britain 52 , would have posed formidable obstacles for overland megalith transportation.

At around 5000  bc , Neolithic people introduced the common vole ( Microtus arvalis ) from continental Europe to Orkney, consistent with the long-distance marine transport of cattle and goods 53 . A Neolithic marine trade network of quarried stone tools is found throughout Britain, Ireland and continental Europe 54 . For example, a saddle quern, a large stone grinding tool, was discovered in Dorset and determined to have a provenance in central Normandy 55 , implying the shipping of stone cargo over open water during the Neolithic. Furthermore, the river transport of shaped sandstone blocks in Britain is known from at least around 1500  bc (Hanson Log Boat) 56 . In Britain and Ireland, sea levels approached present-day heights from around 4000  bc 57 , and although coastlines have shifted, the geography of Britain and Ireland would have permitted sea routes southward from the Orcadian Basin towards southern England (Fig. 4a ). A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone implies Neolithic transport spanning the length of Great Britain.

This work analysed two 30-µm polished thin sections of the Altar Stone (MS3 and 2010K.240) and two sections of ORS from northeast Scotland (Supplementary Information  4 ). CQ1 is from Cruaday, Orkney (59° 04′ 34.2″ N, 3° 18′ 54.6″ W), and AQ1 is from near Spittal, Caithness (58° 28′ 13.8″ N, 3° 27′ 33.6″ W). Conventional optical microscopy (transmitted and reflected light) and automated mineralogy via a TESCAN Integrated Mineral Analyser gave insights into texture and mineralogy and guided spot placement during LA-ICP–MS analysis. A CLARA field emission scanning electron microscope was used for textural characterization of individual minerals (zircon, apatite and rutile) through high-resolution micrometre-scale imaging under both back-scatter electron and cathodoluminescence. The Altar Stone is a fine-grained and well-sorted sandstone with a mean grain size diameter of ≤300 µm. Quartz grains are sub-rounded and monocrystalline. Feldspars are variably altered to fine-grained white mica. MS3 and 2010K.240 have a weakly developed planar fabric and non-planar heavy mineral laminae approximately 100–200 µm thick. Resistive heavy mineral bands are dominated by zircon, rutile, and apatite, with grains typically 10–40 µm wide. The rock is mainly cemented by carbonate, with localized areas of barite and quartz cement. A detailed account of Altar Stone petrography is provided in refs. 1 , 59 .

Zircon isotopic analysis

Zircon u–pb methods.

Two zircon U–Pb analysis sessions were completed at the GeoHistory facility in the John De Laeter Centre (JdLC), Curtin University, Australia. Ablations within zircon grains were created using an excimer laser RESOlution LE193 nm ArF with a Laurin Technic S155 cell. Isotopic data was collected with an Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole mass spectrometer, with high-purity Ar as the plasma carrier gas (flow rate 1.l min −1 ). An on-sample energy of ~2.3–2.7 J cm −2 with a 5–7 Hz repetition rate was used to ablate minerals for 30–40 s (with 25–60 s of background capture). Two cleaning pulses preceded analyses, and ultra-high-purity He (0.68 ml min −1 ) and N 2 (2.8 ml min −1 ) were used to flush the sample cell. A block of reference mineral was analysed following 15–20 unknowns. The small, highly rounded target grains of the Altar Stone (usually <30 µm in width) necessitated using a spot size diameter of ~24 µm for all ablations. Isotopic data was reduced using Iolite 4 60 with the U-Pb Geochronology data reduction scheme, followed by additional calculation and plotting via IsoplotR 61 . The primary matrix-matched reference zircon 62 used to correct instrumental drift and mass fractionation was GJ-1, 601.95 ± 0.40 Ma. Secondary reference zircon included Plešovice 63 , 337.13 ± 0.37 Ma, 91500 64 , 1,063.78 ± 0.65 Ma, OG1 65 3,465.4 ± 0.6 Ma and Maniitsoq 66 3,008.7 ± 0.6 Ma. Weighted mean U–Pb ages for secondary reference materials were within 2 σ uncertainty of reported values (Supplementary Information  5 ).

Zircon U–Pb results

Across two LA-ICP–MS sessions, 83 U–Pb measurements were obtained on as many zircon grains; 41 were concordant (≤10% discordant), where discordance is defined using the concordia log distance (%) approach 67 . We report single-spot (grain) concordia ages, which have numerous benefits over conventional U–Pb/Pb–Pb ages, including providing an objective measure of discordance that is directly coupled to age and avoids the arbitrary switch between 206 Pb/ 238 U and 207 Pb/ 206 Pb. Furthermore, given the spread in ages (Early Palaeozoic to Archaean), concordia ages provide optimum use of both U–Pb/Pb–Pb ratios, offering greater precision over 206 Pb/ 238 U or 207 Pb/ 206 Pb ages alone.

Given that no direct sampling of the Altar Stone is permitted, we are limited in the amount of material available for destructive analysis, such as LA-ICP–MS. We collate our zircon age data with the U–Pb analyses 1 of FN593 (another fragment of the Altar Stone), filtered using the same concordia log distance (%) discordance filter 67 . The total concordant analyses used in this work is thus 56 over 3 thin sections, each showing no discernible provenance differences. Zircon concordia ages span from 498 to 2,812 Ma. Age maxima (peak) were calculated after Gehrels 68 , and peak ages defined by ≥4 grains include 1,047, 1,091, 1,577, 1,663 and 1,790 Ma.

For 56 concordant ages from 56 grains at >95% certainty, the largest unmissed fraction is calculated at 9% of the entire uniform detrital population 69 . In any case, the most prevalent and hence provenance important components will be sampled for any number of analyses 69 . We analysed all zircon grains within the spatial limit of the technique in the thin sections 70 . We used in situ thin-section analysis, which can mitigate against contamination and sampling biases in detrital studies 71 . Adding apatite (U–Pb and Lu–Hf) and rutile (U–Pb) analyses bolsters our confidence in provenance interpretations as these minerals will respond dissimilarly during transport.

Comparative zircon datasets

Zircon U–Pb compilations of the basement terranes of Britain and Ireland were sourced from refs. 20 , 26 . ORS detrital zircon datasets used for comparison include isotopic data from the Dingle Peninsula Basin 20 , Anglo-Welsh Basin 72 , Midland Valley Basin 35 , Svalbard ORS 37 and Orcadian Basin 25 . NRS zircon U–Pb ages were sourced from the Wessex Basin 33 . Comparative datasets were filtered for discordance as per our definition above 20 , 26 . Kernel density estimates for age populations were created within IsoplotR 61 using a kernel and histogram bandwidth of 50 Ma.

A two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistical test was implemented to compare the compiled zircon age datasets with the Altar Stone (Supplementary Information  6 ). This two-sided test compares the maximum probability difference between two cumulative density age functions, evaluating the null hypothesis that both age spectra are drawn from the same distribution based on a critical value dependent on the number of analyses and a chosen confidence level.

The number of zircon ages within the comparative datasets used varies from the Altar Stone ( n  = 56) to Laurentia ( n  = 2,469). Therefore, to address the degree of dependence on sample n , we also implemented a Monte Carlo resampling (1,000 times) procedure for the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, including the uncertainty on each age determination to recalculate P values and standard deviations (Supplementary Information  7 ), based on the resampled distribution of each sample. The results from Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests, using Monte Carlo resampling (and multidimensional analysis), taking uncertainty due to sample n into account, also support the interpretation that at >95% certainty, no distinction in provenance can be made between the Altar Stone zircon age dataset ( n  = 56) and those from the Orcadian Basin ( n  = 212), Svalbard ORS ( n  = 619 ) and the Laurentian basement (Supplementary Information  7 ).

MDS plots for zircon datasets were created using the MATLAB script of ref.  58 . Here, we adopted a bootstrap resampling (>1,000 times) with Procrustes rotation of Kolmogorov–Smirnov values, which outputs uncertainty ellipses at a 95% confidence level (Fig. 3a ). In MDS plots, stress is a goodness of fit indicator between dissimilarities in the datasets and distances on the MDS plot. Stress values below 0.15 are desirable 58 . For the MDS plot in Fig. 3a , the value is 0.043, which indicates an “excellent” fit 58 .

Rutile isotopic analysis

Rutile u–pb methods.

One rutile U–Pb analysis session was completed at the GeoHistory facility in the JdLC, Curtin University, Australia. Rutile grains were ablated (24 µm) using a Resonetics RESOlution M-50A-LR sampling system, using a Compex 102 excimer laser, and measured using an Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole mass analyser. The analytical parameters included an on-sample energy of 2.7 J cm −2 , a repetition rate of 7 Hz for a total analysis time of 45 s, and 60 s of background data capture. The sample chamber was purged with ultrahigh purity He at a flow rate of 0.68 l min −1 and N 2 at 2.8 ml min −1 .

U–Pb data for rutile analyses was reduced against the R-10 rutile primary reference material 73 (1,091 ± 4 Ma). The secondary reference material used to monitor the accuracy of U–Pb ratios was R-19 rutile. The mean weighted 238 U/ 206 Pb age obtained for R-19 was 491 ± 10 (mean squared weighted deviation (MSWD) = 0.87, p ( χ 2 ) = 0.57) within uncertainty of the accepted age 74 of 489.5 ± 0.9 Ma.

Rutile grains with negligible Th concentrations can be corrected for common Pb using a 208 Pb correction 74 . Previously used thresholds for Th content have included 75 , 76 Th/U < 0.1 or a Th concentration >5% U. However, Th/U ratios for rutile from MS3 are typically > 1; thus, a 208 Pb correction is not applicable. Instead, we use a 207 -based common Pb correction 31 to account for the presence of common Pb. Rutile isotopic data was reduced within Iolite 4 60 using the U–Pb Geochronology reduction scheme and IsoplotR 61 .

Rutile U–Pb Results

Ninety-two rutile U–Pb analyses were obtained in a U–Pb single session, which defined two coherent age groupings on a Tera–Wasserburg plot.

Group 1 constitutes 83 U–Pb rutile analyses, forming a well-defined mixing array on a Tera-Wasserburg plot between common and radiogenic Pb components. This array yields an upper intercept of 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i  = 0.8563 ± 0.0014. The lower intercept implies an age of 451 ± 8 Ma. The scatter about the line (MSWD = 2.7) is interpreted to reflect the variable passage of rutile of diverse grain sizes through the radiogenic Pb closure temperature at ~600 °C during and after magmatic crystallization 77 .

Group 2 comprises 9 grains, with 207 Pb corrected 238 U/ 206 Pb ages ranging from 591–1,724 Ma. Three grains from Group 2 define an age peak 68 at 1,607 Ma. Given the spread in U–Pb ages, we interpret these Proterozoic grains to represent detrital rutile derived from various sources.

Apatite isotopic analysis

Apatite u–pb methods.

Two apatite U–Pb LA-ICP–MS analysis sessions were conducted at the GeoHistory facility in the JdLC, Curtin University, Australia. For both sessions, ablations were created using a RESOlution 193 nm excimer laser ablation system connected to an Agilent 8900 ICP–MS with a RESOlution LE193 nm ArF and a Laurin Technic S155 cell ICP–MS. Other analytical details include a fluence of 2 J cm 2 and a 5 Hz repetition rate. For the Altar Stone section (MS3) and the Orcadian Basin samples (Supplementary Information  4 ), 24- and 20-µm spot sizes were used, respectively.

The matrix-matched primary reference material used for apatite U–Pb analyses was the Madagascar apatite (MAD-1) 78 . A range of secondary reference apatite was analysed, including FC-1 79 (Duluth Complex) with an age of 1,099.1 ± 0.6 Ma, Mount McClure 80 , 81 526 ± 2.1 Ma, Otter Lake 82 913 ± 7 Ma and Durango 31.44 ± 0.18 83  Ma. Anchored regressions (through reported 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i values) for secondary reference material yielded lower intercept ages within 2 σ uncertainty of reported values (Supplementary Information  8 ).

Altar Stone apatite U–Pb results

This first session of apatite U–Pb of MS3 from the Altar Stone yielded 117 analyses. On a Tera–Wasserburg plot, these analyses form two discordant mixing arrays between common and radiogenic Pb components with distinct lower intercepts.

The array from Group 2 apatite, comprised of 9 analyses, yields a lower intercept equivalent to an age of 1,018 ± 24 Ma (MSWD = 1.4) with an upper intercept 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i  = 0.8910 ± 0.0251. The f 207 % (the percentage of common Pb estimated using the 207 Pb method) of apatite analyses in Group 2 ranges from 16.66–88.8%, with a mean of 55.76%.

Group 1 apatite is defined by 108 analyses yielding a lower intercept of 462 ± 4 Ma (MSWD = 2.4) with an upper intercept 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i  = 0.8603 ± 0.0033. The f 207 % of apatite analyses in Group 1 range from 10.14–99.91%, with a mean of 78.65%. The slight over-dispersion of the apatite regression line may reflect some variation in Pb closure temperature in these crystals 84 .

Orcadian basin apatite U–Pb results

The second apatite U–Pb session yielded 138 analyses from samples CQ1 and AQ1. These data form three discordant mixing arrays between radiogenic and common Pb components on a Tera–Wasserburg plot.

An unanchored regression through Group 1 apatite ( n  = 14) from the Cruaday sample (CQ1) yields a lower intercept of 473 ± 25 Ma (MSWD = 1.8) with an upper intercept of 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i  = 0.8497 ± 0.0128. The f 207 % spans 38–99%, with a mean value of 85%.

Group 1 from the Spittal sample (AQ1), comprised of 109 analyses, yields a lower intercept equal to 466 ± 6 Ma (MSWD = 1.2). The upper 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i is equal to 0.8745 ± 0.0038. f 207 % values for this group range from 6–99%, with a mean value of 83%. A regression through Group 2 analyses ( n  = 17) from the Spittal sample yields a lower intercept of 1,013 ± 35 Ma (MSWD = 1) and an upper intercept 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i of 0.9038 ± 0.0101. f 207 % values span 25–99%, with a mean of 76%. Combined U–Pb analyses from Groups 1 from CQ1 and AQ1 ( n  = 123) yield a lower intercept equivalent to 466 ± 6 Ma (MSWD = 1.4) and an upper intercept 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i of 0.8726 ± 0.0036, which is presented beneath the Orcadian Basin kernel density estimate in Fig. 4b .

Apatite Lu–Hf methods

Apatite grains were dated in thin-section by the in situ Lu–Hf method at the University of Adelaide, using a RESOlution-LR 193 nm excimer laser ablation system, coupled to an Agilent 8900 ICP–MS/MS 85 , 86 . A gas mixture of NH 3 in He was used in the mass spectrometer reaction cell to promote high-order Hf reaction products, while equivalent Lu and Yb reaction products were negligible. The mass-shifted (+82 amu) reaction products of 176+82 Hf and 178+82 Hf reached the highest sensitivity of the measurable range and were analysed free from isobaric interferences. 177 Hf was calculated from 178 Hf, assuming natural abundances. 175 Lu was measured on mass as a proxy 85 for 176 Lu. Laser ablation was conducted with a laser beam of 43 µm at 7.5 Hz repetition rate and a fluency of approximately 3.5 J cm −2 . The analysed isotopes (with dwell times in ms between brackets) are 27 Al (2), 43 Ca (2), 57 Fe (2), 88 Sr (2), 89+85 Y (2), 90+83 Zr (2), 140+15 Ce (2), 146 Nd (2), 147 Sm (2), 172 Yb (5), 175 Lu (10), 175+82 Lu (50), 176+82 Hf (200) and 178+82 Hf (150). Isotopes with short dwell times (<10 ms) were measured to confirm apatite chemistry and to monitor for inclusions. 175+82 Lu was monitored for interferences on 176+82 Hf.

Relevant isotope ratios were calculated in LADR 87 using NIST 610 as the primary reference material 88 . Subsequently, reference apatite OD-306 78 (1,597 ± 7 Ma) was used to correct the Lu–Hf isotope ratios for matrix-induced fractionation 86 , 89 . Reference apatites Bamble-1 (1,597 ± 5 Ma), HR-1 (344 ± 2 Ma) and Wallaroo (1,574 ± 6 Ma) were monitored for accuracy verification 85 , 86 , 90 . Measured Lu–Hf dates of 1,098 ± 7 Ma, 346.0 ± 3.7 Ma and 1,575 ± 12 Ma, respectively, are in agreement with published values. All reference materials have negligible initial Hf, and weighted mean Lu–Hf dates were calculated in IsoplotR 61 directly from the (matrix-corrected) 176 Hf/ 176 Lu ratios.

For the Altar Stone apatites, which have variable 177 Hf/ 176 Hf compositions, single-grain Lu–Hf dates were calculated by anchoring isochrons to an initial 177 Hf/ 176 Hf composition 90 of 3.55 ± 0.05, which spans the entire range of initial 177 Hf/ 176 Hf ratios of the terrestrial reservoir (for example, ref. 91 ). The reported uncertainties for the single-grain Lu–Hf dates are presented as 95% confidence intervals, and dates are displayed on a kernel density estimate plot.

Apatite Lu–Hf results

Forty-five apatite Lu–Hf analyses were obtained from 2010K.240. Those with radiogenic Lu ingrowth or lacking common Hf gave Lu–Hf ages, defining four coherent isochrons and age groups.

Group 1, defined by 16 grains, yields a Lu–Hf isochron with a lower intercept of 470 ± 28 Ma (MSWD = 0.16, p ( χ 2 ) = 1). A second isochron through 5 analyses (Group 2) constitutes a lower intercept equivalent to 604 ± 38 Ma (MSWD = 0.14, p ( χ 2 ) = 0.94). Twelve apatite Lu–Hf analyses define Group 3 with a lower intercept of 1,123 ± 42 Ma (MSWD = 0.75, p ( χ 2 ) = 0.68). Three grains constitute the oldest grouping, Group 4 at 1,526 ± 186 Ma (MSWD = 0.014, p ( χ 2 ) = 0.91).

Apatite trace elements methods

A separate session of apatite trace element analysis was undertaken. Instrumentation and analytical set-up were identical to that described in 4.1. NIST 610 glass was the primary reference material for apatite trace element analyses. 43 Ca was used as the internal reference isotope, assuming an apatite Ca concentration of 40 wt%. Secondary reference materials included NIST 612 and the BHVO−2g glasses 92 . Elemental abundances for secondary reference material were generally within 5–10% of accepted values. Apatite trace element data was examined using the Geochemical Data Toolkit 93 .

Apatite trace elements results

One hundred and thirty-six apatite trace element analyses were obtained from as many grains. Geochemical classification schemes for apatite were used 29 , and three compositional groupings (felsic, mafic-intermediate, and alkaline) were defined.

Felsic-classified apatite grains ( n  = 83 (61% of analyses)) are defined by La/Nd of <0.6 and (La + Ce + Pr)/ΣREE (rare earth elements) of <0.5. The median values of felsic grains show a flat to slightly negative gradient on the chondrite-normalized REE plot from light to heavy REEs 94 . Felsic apatite’s median europium anomaly (Eu/Eu*) is 0.59, a moderately negative signature.

Mafic-intermediate apatite 29 ( n  = 48 (35% of grains)) are defined by (La + Ce + Pr)/ΣREE of 0.5–0.7 and a La/Nd of 0.5–1.5. In addition, apatite grains of this group typically exhibit a chondrite-normalized Ce/Yb of >5 and ΣREEs up to 1.25 wt%. Apatite grains classified as mafic-intermediate show a negative gradient on a chondrite-normalized REE plot from light to heavy REEs. The apatite grains of this group generally show the most enrichment in REEs compared to chondrite 94 . The median europium (Eu/Eu*) of mafic-intermediate apatite is 0.62, a moderately negative anomaly.

Lastly, alkaline apatite grains 29 ( n  = 5 (4% of analyses)) are characterized by La/Nd > 1.5 and a (La + Ce + Pr)/ΣREE > 0.8. The median europium anomaly of this group is 0.45. This grouping also shows elevated chondrite-normalized Ce/Yb of >10 and >0.5 wt% for the ΣREEs.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The isotopic and chemical data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supplementary information files.

Bevins, R. E. et al. Constraining the provenance of the Stonehenge ‘Altar Stone’: evidence from automated mineralogy and U–Pb zircon age dating. J. Archaeolog. Sci. 120 , 105188 (2020).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bevins, R. E. et al. The Stonehenge Altar Stone was probably not sourced from the Old Red Sandstone of the Anglo-Welsh Basin: time to broaden our geographic and stratigraphic horizons? J. Archaeolog. Sci. Rep. 51 , 104215 (2023).

Google Scholar  

Pearson, M. P. et al. in Stonehenge for the Ancestors: Part 2: Synthesis (eds Pearson, M. P. et al.) 47–75 (Sidestone Press, 2022).

Pitts, M. W. How to Build Stonehenge (Thames & Hudson, 2022).

Nash, D. J. et al. Origins of the sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge. Sci. Adv. 6 , eabc0133 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nash, D. J. et al. Petrological and geochemical characterisation of the sarsen stones at Stonehenge. PLoS ONE 16 , e0254760 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pearson, M. P. et al. Megalith quarries for Stonehenge’s bluestones. Antiquity 93 , 45–62 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

Pearson, M. P. et al. Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge. Antiquity 89 , 1331–1352 (2015).

Ixer, R., Turner, P., Molyneux, S. & Bevins, R. The petrography, geological age and distribution of the Lower Palaeozoic Sandstone debitage from the Stonehenge landscape. Wilts. Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Mag. 110 , 1–16 (2017).

Ixer, R. & Turner, P. A detailed re-examination of the petrography of the Altar Stone and other non-sarsen sandstones from Stonehenge as a guide to their provenance. Wilts. Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Mag. 99 , 1–9 (2006).

Ixer, R., Bevins, R. E., Pirrie, D., Turner, P. & Power, M. No provenance is better than wrong provenance: Milford Haven and the Stonehenge sandstones. Wilts. Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Mag. 113 , 1–15 (2020).

Thomas, H. H. The source of the stones of Stonehenge. The Antiq. J. 3 , 239–260 (1923).

Kendall, R. S. The Old Red Sandstone of Britain and Ireland—a review. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 128 , 409–421 (2017).

Woodcock, N., Holdsworth, R. E. & Strachan, R. A. in Geological History of Britain and Ireland (eds Woodcock, N. & Strachan, R. A.) Ch. 6 91–109 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012).

Pearson, M. P., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J. & Welham, K. Stonehenge: Making Sense of a Prehistoric Mystery (Council for British Archaeology, 2015).

Shewan, L. et al. Dating the megalithic culture of laos: Radiocarbon, optically stimulated luminescence and U/Pb zircon results. PLoS ONE 16 , e0247167 (2021).

Kelloway, S. et al. Sourcing olive jars using U–Pb ages of detrital zircons: a study of 16th century olive jars recovered from the Solomon Islands. Geoarchaeology 29 , 47–60 (2014).

Barham, M. et al. The answers are blowin’ in the wind: ultra-distal ashfall zircons, indicators of Cretaceous super-eruptions in eastern Gondwana. Geology 44 , 643–646 (2016).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Gillespie, J., Glorie, S., Khudoley, A. & Collins, A. S. Detrital apatite U–Pb and trace element analysis as a provenance tool: Insights from the Yenisey Ridge (Siberia). Lithos 314–315 , 140–155 (2018).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Fairey, B. J. et al. The provenance of the Devonian Old Red Sandstone of the Dingle Peninsula, SW Ireland; the earliest record of Laurentian and peri-Gondwanan sediment mixing in Ireland. J. Geol. Soc. 175 , 411–424 (2018).

Bevins, R. E. et al. Assessing the authenticity of a sample taken from the Altar Stone at Stonehenge in 1844 using portable XRF and automated SEM-EDS. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 49 , 103973 (2023).

Bevins, R. E. et al. Linking derived debitage to the Stonehenge Altar Stone using portable X-ray fluorescence analysis. Mineral. Mag. 86 , 688–700 (2022).

Morton, A. C., Chisholm, J. I. & Frei, D. Provenance of Carboniferous sandstones in the central and southern parts of the Pennine Basin, UK: evidence from detrital zircon ages. Proc. York. Geol. Soc. 63 , https://doi.org/10.1144/pygs2020-010 (2021).

Cawood, P. A., Nemchin, A. A., Strachan, R., Prave, T. & Krabbendam, M. Sedimentary basin and detrital zircon record along East Laurentia and Baltica during assembly and breakup of Rodinia. J. Geol. Soc. 164 , 257–275 (2007).

Strachan, R. A., Olierook, H. K. H. & Kirkland, C. L. Evidence from the U–Pb–Hf signatures of detrital zircons for a Baltican provenance for basal Old Red Sandstone successions, northern Scottish Caledonides. J. Geol. Soc. 178 , https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2020-241 (2021).

Stevens, T. & Baykal, Y. Detrital zircon U–Pb ages and source of the late Palaeocene Thanet Formation, Kent, SE England. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 132 , 240–248 (2021).

O’Sullivan, G., Chew, D. M., Kenny, G., Heinrichs, I. & Mulligan, D. The trace element composition of apatite and its application to detrital provenance studies. Earth Sci. Rev. 201 , 103044 (2020).

Oliver, G., Wilde, S. & Wan, Y. Geochronology and geodynamics of Scottish granitoids from the late Neoproterozoic break-up of Rodinia to Palaeozoic collision. J. Geol. Soc. 165 , 661–674 (2008).

Fleischer, M. & Altschuler, Z. S. The lanthanides and yttrium in minerals of the apatite group-an analysis of the available data. Neu. Jb. Mineral. Mh. 10 , 467–480 (1986).

Goodenough, K. M., Millar, I., Strachan, R. A., Krabbendam, M. & Evans, J. A. Timing of regional deformation and development of the Moine Thrust Zone in the Scottish Caledonides: constraints from the U–Pb geochronology of alkaline intrusions. J. Geol. Soc. 168 , 99–114 (2011).

Stacey, J. S. & Kramers, J. D. Approximation of terrestrial lead isotope evolution by a two-stage model. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 26 , 207–221 (1975).

Evans, J. A. et al. Applying lead (Pb) isotopes to explore mobility in humans and animals. PLoS ONE 17 , e0274831 (2022).

Morton, A., Knox, R. & Frei, D. Heavy mineral and zircon age constraints on provenance of the Sherwood Sandstone Group (Triassic) in the eastern Wessex Basin, UK. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 127 , 514–526 (2016).

Morton, A., Hounslow, M. W. & Frei, D. Heavy-mineral, mineral-chemical and zircon-age constraints on the provenance of Triassic sandstones from the Devon coast, southern Britain. Geologos 19 , 67–85 (2013).

Phillips, E. R., Smith, R. A., Stone, P., Pashley, V. & Horstwood, M. Zircon age constraints on the provenance of Llandovery to Wenlock sandstones from the Midland Valley terrane of the Scottish Caledonides. Scott. J. Geol. 45 , 131–146 (2009).

McKellar, Z., Hartley, A. J., Morton, A. C. & Frei, D. A multidisciplinary approach to sediment provenance analysis of the late Silurian–Devonian Lower Old Red Sandstone succession, northern Midland Valley Basin, Scotland. J. Geol. Soc. 177 , 297–314 (2019).

Beranek, L. P., Gee, D. G. & Fisher, C. M. Detrital zircon U–Pb–Hf isotope signatures of Old Red Sandstone strata constrain the Silurian to Devonian paleogeography, tectonics, and crustal evolution of the Svalbard Caledonides. GSA Bull. 132 , 1987–2003 (2020).

John, B. The Stonehenge Bluestones (Greencroft Books, 2018).

John, B. The Stonehenge bluestones did not come from Waun Mawn in West Wales. The Holocene https://doi.org/10.1177/09596836241236318 (2024).

Clark, C. D. et al. Growth and retreat of the last British–Irish Ice Sheet, 31 000 to 15 000 years ago: the BRITICE-CHRONO reconstruction. Boreas 51 , 699–758 (2022).

Gibbard, P. L. & Clark, C. D. in Developments in Quaternary Sciences , Vol. 15 (eds Ehlers, J. et al.) 75–93 (Elsevier, 2011).

Bevins, R., Ixer, R., Pearce, N., Scourse, J. & Daw, T. Lithological description and provenancing of a collection of bluestones from excavations at Stonehenge by William Hawley in 1924 with implications for the human versus ice transport debate of the monument’s bluestone megaliths. Geoarchaeology 38 , 771–785 (2023).

Snoeck, C. et al. Strontium isotope analysis on cremated human remains from Stonehenge support links with west Wales. Sci. Rep. 8 , 10790 (2018).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Viner, S., Evans, J., Albarella, U. & Pearson, M. P. Cattle mobility in prehistoric Britain: strontium isotope analysis of cattle teeth from Durrington Walls (Wiltshire, Britain). J. Archaeolog. Sci. 37 , 2812–2820 (2010).

Evans, J. A., Chenery, C. A. & Fitzpatrick, A. P. Bronze Age childhood migration of individuals near Stonehenge, revealed by strontium and oxygen isotope tooth enamel analysis. Archaeometry 48 , 309–321 (2006).

Bradley, R. Beyond the bluestones: links between distant monuments in Late Neolithic Britain and Ireland. Antiquity 98 , 821–828 (2024).

Bradley, R. Long distance connections within Britain and Ireland: the evidence of insular rock art. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 89 , 249–271 (2023).

Fairweather, A. D. & Ralston, I. B. M. The Neolithic timber hall at Balbridie, Grampian Region, Scotland: the building, the date, the plant macrofossils. Antiquity 67 , 313–323 (1993).

Bayliss, A., Marshall, P., Richards, C. & Whittle, A. Islands of history: the Late Neolithic timescape of Orkney. Antiquity 91 , 1171–1188 (2017).

Parker Pearson, M. et al. in Megaliths and Geology (eds Bouventura, R. et al.) 151–169 (Archaeopress Publishing, 2020).

Pigière, F. & Smyth, J. First evidence for cattle traction in Middle Neolithic Ireland: A pivotal element for resource exploitation. PLoS ONE 18 , e0279556 (2023).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Godwin, H. History of the natural forests of Britain: establishment, dominance and destruction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 271 , 47–67 (1975).

ADS   Google Scholar  

Martínková, N. et al. Divergent evolutionary processes associated with colonization of offshore islands. Mol. Ecol. 22 , 5205–5220 (2013).

Bradley, R. & Edmonds, M. Interpreting the Axe Trade: Production and Exchange in Neolithic Britain (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).

Peacock, D., Cutler, L. & Woodward, P. A Neolithic voyage. Int. J. Naut. Archaeol. 39 , 116–124 (2010).

Pinder, A. P., Panter, I., Abbott, G. D. & Keely, B. J. Deterioration of the Hanson Logboat: chemical and imaging assessment with removal of polyethylene glycol conserving agent. Sci. Rep. 7 , 13697 (2017).

Harff, J. et al. in Submerged Landscapes of the European Continental Shelf: Quaternary Paleoenvironments (eds Flemming, N. C. et al.) 11–49 (2017).

Nordsvan, A. R., Kirscher, U., Kirkland, C. L., Barham, M. & Brennan, D. T. Resampling (detrital) zircon age distributions for accurate multidimensional scaling solutions. Earth Sci. Rev. 204 , 103149 (2020).

Ixer, R., Bevins, R. & Turner, P. Alternative Altar Stones? Carbonate-cemented micaceous sandstones from the Stonehenge landscape. Wilts. Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Mag. 112 , 1–13 (2019).

Paton, C., Hellstrom, J. C., Paul, B., Woodhead, J. D. & Hergt, J. M. Iolite: freeware for the visualisation and processing of mass spectrometric data. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 26 , 2508–2518 (2011).

Vermeesch, P. IsoplotR: a free and open toolbox for geochronology. Geosci. Front. 9 , 1479–1493 (2018).

Jackson, S. E., Pearson, N. J., Griffin, W. L. & Belousova, E. A. The application of laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry to in situ U–Pb zircon geochronology. Chem. Geol. 211 , 47–69 (2004).

Sláma, J. et al. Plešovice zircon—A new natural reference material for U–Pb and Hf isotopic microanalysis. Chem. Geol. 249 , 1–35 (2008).

Wiedenbeck, M. et al. Three natural zircon standards for U-Th-Pb, Lu–Hf, trace element and REE analyses. Geostand. Newslett. 19 , 1–23 (1995).

Stern, R. A., Bodorkos, S., Kamo, S. L., Hickman, A. H. & Corfu, F. Measurement of SIMS instrumental mass fractionation of Pb isotopes during zircon dating. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 33 , 145–168 (2009).

Marsh, J. H., Jørgensen, T. R. C., Petrus, J. A., Hamilton, M. A. & Mole, D. R. U-Pb, trace element, and hafnium isotope composition of the Maniitsoq zircon: a potential new Archean zircon reference material. Goldschmidt Abstr. 2019 , 18 (2019).

Vermeesch, P. On the treatment of discordant detrital zircon U–Pb data. Geochronology 3 , 247–257 (2021).

Gehrels, G. in Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins: Recent Advances (eds Busby, C. & Azor, A.) 45–62 (2011).

Vermeesch, P. How many grains are needed for a provenance study? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 224 , 441–451 (2004).

Dröllner, M., Barham, M., Kirkland, C. L. & Ware, B. Every zircon deserves a date: selection bias in detrital geochronology. Geol. Mag. 158 , 1135–1142 (2021).

Zutterkirch, I. C., Kirkland, C. L., Barham, M. & Elders, C. Thin-section detrital zircon geochronology mitigates bias in provenance investigations. J. Geol. Soc. 179 , jgs2021–070 (2021).

Morton, A., Waters, C., Fanning, M., Chisholm, I. & Brettle, M. Origin of Carboniferous sandstones fringing the northern margin of the Wales-Brabant Massif: insights from detrital zircon ages. Geol. J. 50 , 553–574 (2015).

Luvizotto, G. et al. Rutile crystals as potential trace element and isotope mineral standards for microanalysis. Chem. Geol. 261 , 346–369 (2009).

Zack, T. et al. In situ U–Pb rutile dating by LA-ICP-MS: 208 Pb correction and prospects for geological applications. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 162 , 515–530 (2011).

Dröllner, M., Barham, M. & Kirkland, C. L. Reorganization of continent-scale sediment routing based on detrital zircon and rutile multi-proxy analysis. Basin Res. 35 , 363–386 (2023).

Liebmann, J., Barham, M. & Kirkland, C. L. Rutile ages and thermometry along a Grenville anorthosite pathway. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 24 , e2022GC010330 (2023).

Zack, T. & Kooijman, E. Petrology and geochronology of rutile. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 83 , 443–467 (2017).

Thompson, J. et al. Matrix effects in Pb/U measurements during LA-ICP-MS analysis of the mineral apatite. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 31 , 1206–1215 (2016).

Schmitz, M. D., Bowring, S. A. & Ireland, T. R. Evaluation of Duluth Complex anorthositic series (AS3) zircon as a U–Pb geochronological standard: new high-precision isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry results. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 67 , 3665–3672 (2003).

Schoene, B. & Bowring, S. U–Pb systematics of the McClure Mountain syenite: thermochronological constraints on the age of the 40 Ar/ 39 Ar standard MMhb. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 151 , 615–630 (2006).

Thomson, S. N., Gehrels, G. E., Ruiz, J. & Buchwaldt, R. Routine low-damage apatite U–Pb dating using laser ablation-multicollector-ICPMS. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 13 , https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GC003928 (2012).

Barfod, G. H., Krogstad, E. J., Frei, R. & Albarède, F. Lu–Hf and PbSL geochronology of apatites from Proterozoic terranes: a first look at Lu–Hf isotopic closure in metamorphic apatite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 69 , 1847–1859 (2005).

McDowell, F. W., McIntosh, W. C. & Farley, K. A. A precise 40 Ar– 39 Ar reference age for the Durango apatite (U–Th)/He and fission-track dating standard Chem. Geol. 214 , 249–263 (2005).

Kirkland, C. L. et al. Apatite: a U–Pb thermochronometer or geochronometer? Lithos 318-319 , 143–157 (2018).

Simpson, A. et al. In-situ Lu Hf geochronology of garnet, apatite and xenotime by LA ICP MS/MS. Chem. Geol. 577 , 120299 (2021).

Glorie, S. et al. Robust laser ablation Lu–Hf dating of apatite: an empirical evaluation. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 537 , 165–184 (2024).

Norris, C. & Danyushevsky, L. Towards estimating the complete uncertainty budget of quantified results measured by LA-ICP-MS. Goldschmidt Abstr. 2018 , 1894 (2018).

Nebel, O., Morel, M. L. A. & Vroon, P. Z. Isotope dilution determinations of Lu, Hf, Zr, Ta and W, and Hf isotope compositions of NIST SRM 610 and 612 glass wafers. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 33 , 487–499 (2009).

Kharkongor, M. B. K. et al. Apatite laser ablation LuHf geochronology: A new tool to date mafic rocks. Chem. Geol. 636 , 121630 (2023).

Glorie, S. et al. Detrital apatite Lu–Hf and U–Pb geochronology applied to the southwestern Siberian margin. Terra Nova 34 , 201–209 (2022).

Spencer, C. J., Kirkland, C. L., Roberts, N. M. W., Evans, N. J. & Liebmann, J. Strategies towards robust interpretations of in situ zircon Lu–Hf isotope analyses. Geosci. Front. 11 , 843–853 (2020).

Jochum, K. P. et al. GeoReM: a new geochemical database for reference materials and isotopic standards. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 29 , 333–338 (2005).

Janousek, V., Farrow, C. & Erban, V. Interpretation of whole-rock geochemical data in igneous geochemistry: introducing Geochemical Data Toolkit (GCDkit). J. Petrol. 47 , 1255–1259 (2006).

Boynton, W. V. in Developments in Geochemistry , Vol. 2 (ed. Henderson, P.) 63–114 (Elsevier, 1984).

Landing, E., Keppie, J. D., Keppie, D. F., Geyer, G. & Westrop, S. R. Greater Avalonia—latest Ediacaran–Ordovicia “peribaltic” terrane bounded by continental margin prisms (“Ganderia”, Harlech Dome, Meguma): review, tectonic implications, and paleogeography. Earth Sci. Rev. 224 , 103863 (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project (DP200101881). Sample material was loaned from the Salisbury Museum and Amgueddfa Cymru–Museum Wales and sampled with permission. The authors thank A. Green for assistance in accessing the Salisbury Museum material; B. McDonald, N. Evans, K. Rankenburg and S. Gilbert for their help during isotopic analysis; and P. Sampaio for assistance with statistical analysis. Instruments in the John de Laeter Centre, Curtin University, were funded via AuScope, the Australian Education Investment Fund, the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, and the Australian Government. R.E.B. acknowledges a Leverhulme Trust Emeritus Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Timescales of Mineral Systems Group, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

Anthony J. I. Clarke & Christopher L. Kirkland

Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK

Richard E. Bevins & Nick J. G. Pearce

Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Stijn Glorie

Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London, UK

Rob A. Ixer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

A.J.I.C.: writing, original draft, formal analysis, investigation, visualization, project administration, conceptualization and methodology. C.L.K.: supervision, resources, formal analysis, funding acquisition, writing, review and editing, conceptualization and methodology. R.E.B.: writing, review and editing, resources and conceptualization. N.J.G.P.: writing, review and editing, resources and conceptualization. S.G.: resources, formal analysis, funding acquisition, writing, review and editing, supervision, and methodology. R.A.I.: writing, review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony J. I. Clarke .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature thanks Tim Kinnaird and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer review reports are available.

Additional information

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

Extended data figures and tables

Extended data fig. 1 geological maps of potential source terranes for the altar stone..

a , Schematic map of the North Atlantic region with the crystalline terranes in the Caledonian-Variscan orogens depicted prior to the opening of the North Atlantic, adapted after ref.  95 . b , Schematic map of Britain and Ireland, showing outcrops of Old Red Sandstone, basement terranes, and major faults with reference to Stonehenge.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Altar Stone zircon U–Pb data.

a , Tera-Wasserburg plot for all concordant (≤10% discordant) zircon analyses reported from three samples of the Altar Stone. Discordance is defined using the concordia log % distance approach, and analytical ellipses are shown at the two-sigma uncertainty level. The ellipse colour denotes the sample. Replotted isotopic data for thin-section FN593 is from ref. 1 . b , Kernel density estimate for concordia U–Pb ages of concordant zircon from the Altar Stone, using a kernel and histogram bandwidth of 50 Ma. Fifty-six concordant analyses are shown from 113 measurements. A rug plot is given below the kernel density estimate, marking the age of each measurement.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Comparative kernel density estimates of concordant zircon concordia ages from the Altar Stone, crystalline sources terranes, and comparative sedimentary rock successions.

Each plot uses a kernel and histogram bandwidth of 50 Ma. The zircon U–Pb geochronology source for each comparative dataset is shown with their respective kernel density estimate. Zircon age data for basement terranes (right side of the plot) was sourced from refs. 20 , 26 .

Extended Data Fig. 4 Plots of rutile U–Pb ages.

a , Tera-Wasserburg plot of rutile U–Pb analyses from the Altar Stone (thin-section MS3). Isotopic data is shown at the two-sigma uncertainty level. b , Kernel density estimate for Group 2 rutile 207 Pb corrected 206 Pb/ 238 U ages, using a kernel and histogram bandwidth of 25 Ma. The rug plot below the kernel density estimate marks the age for each measurement.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Apatite Tera-Wasserburg U–Pb plots for the Altar Stone and Orcadian Basin.

a , Altar Stone apatite U–Pb analyses from thin-section MS3. b , Orcadian Basin apatite U–Pb analyses from sample AQ1, Spittal, Caithness. c , Orcadian Basin apatite U–Pb analyses from sample CQ1, Cruaday, Orkney. All data are shown as ellipses at the two-sigma uncertainty level. Regressions through U–Pb data are unanchored.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Combined kernel density estimate and histogram for apatite Lu–Hf single-grain ages from the Altar Stone.

Lu–Hf apparent ages from thin-section 2010K.240. Kernel and histogram bandwidth of 50 Ma. The rug plot below the kernel density estimate marks each calculated age. Single spot ages are calculated assuming an initial average terrestrial 177 Hf/ 176 Hf composition (see  Methods ).

Extended Data Fig. 7 Apatite trace element classification plots for the Altar Stone thin-section MS3.

Colours for all plots follow the geochemical discrimination defined in A. a , Reference 29  classification plot for apatite with an inset pie chart depicting the compositional groupings based on these geochemical ratios. b , The principal component plot of geochemical data from apatite shows the main eigenvectors of geochemical dispersion, highlighting enhanced Nd and La in the distinguishing groups. Medians for each group are denoted with a cross. c , Plot of total rare earth elements (REE) (%) versus (Ce/Yb) n with Mahalanobis ellipses around compositional classification centroids. A P = 0.5 in Mahalanobis distance analysis represents a two-sided probability, indicating that 50% of the probability mass of the chi-squared distribution for that compositional grouping is contained within the ellipse. This probability is calculated based on the cumulative distribution function of the chi-squared distribution. d , Chondrite normalized REE plot of median apatite values for each defined apatite classification type.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Cumulative probability density function plot.

Cumulative probability density function plot of comparative Old Red Sandstone detrital zircon U–Pb datasets (concordant ages) versus the Altar Stone. Proximity between cumulative density probability lines implies similar detrital zircon age populations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information 1.

Zircon, rutile, and apatite U–Pb data for the Altar Stone and Orcadian Basin samples. A ) Zircon U–Pb data for MS3, 2010K.240, and FN593. B ) Zircon U–Pb data for secondary references. C ) Rutile U–Pb data for MS3. D ) Rutile U–Pb data for secondary references. E ) Session 1 apatite U–Pb data for MS3. F ) Session 1 apatite U–Pb data for secondary references. G ) Session 2 apatite U–Pb data for Orcadian Basin samples. H ) Session 2 apatite U–Pb data for secondary references.

Reporting Summary

Peer review file, supplementary information 2.

Apatite Lu–Hf data for the Altar Stone. A) Apatite Lu–Hf isotopic data and ages for thin-section 2010K.240. B) Apatite Lu–Hf data for secondary references.

Supplementary Information 3

Apatite trace elements for the Altar Stone. A) Apatite trace element data for MS3. B) Apatite trace element secondary reference values.

Supplementary Information 4–8

Supplementary Information 4 : Summary of analyses. Summary table of analyses undertaken in this work on samples from the Altar Stone and the Orcadian Basin. Supplementary Information 5: Summary of zircon U–Pb reference material. A summary table of analyses was obtained for zircon U–Pb secondary reference material run during this work. Supplementary Information 6: Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results. Table of D and P values for the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test on zircon ages from the Altar Stone and potential source regions. Supplementary Information 7: Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results, with Monte Carlo resampling. Table of D and P values for the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (with Monte Carlo resampling) on zircon ages from the Altar Stone and potential source regions. Supplementary Information 8: Summary of apatite U–Pb reference material. A summary table of analyses was obtained for the apatite U–Pb secondary reference material run during this work.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Clarke, A.J.I., Kirkland, C.L., Bevins, R.E. et al. A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone of Stonehenge. Nature 632 , 570–575 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07652-1

Download citation

Received : 16 December 2023

Accepted : 03 June 2024

Published : 14 August 2024

Issue Date : 15 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07652-1

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

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Older Adults Do Not Benefit From Moderate Drinking, Large Study Finds

Virtually any amount increased the risk for cancer, and there were no heart benefits, the researchers reported.

By Roni Caryn Rabin

Even light drinking was associated with an increase in cancer deaths among older adults in Britain, researchers reported on Monday in a large study. But the risk was accentuated primarily in those who had existing health problems or who lived in low-income areas.

The study, which tracked 135,103 adults aged 60 and older for 12 years, also punctures the long-held belief that light or moderate alcohol consumption is good for the heart.

The researchers found no reduction in heart disease deaths among light or moderate drinkers, regardless of this health or socioeconomic status, when compared with occasional drinkers.

The study defined light drinking as a mean alcohol intake of up to 20 grams a day for men and up to 10 grams daily for women. (In the United States, a standard drink is 14 grams of alcohol .)

“We did not find evidence of a beneficial association between low drinking and mortality,” said Dr. Rosario Ortolá, an assistant professor of preventive medicine and public health at Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and the lead author of the paper, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

On the other hand, she added, alcohol probably raises the risk of cancer “from the first drop.”

The findings add to a mounting body of evidence that is shifting the paradigm in alcohol research. Scientists are turning to new methodologies to analyze the risks and benefits of alcohol consumption in an attempt to correct what some believe were serious flaws in earlier research, which appeared to show that there were benefits to drinking.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .