Commissioned research

Can we trust research findings that stem from projects commissioned by particular users who have defined the themes and paid the bill? Will the relationship to a commissioning body jeopardise the independence of research and lead to biased results? Will the researchers be able to safeguard their professional integrity vis-à-vis clients and keep intact the fundamental values of research endeavours? These are critical questions in all commissioned research.

There is no unequivocal definition of commissioned research. Much of the research that is undertaken puts the interests of various users at the centre of attention and most research projects are carried out with funding from external sources. Does it make any difference whether the funding sources are private or public? What is the difference between research that takes general user needs as its point of departure as distinct from research based on contracts with particular users who foot the bill?

A report on commissioned research published by the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees discussed these issues (Kaiser et al. 2003). The report's definition of commissioned research emphasised four salient elements:

  • Research financed mainly by clients as the external sources of funding;
  • The client determines the theme of the research to be conducted and the attendant research problems, but not the approach and the methods;
  • The findings are expected to benefit the client and other user groups specified by the client;
  • The client retains certain rights to the use of the generated research results after project completion.

This definition remains valid and is wide enough to cover both research for innovation and marketing in industry and the private sector, as well as research generating evidence to inform public policy-making and implementation.

So-called programme research is a grey zone between research initiated by researchers and commissioned research in a narrow sense. Programme research means that certain themes are accorded priority over others and that money is allocated for that purpose in a defined programme. Such programmes imply an element of thematic control of the research agenda, but cannot be characterised as commissioned in a strict sense.

An important aspect of research ethics concerns the rights to the use of the findings that the client retains contractually after project completion. How exclusive may those rights be? Will exclusive rights for the clients preclude public access and insight into the research process and its results? If so, for how long? These are questions often raised in connection with the patenting of research results. Deferred publication pending the granting of patents may impede other research and weaken the interests of the public.

The basic values of research may be in jeopardy when research institutions are highly dependent on one client, e.g. a ministry. It might mean a risk that researchers 'internalise' the expectations of the clients and that the research process is unduly influenced. The researchers may thus be induced to discard alternative methods or the testing of alternative hypotheses.

The public and private sectors alike appear to assume similar attitudes in their roles as clients. Attempts at undue interference in the research process or in the concluding reporting generally occur when the purpose of research assignments is to inform political processes and decisions. The private sector is generally interested in research results of high international standards, but there are exceptions. For example, clients in pharmaceutical research is sometimes perceived to be bothersome. However, the main findings of the 2003 report was nevertheless that commissioned research as a rule does not compromise established quality criteria; commissioned research is better than its reputation.

Notwithstanding basically sound research ethics in commissioned research, challenges remain that warrant vigilance. It is common to distinguish between three main phases in commissioned research: (a) inception; (b) implementation; and (c) dissemination.

The inception phase

An increasing number of research projects is subjected to tendering procedures, based on descriptions that define themes and research problems. Sometimes approach and methodology are also prescribed, even though such an obfuscation of roles is unacceptable in terms of research ethics. However, in order not to distort competition between various tenderers the text of the invitation to tender is fixed. Prior to the submission of tenders, only questions of clarification are allowed. The winner of the tender, judged by stipulated criteria such as competence, approach and method, have very limited opportunities to negotiate an adjustment of the assignment, purportedly because it would be tantamount to a violation of existing legislation and rules governing the procurement of services. This formalistic and rigid tendering regime involve problematic aspects of research ethics in terms of the respective roles of clients and tenderers.

A fair number of research institutions lacks good procedures and routines for entering into contracts with clients. This applies in particular to units at universities and university colleges, but also to some degree to the institute sector. Therefore, the Ministry of Knowledge has elaborated a standard contract for research and consultancies (see reference below). To the extent it is actually being used (it is entirely voluntary) the standard contract largely clarifies the relationship between the parties involved and can be adjusted to differing circumstances.

The overriding principle applies that commissioned research shall be conducted in accordance with recognised scientific and ethical standards, including academic freedom. This means inter alia that the clients cannot dictate to the researchers that the projects will lead to pre-determined conclusions or results. As a rule, the research findings should be made publicly available after the projects are concluded. Choice of method and approach to the research assignments shall be set out in their descriptions. The researchers shall ensure that scientific quality standards are upheld and that the assignments are conducted with ethical integrity. It is the right and the duty of the researchers to direct the assignments throughout their implementation.

The implementation phase

Disputes may also arise during the implementation phase, especially about the use of methods, interpretation and analysis of the data. The fact that a research project has been commissioned and paid for by a client who has defined its theme and research problems, does not mean that approach and methodology may be determined by the client as well. Scientific approach and choice of method are the prerogative of the researchers, the encroachment into which by the client is indefensible in terms of research ethics. Such a behaviour would jeopardise the independence of research and prevent the researchers from being entirely accountable and responsible for the findings.

It is always the responsibility of the researchers to ensure that a research assignment is conducted with adequate methods and data. While the clients determine theme and research problems, they have no right to interfere in scientific and professional assessments. It is important that the researchers maintain their independence vis-à-vis the clients and that this principle be set out clearly in the contract.

The dissemination phase

Like in the preceding phases, the dissemination phase may also produce conflicts after the research process itself has been concluded. Such disputes often centre on the publication of findings. Should the research reports be made publicly available at all? If so, who shall determine when to publish? Is it defensible in terms of research ethics to edit and amend the text of the reports? In what format, where and through what publication outlets should the findings be published? Who owns the results, and who holds the copyright to the reports? Disputes over these matters and other questions are often central in the dissemination phase.

A key question is what is being reported, how and to whom. The findings and the conclusions are the responsibility of the researchers, but some clients may attempt to influence the substance of the reports, often with the pretext of quality assurance. Some clients even try to prevent publication. However, the quality of reports that end up in a drawer cannot be ascertained adequately and violates the ethos of science (see Values of Research ).

Publication of research findings is desirable for at least two significant reasons. First, important societal interests may be addressed that extend beyond the narrow purpose of the clients. The norm of compliance with the rules dictates that the researchers' ties of loyalty to the clients must be reduced and that the researchers' responsibility to society at large must be respected. Restraining the researchers in this regard would not accord with research ethics. Publication of research results and the opportunity for researchers to take part in public debates while drawing on their research insights serve their overarching ethical responsibility. Research results are, as a matter of principle, public goods. Second, the publication of results is a critical means of quality assurance. A practice not acknowledging publication of findings as a main rule does not deserve the status and label of research. In other words, it is in the own interest of implementing research units to ensure adequate and appropriate publication of their research findings, precisely to assert their status as research institutions. The standard contract for research and consultancies stipulates the publication of research results as a main rule.

Concluding considerations

An important question is to what extent research in general ought to be commissioned. Would dependence on external clients lead to the deterioration of research quality over time? It seems reasonable to assume that increasing dependence on external funding sources is likely to be a source of concern in the research community. These issues are related to the increasing commercialisation of all research. When certain large clients become dominant in the research market (or segments of that market) to the extent that the entire research agenda and priorities are affected, it may threaten the independence of research. For example, recently critical voices have been raised about the commissioning of research by oil and gas actors in favour of fossil fuels to the detriment of research on renewable energy. Turning knowledge into a commodity on a market and increasing dependence on that market are trends that – if unchecked – may threaten the fundamental norms of research. It is important, therefore, that the commercial dependence of research, its impartiality and societal responsibility be subjected to continuous debate.

Book cover

Professional Ethics for Research and Development Activities pp 125–147 Cite as

Commissioned Research and Other Assignments for External Clients

  • Dag Slotfeldt-Ellingsen 2  
  • First Online: 28 February 2023

64 Accesses

Many researchers are particularly motivated by the proximity to specific issues in society that research collaboration with the business sector or public bodies provide. In many such collaborations, the researchers then work on commission for a client. In this chapter, an introduction is first given to different types of assignments and how they are initiated and planned. Then a broad review is given of ethically related issues to be addressed in the assignment agreement between the parties. In the context of research ethics, the provisions on confidentiality versus publication are particularly important here. Many issues relating to the relationship between contractor and client are also discussed.

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

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Oslo, Norway

Dag Slotfeldt-Ellingsen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Slotfeldt-Ellingsen, D. (2023). Commissioned Research and Other Assignments for External Clients. In: Professional Ethics for Research and Development Activities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25484-0_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25484-0_9

Published : 28 February 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-25483-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-25484-0

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (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
  • Tes Explains

How does research get commissioned?

How does research get commissioned?

Research studies are carried out for various reasons. Some are conducted in an academic setting, either for publication in an academic journal or as part of a PhD.

However, research can also be commissioned by third parties, such as the government, a company, a charity or other non-governmental organisation.

Where can I see research commissioning in action?  

There are many examples of commissioned research studies; here are two that have recently been covered by Tes .

In June 2018, the Department for Education commissioned and published a review of the Return to Teaching pilot programme.  

Researchers from the National Foundation for Educational Research , Jack Tattersall, Ruanne Fensham, Kathryn Hurd and Neelam Basi were commissioned to run the study. The project also received funding and assistance from the National College for Teaching and Leadership, which provided data, encouraged participation, and commented on research instruments and reports. 

In 2019, Now Teach, a charity that supports career changers into teaching, commissioned Timewise (a social consultancy aimed at creating a fairer workplace for all) to conduct research into the viability of flexible-working practices in education. Timewise interviewed members of staff in two academies to identify the benefits and barriers to flexible working, and analysed their responses to provide practical advice on how schools can make these practices work. 

Further reading

  • DfE to pilot schemes to tempt teachers back into the classroom after career break
  • How do we know interventions are worthwhile?
  • Will teachers ever have flexible working?
  • How do we find time for teachers to engage with research?

The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) is an independent charity dedicated to breaking the link between family income and educational achievement.

To achieve this, it summarises the best available evidence for teachers; its Teaching and Learning Toolkit, for example, is used by 70 per cent of secondary schools.

The charity also generates new evidence of “what works” to improve teaching and learning, by funding independent evaluations of high-potential projects, and supports teachers and senior leaders to use the evidence to achieve the maximum possible benefit for young people.

How far can we apply research to a new context?

Collaboration with Researchers and Students

  • Collaboration
  • Commissioned Research

Commissioned Research and Consultancy Services

Businesses, organisations and public sector institutions can requisition specialised analyses or small research projects done by the University of Copenhagen's experts with access to the latest knowledge and technology for measurements and analyses.

The assignments can either be solved as commissioned research, where you enter into an agreement with the university itself, or as consultancy services, where you enter into an agreement with the individual researcher.

Commissioned research (incl. analyses)

Commissioned research is sometimes called contract research. It is characterised by the fact that a company, authority or organisation orders an analysis, a measurement or another specialised service from a researcher.

Agreements on commissioned research are concluded with the University of Copenhagen. The university's laboratory facilities and academic networks must therefore be used to solve the task.

Commissioned research is typically a clearly defined project, such as a specific statistical analysis or a sequencing of a DNA string.

Consultancy services

If a company, organisation or public body wants to buy consultancy services from a researcher, they must contact the researcher or research team directly. Consultancy services are typically clearly scientifically defined and have a clearly definde timeframe.

The agreement is with the researcher personally, not the University, The researcher cannot, therefore, make use of the university's equipment or materials to solve consultancy tasks.

If you want to get in touch with a researcher about a specific job, contact the appropriate faculty. If you are unsure which faculty to contact, ask our business coordinator.

Manual for quality assurance of research-based consultancy

Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences (SUND) and Faculty of Science (SCIENCE) at UCPH have written a manual on the faculties’ quality assurance of research-based consultancy. ​​The manual is updated annually. A new version is expected to be published in march 2020.

The manual describes, among other things:

  • Management's responsibility in relation to research-based consultancy
  • Implementation of the quality management system for scientific advice on faculty, department and project level
  • Available support functions

The manual should support and guide management and researchers when conducting research-based consultancy and form the basis of a systematic dialogue between the faculty management team, the department management team and the researchers.

Manual for quality assurance of research-based consultancy (SUND/SCIENCE)

Kontakt

Our Industrial Relations Manager offers help and guidance about collaboration 

Annette Fløcke Lorenzen Tlf.: +45 2155 3839  E-mail

You can also contact the faculties directly about collaboration.

The George Institute for Global Health

Commissioned research program

The Commissioned Research Program supports the delivery of a wide range of tailored research, evaluation and other consultancy services that are underpinned by strong methodological rigour and delivered by highly experienced staff members. 

The Program is focussed on providing evidence to guide critical health decisions and engaging with decision makers to enact real change. It supports the Divisions and Programs across The George Institute to deliver high-quality projects that are responsive to the needs of key stakeholders and provide rigorous evidence around the appropriateness, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health interventions.

The Commissioned Research Program adopts a systematic approach to commissioned (contract) work across the organisation, by centralising, coordinating and standardising processes and procedures. In doing so, the Program offers a range of support services that aim to ensure The George Institute Australia meets the needs of our various clients, partners and stakeholders.

Please refer to The George Institute Research & Consultancy Services information brochure  (PDF) for more information.

For all enquiries with regards to our Commissioned Research and consultancy services, please contact:

Rabia Khan Head, Commissioned Research & Engagement T +61 2 8052 4582 E [email protected]

A selection of contract work we have completed, including links to the final product, are listed below. This list is not exhaustive – further information can be provided upon request.

  • Burden of Cardiovascular Disease in Indonesia (2017) (PDF) : An evidence review commissioned by Pfizer to inform an Addressing Cardiovascular Mortality in Indonesia workshop held on 22 February 2017 in Jakarta.
  • Low vision, quality of life and independence: A review of the evidence on aids and technologies (2017) (PDF) : The Macular Disease Foundation Australia commissioned The George Institute for Global Health to conduct a literature review of the current evidence relating to low vision aids and technologies.
  • Commissioning Economic Evaluations: A Guide (2017) (PDF) : This Guide was commissioned by the Centre for Epidemiology and Evidence, NSW Ministry of Health. The purpose of the guide is to assist NSW Health staff in the commissioning of economic evaluations, particularly in relation to population health programs.
  • Asthma Australia’s Thunderstorm Asthma – Consumer Survey Report (2016) (PDF) : Asthma Australia awarded a contract to The George Institute for Global Health’s Respiratory Group to undertake qualitative data analysis and write the report. The report details the findings of Asthma Australia’s Thunderstorm Asthma Consumer Survey and provides recommendations.
  • 1 Deadly Step: Process evaluation of a chronic disease screening program in NSW Aboriginal communities (2016) (PDF) : The ‘1 Deadly Step’ program was supported by the NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation to provide community screening of chronic disease risk factors at Aboriginal Community events across NSW. The George Institute was contracted to develop a mHealth platform to assist with the assessment, management and follow-up at nominated Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS), to evaluate the implementation of the program and produce a detailed report. The evaluation involved a mixed-methods approach, generating comprehensive insights on program implementation that informed a set of recommendations for the program going forward.
  • NSW Chronic Disease Management Program Evaluation report (2014) (PDF) : The NSW Chronic Disease Management Program – Connecting Care in the Community (CDMP) is a free service for people with chronic disease who have difficulty managing their condition and who are at risk of hospitalisation. The evaluation of this program was contracted by NSW Health in February 2011. It was awarded to a consortium that was led by The George Institute for Global Health in partnership with the Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity at the University of New South Wales and the Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation at the University of Technology Sydney.
  • Salt matters for Pacific Island countries: mobilizing for effective action to reduce population salt intake in the Pacific Island countries – Media & Advocacy Toolkit (2014) (PDF) : The WHO Collaborating Centre for Population Salt Reduction at The George Institute for Global Health, was commissioned by the World Health Organisation Office for the South Pacific, to produce a media and advocacy toolkit that provides people with an interest in public health the information and tools required to implement advocacy activities on salt reduction.
  • Guidelines for road safety around schools (2011) (PDF) : The Northern Territory government commissioned The George Institute for Global Health’s Injury Prevention team to develop guidelines, based on those from Western Australia, to support road safety around schools. Following in-depth interviews with key stakeholders and review of current literature, these guidelines were designed for use by local road authorities, teachers, school staff and councils. Essentially, in keeping with a safe system approach, the guidelines aimed to inform key stakeholders how to create a safer environment for children to travel to and from school.

Commissioned Research Advisory Group

The purpose of this group is to provide high-level advice on the approach to commissioned research including structures, processes, procedures; strategic direction for the Commissioned Research Program; input into large tender bids and other relevant contract pieces.

Current members:

  • Professor Christine Jenkins
  • Professor David Peiris
  • Associate Professor Laurent Billot
  • Associate Professor Martin Gallagher
  • Professor Rebecca Ivers
  • Professor Stephen Jan

Commissioned Research Working Group

The purpose of this group is to work collaboratively with teams across the organisation; providing support and building capacity for undertaking contract research and other related activities at The George. This group will contribute to progressing the development of structures, processes, procedures and staff development; and potentially large tender bids and other contract work.

  • Dr Candice Delcourt
  • Dr Jacqui Webster
  • Dr Jason Wu
  • Dr Kate Hunter
  • Ms Keziah Bennett-Brook
  • Dr Kris Rogers
  • Associate Professor Maree Hackett
  • Dr Sradha Kotwal
  • Dr Thomas Lung

Import Page Template

blog

  • Our Strategy
  • Sally Guyer
  • Tim Cummins
  • Julian Davis
  • Julia Duryee
  • Katheryn Lacey
  • Nikki Mackay
  • Our Governance
  • Association Objectives
  • Latest Research
  • Commissioned & Partnered Research
  • Capability Maturity Analysis & Benchmark
  • Contract Design & Simplification
  • Competency Management Program
  • Contract Terms Analysis & Benchmark
  • Contracting Health Check
  • Contracting Standards
  • Contracting Principles
  • SaaS Contracting Guide
  • Contract Design Pattern Library
  • Software Comparison Tool
  • Tips and Checklists
  • Content Hub
  • News from WorldCC
  • Commitment Matters
  • Stronger Together
  • Contracting Excellence Journal
  • Fundamentals of Commercial & Contract Management
  • Commercial & Contract Management Certification
  • Supplier Relationship Management Certification
  • Modern Procurement Programs
  • Statement of Work
  • Managing Contracts Virtually
  • Negotiation Master Classes
  • Commercial Awareness Program
  • Contract Management MOOC
  • Business Ethics
  • Relational Contracting
  • Contract Design Workshops
  • Agility Workshops
  • Post Award Excellence
  • Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
  • Apprenticeships
  • Why Choose Commerce and Contracting
  • Career development
  • Secure a job
  • Americas 2024
  • Virtual Events
  • Member Meetings
  • The Negotiation Room
  • Innovation and Excellence Awards
  • Leaders of the Future
  • Innovators of the Future
  • Student Connect
  • Service Provider and Vendor
  • Enterprise and Corporate
  • Academic Symposium
  • Inspiring Women
  • WSCD 2023 on-demand content

Commissioned and Partnered Research

Our access to more than 70,000 commercial and contract professionals provides an unparalleled ability to gather data. We work with business, government, academia, software providers and top consultancies to deliver up-to-the-minute market information and intelligence. 

Sometimes this is commissioned and sometimes done in partnership, for example when applying for research grants. 

commissioned research project meaning

Our approach

Why research is so important .

Having access to accurate data has always been important but until recently, in the fields of commerce and contracting, it was hard to obtain.

Many commercial decisions relied on instinct, guesswork, or very limited sources. Business cases struggled to gain acceptance, decisions were delayed — and in worst cases —  organizations took a wrong direction and were left behind. 

How we can help 

Drawing from our member organizations, individuals, and specialist groups, we can target the right people to assist in your research.  

Interviews, online surveys, roundtable discussions and workshops are among the many ways our members are supported to gather data.

What are we asked to do? 

We conduct research on a wide range of commerce and contract topics.

  • Commissioned research is usually requested by member companies.
  • Partnered research is mostly with universities, business schools, consultancies and can attract funding through research grants. 

Recent examples

Commissioned research.

We undertake a range of research projects for enterprises and corporations. Examples include:-

  • Trends in payment terms and the use of supply chain finance  
  • Supply Management: organizational models and norms 
  • Benchmark of Financial and Risk Terms in Energy Industry Contracts 
  • Digitizing the Commercial Function

Contact us for more information on commissioned research

Capability Maturity Analysis Benchmark

Partnered research

Academic Partners

Partner with us for better research

Need to gather information that is critical to your business? Or looking for a partner to support a research program? 

Our team of researchers and analysts will be delighted to advise on how we can help.

commissioned research project meaning

Tilburg University logo statue

Commissioned research

From large-scale and long-term, involving just a few or many parties, to students’ graduation research. Tilburg University conducts a wide range of commissioned research or research in conjunction with third parties.

Tilburg University's core tasks are academic education and conducting academic research. Our third major mission is providing a social service, or: the transfer of knowledge for the benefit of society. Various institutes and research centers are responsible for this. They conduct commissioned research or research in conjunction with industry, the government and other social organizations.

Read more at the Collaboration page

Tilburg University conducts a wide range of commissioned research or research in conjunction with third parties. From large-scale and long-term, involving just a few or many parties, to students' graduation research. Research always focuses on one or more of the following fields: economics and industry, law, social sciences, communications, culture, philosophy, religion and theology.

Overview of Tilburg University institutes (including research institutes) which conduct research on behalf of industry and organizations from the non-profit sector. Go to the institutes and research groups

Career Portal

For an internship, graduation research, work assignment or (part-time) job. Search in the Career Portal

Search our website

Other sources.

  • Publications
  • Library collection
  • Study guide
  • Univers Online

Find persons

  • Experts & Expertise
  • Press officers

Find organizations

  • Research institutes

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

Log in to your MyESOMAR account

Modal Footer

Resources library by ana.

logo ANA

How to commission research

Date of publication: June 15, 2010

Catalogue: ESOMAR Codes And Guidelines

Author: esomar b.v..

This set of three Guidelines deals with issues that need to be considered when commissioning a marketing research project. Such projects may be carried out by a variety of organizations ranging from individual researchers or consultants to large multi-national companies offering a wide range of services. Throughout these Guidelines, the term agency is used to cover all such possibilities. The main objective of these Guidelines on commissioning research is to assist both client and researcher by reminding them of the various issues involved in specifying and agreeing on a research project. In this way, they seek to reduce the risks of error, omission or misunderstanding and to help to improve the general quality of research projects. They cover a wide range of items and are designed as a guide or aide-memoire to help the parties involved without imposing specific obligations upon them. The need for this publication is probably most acute among inexperienced users of research, but even the most experienced clients and suppliers can benefit from a checklist approach. This is especially the case with international projects, where mistakes and misunderstandings can easily occur in setting up a project at a long-range.

  • Guidelines  
  • Market Research  
  • Problem Definition  
  • Research Buyers  
  • Client-Agency Relationship  
  • Research Industry  
  • English  

commissioned research project meaning

ESOMAR B.V.

This is a long description of some author details.

This could also be of interest:

Research reports, how to commission research (russian), june 15, 2010.

B.V., E. (2010a, June 15). How to commission research (Russian). ANA - ESOMAR. Retrieved February 26, 2024, from

https://ana.esomar.org/documents/how-to-commission-research-russian-

36 questions to help commission neuroscience research

September 1, 2011.

B.V., E. (2011a, September 01). 36 questions to help commission neuroscience research . ANA - ESOMAR. Retrieved February 26, 2024, from

https://ana.esomar.org/documents/36-questions-to-help-commission-neuroscience-research-

Research Papers

Research uses of benefit records of the unemployment insurance commission, catalogue: esomar/wapor congress 1973: the application of market and social research for more efficient planning, author: bernard portis, september 1, 1973.

Portis, B. (1973a, September 01). Research uses of benefit records of the unemployment insurance commission. ANA - ESOMAR. Retrieved February 26, 2024, from

https://ana.esomar.org/documents/research-uses-of-benefit-records-of-the-unemployment-insurance-commission

  • This could also be of interest

B.V., E. (2010a, June 15). How to commission research . ANA - ESOMAR. Retrieved February 26, 2024, from

  • Industry-Government- Academia Collaboration Program
  • Collaborative Research
  • Collaborative Research Courses and Collaborative Research Laboratories
  • Commissioned Research
  • Commissioned Researchers
  • Endowed Chairs and Endowed Research Laboratories
  • Academic Consulting
  • Intellectual Properties
  • Patents (Internal)
  • Software Content
  • Transferring Research Materials(MTA)
  • Available Inventions
  • Regulations
  • FAQ1 Invention at the University
  • FAQ2 The Procedure to make Submission of An Invention to the University
  • FAQ3 Utilization of Intellectual Property
  • FAQ4 Intellectual Property in General
  • FAQ5 An Application after the Publication of an Article in a Periodical or a Presentation at an Academic Conference
  • FAQ6 Material Transfer Agreement
  • Office of Society-Academia Collaboration for Innovation
  • Joint Research Section
  • University Has a Comprehensive (Organizationally-Compatible) Collaborative Research Agreement
  • National Project Section
  • Intellectual Property and Licensing Section
  • Legal Affairs Section
  • Various Projects, etc.
  • International Science Innovation Building
  • Facility Overview
  • Facilities for Long-Term Use
  • Facilities for Temporary Use
  • Event Information
  • Contact Form
  • Industry-Government-Academia Collaboration Program
  • Kyoto University's Office of Society-Academia Collaboration for Innovation

The university can be commissioned by companies to conduct research and then provide them with the results.

commissioned research project meaning

IP Terms and Conditions

In general, any IP developed will be the property of the university.

Kyoto University will provide individual consultation about the utilization of the IP. Utilization by the commissioning company will be handled flexibly, allowing for the company’s preferences, such as the establishment of exclusive rights to utilize the IP.

Tax Incentives

Special R&D tax credit system for open innovation

In the event that a company conducts collaborative research or commissioned research with a university, a certain portion of the experiment and research costs covered by the company can be deducted from corporate tax (income tax).

https://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/economy/Technical_Promotion/index.html

Expenses Required

  • Direct expenses (research costs)

Indirect expenses (management costs) 30% of the direct expenses

Note: Commissioned research does not involve the hosting of a company’s researchers.

Please use this form to contact the SACI.However, the response may be sent from a department/division other than the SACI, such as from another division within the university or from an affiliated company outside the university.

Frequently asked questions

What is a research project.

A research project is an academic, scientific, or professional undertaking to answer a research question . Research projects can take many forms, such as qualitative or quantitative , descriptive , longitudinal , experimental , or correlational . What kind of research approach you choose will depend on your topic.

Frequently asked questions: Writing a research paper

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Formulating a main research question can be a difficult task. Overall, your question should contribute to solving the problem that you have defined in your problem statement .

However, it should also fulfill criteria in three main areas:

  • Researchability
  • Feasibility and specificity
  • Relevance and originality

Research questions anchor your whole project, so it’s important to spend some time refining them.

In general, they should be:

  • Focused and researchable
  • Answerable using credible sources
  • Complex and arguable
  • Feasible and specific
  • Relevant and original

All research questions should be:

  • Focused on a single problem or issue
  • Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources
  • Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints
  • Specific enough to answer thoroughly
  • Complex enough to develop the answer over the space of a paper or thesis
  • Relevant to your field of study and/or society more broadly

Writing Strong Research Questions

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

Your research objectives indicate how you’ll try to address your research problem and should be specific:

Research objectives describe what you intend your research project to accomplish.

They summarize the approach and purpose of the project and help to focus your research.

Your objectives should appear in the introduction of your research paper , at the end of your problem statement .

The main guidelines for formatting a paper in Chicago style are to:

  • Use a standard font like 12 pt Times New Roman
  • Use 1 inch margins or larger
  • Apply double line spacing
  • Indent every new paragraph ½ inch
  • Include a title page
  • Place page numbers in the top right or bottom center
  • Cite your sources with author-date citations or Chicago footnotes
  • Include a bibliography or reference list

To automatically generate accurate Chicago references, you can use Scribbr’s free Chicago reference generator .

The main guidelines for formatting a paper in MLA style are as follows:

  • Use an easily readable font like 12 pt Times New Roman
  • Set 1 inch page margins
  • Include a four-line MLA heading on the first page
  • Center the paper’s title
  • Use title case capitalization for headings
  • Cite your sources with MLA in-text citations
  • List all sources cited on a Works Cited page at the end

To format a paper in APA Style , follow these guidelines:

  • Use a standard font like 12 pt Times New Roman or 11 pt Arial
  • If submitting for publication, insert a running head on every page
  • Apply APA heading styles
  • Cite your sources with APA in-text citations
  • List all sources cited on a reference page at the end

No, it’s not appropriate to present new arguments or evidence in the conclusion . While you might be tempted to save a striking argument for last, research papers follow a more formal structure than this.

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

The conclusion of a research paper has several key elements you should make sure to include:

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

Don’t feel that you have to write the introduction first. The introduction is often one of the last parts of the research paper you’ll write, along with the conclusion.

This is because it can be easier to introduce your paper once you’ve already written the body ; you may not have the clearest idea of your arguments until you’ve written them, and things can change during the writing process .

The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .

A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.

The introduction of a research paper includes several key elements:

  • A hook to catch the reader’s interest
  • Relevant background on the topic
  • Details of your research problem

and your problem statement

  • A thesis statement or research question
  • Sometimes an overview of the paper

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

Support team - Nina

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

  • A world-class citation generator
  • Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
  • Innovative Citation Checker software
  • Professional proofreading services
  • Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

  • PhD dissertations
  • Research proposals
  • Personal statements
  • Admission essays
  • Motivation letters
  • Reflection papers
  • Journal articles
  • Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is also powered by Turnitin software and includes the Turnitin AI Writing Report.

Note that Scribbr’s free AI Detector is not powered by Turnitin, but instead by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

University of Cambridge

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

  • Undergraduate courses
  • Events and open days
  • Fees and finance
  • Postgraduate courses
  • How to apply
  • Postgraduate events
  • Fees and funding
  • International students
  • Continuing education
  • Executive and professional education
  • Courses in education
  • How the University and Colleges work
  • Term dates and calendars
  • Visiting the University
  • Annual reports
  • Equality and diversity
  • A global university
  • Public engagement
  • Give to Cambridge
  • For Cambridge students
  • For our researchers
  • Business and enterprise
  • Colleges & departments
  • Email & phone search
  • Museums & collections
  • Planning your research
  • Setting up contracts
  • Introduction to Contracts
  • Research Operations Office
  • Finding funding overview
  • Major funders overview
  • Research Councils UK overview
  • Research Council Terms and Conditions
  • Charities and Trusts
  • Government and Departments
  • European Funding overview
  • Horizon 2020
  • Knowledge Transfer Partnerships overview
  • How to Apply
  • Internal funding and support overview
  • Research Professional
  • Planning your research overview
  • Writing a proposal
  • Managing risk
  • Due diligence overview
  • About due diligence
  • The Due Diligence Process Step-by-Step
  • Setting up contracts overview
  • Introduction to Contracts overview
  • What is a Research Contract?
  • Why Research Contracts are Important overview
  • Managing Risk
  • Co-ordinating
  • Negotiating Terms
  • Types of Contracts overview
  • Standard Agreements
  • Collaborator Agreements
  • Bespoke Agreements
  • Confidentiality Disclosure Agreement overview
  • Request a CDA Online
  • Materials Transfer Agreement overview
  • Request an Incoming MTA Online
  • Request an Outgoing MTA Online
  • Contracts Handled by ROO
  • Contracts not Handled by ROO
  • Material Transfer Agreement
  • The Process overview
  • Contract vs Terms and Conditions
  • What we Need from You
  • What Happens Next?
  • What are the Main Areas of Negotiation?
  • How Long Does It Take?
  • Contracts Team
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Policies for Research Contracts
  • Managing data
  • Building a team
  • Official Development Assistance (ODA) overview
  • Finding funding and grant application resources for developement research
  • ODA compliance and ODA statement
  • Monitoring ODA compliance
  • Building equitable partnerships
  • Reducing inequalities
  • Gender equality and gender equality statement
  • Open access and data management
  • Preventing harm and safeguarding practices
  • Global Health Research overview
  • Sponsorship, Ethics and Insurance
  • Finance, Contracts, International Partners
  • Country specific information
  • Costing and pricing a project overview
  • Full economic costing
  • Example of a full economic costing
  • Common research funder rules
  • X5 costing tool overview
  • Add new funder, scheme or institution
  • Categories (common values) in X5 overview
  • Equipment type overview
  • External partner
  • Salary scale
  • Rate files in X5
  • Responsibilities of HoD and PI
  • Frequently asked questions overview
  • Step-by-step guide to costing
  • Submitting your grant application overview
  • Applications Deadline Calculator
  • Before you submit your application
  • Standard Application Process
  • Small Application Process
  • Late Applications
  • Support letters from ProVC Research
  • Restricted calls for funding
  • When funders make a decision
  • EC Application Process overview
  • Horizon Europe overview
  • Pillar 1 European Research Council overview
  • ERC Starting Grants
  • ERC Consolidator Grants
  • ERC Advanced Grant
  • Synergy Grants
  • Pillar 1 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions
  • Pillar 2 Thematic Clusters
  • Pillar 3 Innovative Europe
  • Latest EC News
  • General guidance and requirements overview
  • Novelties in Horizon Europe
  • Two-factor Authentication (2FA) on the Funding Portal
  • UKRI Funding Guarantee
  • Gender Equality Plan
  • Horizon 2020 Archive overview
  • Cribsheets for Common Calls overview
  • Cribsheet Archive
  • Work Programme and Calls overview
  • 2018-2020 Drafts
  • University Procedure
  • Costing your EC Application on X5
  • Submitting your EC Application
  • Letters of Intent and Letter of Commitment
  • Useful Information
  • Managing projects and awards overview
  • Winning and activating an award
  • Extending, amending or renewing an existing award
  • Timesheets overview
  • Timesheets for UKRI and Innovate UK
  • Final reporting overview
  • UKRI CoA Award overview
  • Closing an award
  • Managing project finances overview
  • Keeping track of grant spending overview
  • Allowable Costs
  • Invoicing and overdue payments
  • Banking information
  • Research Dashboard
  • Research outcomes and Researchfish
  • Managing EC Funding overview
  • Horizon 2020 overview
  • Participant Portal & Grant Preparation Process
  • Project has been Awarded – What to do
  • Marie Sklodowska-Curie
  • Supplementary guidance on Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) program
  • Staff Costs and Timesheets
  • Activating an Award
  • Depreciation on EC Grants
  • FP7 overview
  • Co-operation overview
  • Project Types
  • Time Cost Procedures
  • EC Budgets & Payments
  • People overview
  • Time Cost Procedure
  • Ideas overview
  • Capacities overview
  • Joint Research Centre
  • Audits overview
  • Types of Audit and their triggers overview
  • Financial Audit
  • Technical Audit
  • General Audit Requirements
  • Financial Audit of EC Projects
  • Single Audit (for US Federal Grants Including NIH)
  • RCUK FAP Audit
  • Financial Audit of Innovate UK grants
  • Transferring an award overview
  • Transferring an Award Out of the University
  • Transferring an Award Into the University
  • Sharing and promoting your research overview
  • Ensuring your research has impact
  • Finding commercial partners and opportunities
  • Policies A-Z overview
  • About overview
  • Bulletin overview
  • Bulletin List
  • Bulletin Search
  • RGUG overview
  • RGUG Archive
  • How to Find us
  • Why Research Contracts are Important
  • Types of Contracts
  • The Process

What is a research contract?

Research contracts are legally binding agreements that govern collaborative research between the University and external organisations, whether those organisations are funding the research or are participating in the conduct of the research itself. Research contracts contain the terms and conditions under which specific research is to be conducted by the University and the external organisation(s).

The University sets up all types of research contracts with a wide range of external organizations including

  • European Commission
  • universities
  • government departments

What kind of research outcomes are covered by research contracts?

The expectation of such research is that scientific understanding will be furthered, or that new conceptual ideas and inventions will be created. Although the actual outcomes of the work will not be known in advance, the results should always be published.

Your contracts team

If you wish to discuss a research contract, please select your relevant School team:

School of Arts and Humanities & Humanities and Social Sciences

School of Biological Sciences

School of Clinical Medicine

School of Physical Sciences

School of Technology

Contact the Research Operations Office

Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 0TX Tel: 01223 333543

Privacy Policy

​ Privacy details

© 2024 University of Cambridge

  • Contact the University
  • Accessibility
  • Freedom of information
  • Privacy policy and cookies
  • Statement on Modern Slavery
  • Terms and conditions
  • University A-Z
  • Undergraduate
  • Postgraduate
  • Research news
  • About research at Cambridge
  • Spotlight on...
  • Privacy Policy
  • SignUp/Login

Research Method

Home » Research Project – Definition, Writing Guide and Ideas

Research Project – Definition, Writing Guide and Ideas

Table of Contents

Research Project

Research Project

Definition :

Research Project is a planned and systematic investigation into a specific area of interest or problem, with the goal of generating new knowledge, insights, or solutions. It typically involves identifying a research question or hypothesis, designing a study to test it, collecting and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions based on the findings.

Types of Research Project

Types of Research Projects are as follows:

Basic Research

This type of research focuses on advancing knowledge and understanding of a subject area or phenomenon, without any specific application or practical use in mind. The primary goal is to expand scientific or theoretical knowledge in a particular field.

Applied Research

Applied research is aimed at solving practical problems or addressing specific issues. This type of research seeks to develop solutions or improve existing products, services or processes.

Action Research

Action research is conducted by practitioners and aimed at solving specific problems or improving practices in a particular context. It involves collaboration between researchers and practitioners, and often involves iterative cycles of data collection and analysis, with the goal of improving practices.

Quantitative Research

This type of research uses numerical data to investigate relationships between variables or to test hypotheses. It typically involves large-scale data collection through surveys, experiments, or secondary data analysis.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research focuses on understanding and interpreting phenomena from the perspective of the people involved. It involves collecting and analyzing data in the form of text, images, or other non-numerical forms.

Mixed Methods Research

Mixed methods research combines elements of both quantitative and qualitative research, using multiple data sources and methods to gain a more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon.

Longitudinal Research

This type of research involves studying a group of individuals or phenomena over an extended period of time, often years or decades. It is useful for understanding changes and developments over time.

Case Study Research

Case study research involves in-depth investigation of a particular case or phenomenon, often within a specific context. It is useful for understanding complex phenomena in their real-life settings.

Participatory Research

Participatory research involves active involvement of the people or communities being studied in the research process. It emphasizes collaboration, empowerment, and the co-production of knowledge.

Research Project Methodology

Research Project Methodology refers to the process of conducting research in an organized and systematic manner to answer a specific research question or to test a hypothesis. A well-designed research project methodology ensures that the research is rigorous, valid, and reliable, and that the findings are meaningful and can be used to inform decision-making.

There are several steps involved in research project methodology, which are described below:

Define the Research Question

The first step in any research project is to clearly define the research question or problem. This involves identifying the purpose of the research, the scope of the research, and the key variables that will be studied.

Develop a Research Plan

Once the research question has been defined, the next step is to develop a research plan. This plan outlines the methodology that will be used to collect and analyze data, including the research design, sampling strategy, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.

Collect Data

The data collection phase involves gathering information through various methods, such as surveys, interviews, observations, experiments, or secondary data analysis. The data collected should be relevant to the research question and should be of sufficient quantity and quality to enable meaningful analysis.

Analyze Data

Once the data has been collected, it is analyzed using appropriate statistical techniques or other methods. The analysis should be guided by the research question and should aim to identify patterns, trends, relationships, or other insights that can inform the research findings.

Interpret and Report Findings

The final step in the research project methodology is to interpret the findings and report them in a clear and concise manner. This involves summarizing the results, discussing their implications, and drawing conclusions that can be used to inform decision-making.

Research Project Writing Guide

Here are some guidelines to help you in writing a successful research project:

  • Choose a topic: Choose a topic that you are interested in and that is relevant to your field of study. It is important to choose a topic that is specific and focused enough to allow for in-depth research and analysis.
  • Conduct a literature review : Conduct a thorough review of the existing research on your topic. This will help you to identify gaps in the literature and to develop a research question or hypothesis.
  • Develop a research question or hypothesis : Based on your literature review, develop a clear research question or hypothesis that you will investigate in your study.
  • Design your study: Choose an appropriate research design and methodology to answer your research question or test your hypothesis. This may include choosing a sample, selecting measures or instruments, and determining data collection methods.
  • Collect data: Collect data using your chosen methods and instruments. Be sure to follow ethical guidelines and obtain informed consent from participants if necessary.
  • Analyze data: Analyze your data using appropriate statistical or qualitative methods. Be sure to clearly report your findings and provide interpretations based on your research question or hypothesis.
  • Discuss your findings : Discuss your findings in the context of the existing literature and your research question or hypothesis. Identify any limitations or implications of your study and suggest directions for future research.
  • Write your project: Write your research project in a clear and organized manner, following the appropriate format and style guidelines for your field of study. Be sure to include an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
  • Revise and edit: Revise and edit your project for clarity, coherence, and accuracy. Be sure to proofread for spelling, grammar, and formatting errors.
  • Cite your sources: Cite your sources accurately and appropriately using the appropriate citation style for your field of study.

Examples of Research Projects

Some Examples of Research Projects are as follows:

  • Investigating the effects of a new medication on patients with a particular disease or condition.
  • Exploring the impact of exercise on mental health and well-being.
  • Studying the effectiveness of a new teaching method in improving student learning outcomes.
  • Examining the impact of social media on political participation and engagement.
  • Investigating the efficacy of a new therapy for a specific mental health disorder.
  • Exploring the use of renewable energy sources in reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change.
  • Studying the effects of a new agricultural technique on crop yields and environmental sustainability.
  • Investigating the effectiveness of a new technology in improving business productivity and efficiency.
  • Examining the impact of a new public policy on social inequality and access to resources.
  • Exploring the factors that influence consumer behavior in a specific market.

Characteristics of Research Project

Here are some of the characteristics that are often associated with research projects:

  • Clear objective: A research project is designed to answer a specific question or solve a particular problem. The objective of the research should be clearly defined from the outset.
  • Systematic approach: A research project is typically carried out using a structured and systematic approach that involves careful planning, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
  • Rigorous methodology: A research project should employ a rigorous methodology that is appropriate for the research question being investigated. This may involve the use of statistical analysis, surveys, experiments, or other methods.
  • Data collection : A research project involves collecting data from a variety of sources, including primary sources (such as surveys or experiments) and secondary sources (such as published literature or databases).
  • Analysis and interpretation : Once the data has been collected, it needs to be analyzed and interpreted. This involves using statistical techniques or other methods to identify patterns or relationships in the data.
  • Conclusion and implications : A research project should lead to a clear conclusion that answers the research question. It should also identify the implications of the findings for future research or practice.
  • Communication: The results of the research project should be communicated clearly and effectively, using appropriate language and visual aids, to a range of audiences, including peers, stakeholders, and the wider public.

Importance of Research Project

Research projects are an essential part of the process of generating new knowledge and advancing our understanding of various fields of study. Here are some of the key reasons why research projects are important:

  • Advancing knowledge : Research projects are designed to generate new knowledge and insights into particular topics or questions. This knowledge can be used to inform policies, practices, and decision-making processes across a range of fields.
  • Solving problems: Research projects can help to identify solutions to real-world problems by providing a better understanding of the causes and effects of particular issues.
  • Developing new technologies: Research projects can lead to the development of new technologies or products that can improve people’s lives or address societal challenges.
  • Improving health outcomes: Research projects can contribute to improving health outcomes by identifying new treatments, diagnostic tools, or preventive strategies.
  • Enhancing education: Research projects can enhance education by providing new insights into teaching and learning methods, curriculum development, and student learning outcomes.
  • Informing public policy : Research projects can inform public policy by providing evidence-based recommendations and guidance on issues related to health, education, environment, social justice, and other areas.
  • Enhancing professional development : Research projects can enhance the professional development of researchers by providing opportunities to develop new skills, collaborate with colleagues, and share knowledge with others.

Research Project Ideas

Following are some Research Project Ideas:

Field: Psychology

  • Investigating the impact of social support on coping strategies among individuals with chronic illnesses.
  • Exploring the relationship between childhood trauma and adult attachment styles.
  • Examining the effects of exercise on cognitive function and brain health in older adults.
  • Investigating the impact of sleep deprivation on decision making and risk-taking behavior.
  • Exploring the relationship between personality traits and leadership styles in the workplace.
  • Examining the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for treating anxiety disorders.
  • Investigating the relationship between social comparison and body dissatisfaction in young women.
  • Exploring the impact of parenting styles on children’s emotional regulation and behavior.
  • Investigating the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions for treating depression.
  • Examining the relationship between childhood adversity and later-life health outcomes.

Field: Economics

  • Analyzing the impact of trade agreements on economic growth in developing countries.
  • Examining the effects of tax policy on income distribution and poverty reduction.
  • Investigating the relationship between foreign aid and economic development in low-income countries.
  • Exploring the impact of globalization on labor markets and job displacement.
  • Analyzing the impact of minimum wage laws on employment and income levels.
  • Investigating the effectiveness of monetary policy in managing inflation and unemployment.
  • Examining the relationship between economic freedom and entrepreneurship.
  • Analyzing the impact of income inequality on social mobility and economic opportunity.
  • Investigating the role of education in economic development.
  • Examining the effectiveness of different healthcare financing systems in promoting health equity.

Field: Sociology

  • Investigating the impact of social media on political polarization and civic engagement.
  • Examining the effects of neighborhood characteristics on health outcomes.
  • Analyzing the impact of immigration policies on social integration and cultural diversity.
  • Investigating the relationship between social support and mental health outcomes in older adults.
  • Exploring the impact of income inequality on social cohesion and trust.
  • Analyzing the effects of gender and race discrimination on career advancement and pay equity.
  • Investigating the relationship between social networks and health behaviors.
  • Examining the effectiveness of community-based interventions for reducing crime and violence.
  • Analyzing the impact of social class on cultural consumption and taste.
  • Investigating the relationship between religious affiliation and social attitudes.

Field: Computer Science

  • Developing an algorithm for detecting fake news on social media.
  • Investigating the effectiveness of different machine learning algorithms for image recognition.
  • Developing a natural language processing tool for sentiment analysis of customer reviews.
  • Analyzing the security implications of blockchain technology for online transactions.
  • Investigating the effectiveness of different recommendation algorithms for personalized advertising.
  • Developing an artificial intelligence chatbot for mental health counseling.
  • Investigating the effectiveness of different algorithms for optimizing online advertising campaigns.
  • Developing a machine learning model for predicting consumer behavior in online marketplaces.
  • Analyzing the privacy implications of different data sharing policies for online platforms.
  • Investigating the effectiveness of different algorithms for predicting stock market trends.

Field: Education

  • Investigating the impact of teacher-student relationships on academic achievement.
  • Analyzing the effectiveness of different pedagogical approaches for promoting student engagement and motivation.
  • Examining the effects of school choice policies on academic achievement and social mobility.
  • Investigating the impact of technology on learning outcomes and academic achievement.
  • Analyzing the effects of school funding disparities on educational equity and achievement gaps.
  • Investigating the relationship between school climate and student mental health outcomes.
  • Examining the effectiveness of different teaching strategies for promoting critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
  • Investigating the impact of social-emotional learning programs on student behavior and academic achievement.
  • Analyzing the effects of standardized testing on student motivation and academic achievement.

Field: Environmental Science

  • Investigating the impact of climate change on species distribution and biodiversity.
  • Analyzing the effectiveness of different renewable energy technologies in reducing carbon emissions.
  • Examining the impact of air pollution on human health outcomes.
  • Investigating the relationship between urbanization and deforestation in developing countries.
  • Analyzing the effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and biodiversity.
  • Investigating the impact of land use change on soil fertility and ecosystem services.
  • Analyzing the effectiveness of different conservation policies and programs for protecting endangered species and habitats.
  • Investigating the relationship between climate change and water resources in arid regions.
  • Examining the impact of plastic pollution on marine ecosystems and biodiversity.
  • Investigating the effects of different agricultural practices on soil health and nutrient cycling.

Field: Linguistics

  • Analyzing the impact of language diversity on social integration and cultural identity.
  • Investigating the relationship between language and cognition in bilingual individuals.
  • Examining the effects of language contact and language change on linguistic diversity.
  • Investigating the role of language in shaping cultural norms and values.
  • Analyzing the effectiveness of different language teaching methodologies for second language acquisition.
  • Investigating the relationship between language proficiency and academic achievement.
  • Examining the impact of language policy on language use and language attitudes.
  • Investigating the role of language in shaping gender and social identities.
  • Analyzing the effects of dialect contact on language variation and change.
  • Investigating the relationship between language and emotion expression.

Field: Political Science

  • Analyzing the impact of electoral systems on women’s political representation.
  • Investigating the relationship between political ideology and attitudes towards immigration.
  • Examining the effects of political polarization on democratic institutions and political stability.
  • Investigating the impact of social media on political participation and civic engagement.
  • Analyzing the effects of authoritarianism on human rights and civil liberties.
  • Investigating the relationship between public opinion and foreign policy decisions.
  • Examining the impact of international organizations on global governance and cooperation.
  • Investigating the effectiveness of different conflict resolution strategies in resolving ethnic and religious conflicts.
  • Analyzing the effects of corruption on economic development and political stability.
  • Investigating the role of international law in regulating global governance and human rights.

Field: Medicine

  • Investigating the impact of lifestyle factors on chronic disease risk and prevention.
  • Examining the effectiveness of different treatment approaches for mental health disorders.
  • Investigating the relationship between genetics and disease susceptibility.
  • Analyzing the effects of social determinants of health on health outcomes and health disparities.
  • Investigating the impact of different healthcare delivery models on patient outcomes and cost effectiveness.
  • Examining the effectiveness of different prevention and treatment strategies for infectious diseases.
  • Investigating the relationship between healthcare provider communication skills and patient satisfaction and outcomes.
  • Analyzing the effects of medical error and patient safety on healthcare quality and outcomes.
  • Investigating the impact of different pharmaceutical pricing policies on access to essential medicines.
  • Examining the effectiveness of different rehabilitation approaches for improving function and quality of life in individuals with disabilities.

Field: Anthropology

  • Analyzing the impact of colonialism on indigenous cultures and identities.
  • Investigating the relationship between cultural practices and health outcomes in different populations.
  • Examining the effects of globalization on cultural diversity and cultural exchange.
  • Investigating the role of language in cultural transmission and preservation.
  • Analyzing the effects of cultural contact on cultural change and adaptation.
  • Investigating the impact of different migration policies on immigrant integration and acculturation.
  • Examining the role of gender and sexuality in cultural norms and values.
  • Investigating the impact of cultural heritage preservation on tourism and economic development.
  • Analyzing the effects of cultural revitalization movements on indigenous communities.

About the author

' src=

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Paper Conclusion

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Appendices

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Research Report

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

Delimitations

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Scope of the Research

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Research Contribution

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

U.S. flag

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
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Res Involv Engagem
  • PMC10264875

Logo of rie

Reflections of patient and public involvement from a commissioned research project evaluating a nationally implemented NHS programme focused on diabetes prevention

Rhiannon e. hawkes.

1 Division of Psychology and Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Caroline Sanders

2 Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR PSTRC), Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Claudia Soiland-Reyes

3 Research & Innovation, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK

4 North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Bolton, UK

Lisa Brunton

5 Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester (NIHR ARC GM), Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Kelly Howells

Sarah cotterill.

6 Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Centre for Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Carole Bennett

7 DIPLOMA Patient and Public Involvement Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Eric Lowndes

Manoj mistry, helen wallworth, peter bower, associated data.

Not applicable.

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in research is recognised by the National Institute for Health and Care Research as crucial for high quality research with practical benefit for patients and carers. Patient and public contributors can provide both personal knowledge and lived experiences which complement the perspectives of the academic research team. Nevertheless, effective PPIE must be tailored to the nature of the research, such as the size and scope of the research, whether it is researcher-led or independently commissioned, and whether the research aims to design an intervention or evaluate it. For example, commissioned research evaluations have potential limits on how PPIE can feed into the design of the research and the intervention. Such constraints may require re-orientation of PPIE input to other functions, such as supporting wider engagement and dissemination. In this commentary, we use the ‘Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public’ (GRIPP2) short form to share our own experiences of facilitating PPIE for a large, commissioned research project evaluating the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme; a behavioural intervention for adults in England who are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The programme was already widely implemented in routine practice when the research project and PPIE group were established. This commentary provides us with a unique opportunity to reflect on experiences of being part of a PPIE group in the context of a longer-term evaluation of a national programme, where the scope for involvement in the intervention design was more constrained, compared to PPIE within researcher-led intervention programmes. We reflect on PPIE in the design, analysis and dissemination of the research, including lessons learned for future PPIE work in large-scale commissioned evaluations of national programmes. Important considerations for this type of PPIE work include: ensuring the role of public contributors is clarified from the outset, the complexities of facilitating PPIE over longer project timeframes, and providing adequate support to public contributors and facilitators (including training, resources and flexible timelines) to ensure an inclusive and considerate approach. These findings can inform future PPIE plans for stakeholders involved in commissioned research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-023-00447-0.

This commentary uses the ‘Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public’ checklist to describe the activities and lessons learned from the work of a Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) group working with researchers evaluating the National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme (a nine-month behavioural support programme offered to adults who are at risk of developing type 2 diabetes). The evaluation aimed to find out if the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme was meeting its aim of reducing type 2 diabetes whilst offering value for money. The PPIE group was made up of members of the public who were either living with diabetes, at risk of diabetes, or had a family history of diabetes. Their aim was to support the work of the research team to identify research priorities, design the research, clarify the meaning of the research results, and help communicate the results to the wider public. However, given that the programme was an NHS service already being delivered in practice, there were limits to what the PPIE group could do in terms of designing the intervention. Instead, our public contributors were involved in all stages of conducting the research, with greater focus on communication of findings from the research evaluation. This report provides an opportunity to reflect on PPIE in a longer-term evaluation of a national programme and reflect on involvement in dissemination and policy impact. We hope that future evaluation programmes can learn from our experiences and optimise PPIE for similar national evaluations.

Patient and public involvement and engagement

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) is defined by INVOLVE (now known as the National Institute for Health and Care Research [NIHR] Centre for Engagement and Dissemination) as “research carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public who are actively involved in the research projects” [ 1 ]. Public involvement is now an essential requirement for research funded by NIHR in the United Kingdom (UK) and for funders globally [ 2 – 4 ], to ensure that research is of high quality and of practical benefit [ 1 ].

Involving members of the public in research improves both quality and relevance of the research. They provide both personal knowledge and experiences of using a service or living with a health condition, which complements that of the research team [ 1 , 5 ]. In addition to being adequately supported financially, effective PPIE needs to be tailored to the nature of the research, such as the size and scope of the research, whether the research is researcher-led or independently commissioned by a research funder, and whether the research aims to design an intervention or evaluate it. For example, independent commissioned research evaluations may have limits on how PPIE can inform the design of the intervention when it is already implemented in routine practice. Thus, ensuring a PPIE strategy is in place is important for all types of health research, including diabetes [ 6 ].

We reflect on PPIE work conducted as part of an independent commissioned research evaluation called ‘DIPLOMA’ (Diabetes Prevention Long-term Multimethod Assessment) evaluating the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (see Box ​ Box1 1 for more information about the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme and Box ​ Box2 2 for more information about DIPLOMA). The DIPLOMA PPIE group is the focus of this commentary, which has been co-authored with members of the group. The PPIE members’ experiences are included throughout the article and are reflected using the terms ‘we’ and ‘our’.

The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme

The DIPLOMA research project

Focus of this commentary

This commentary uses the ‘Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public’ (GRIPP2) short form checklist, a tool for reporting of PPIE in health and social care [ 13 ], and applies it to PPIE in the DIPLOMA research project. GRIPP2 was developed to enhance the quality and transparency of the evidence base for PPIE, so that readers can learn from PPIE in other studies and understand what the result of this involvement was [ 13 ]. The short checklist encourages research teams to report five topics: aims, methods, study results, discussion, and reflections of PPIE in research (Additional File 1 ). We reflect on what went well and the challenges we faced, so that others can learn from our experiences. In particular, we reflect on the challenges and lessons learned in facilitating PPIE involvement in commissioned research for a longer-term evaluation of a programme that was already implemented as an NHS service.

We also reflect on collaboration in terms of recently published UK standards for effective PPIE [ 14 ]. These six standards list a clear set of statements for effective public involvement and encourages behaviours such as flexibility, sharing and learning, and respect for others. Two of the UK standards that are particularly relevant in relation to research evaluations closely connected to national policy are ‘communications’ and ‘impact’ [ 14 ]. We hope that other researchers, members of the public and research funders can learn from our experiences and optimise public involvement for similar national evaluations.

Public involvement and engagement in the DIPLOMA research project reported using GRIPP2

The aim of the PPIE involvement group in the DIPLOMA research project was for the research team to work collaboratively with public contributors to identify research priorities, design the research, analyse and interpret the results and disseminate research findings to lay audiences, ensuring that patients and the public were informed about ongoing developments throughout the life of the DIPLOMA evaluation. In addition to the PPIE group, DIPLOMA recruited two lay members to our Study Steering Committee (SSC) group, whose role was, together with external clinicians and expert researchers, to provide overall supervision for the project on behalf of the NIHR [ 15 ]. The work of the SSC lay members is not part of this commentary.

Pre-funding: identifying research priorities

Prior to funding for DIPLOMA, patients and the public were actively involved in preparing the application for this programme of research. An advert was circulated via an existing PPIE group and via a PPIE network. The research team recruited six people (living with diabetes, at risk, or with family history), varying in age, gender, ethnicity and disabilities. Researchers provided a summary of the research plans and asked what they would like to know about the effectiveness of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme, services, organisations and participants. Many responses mapped onto the team’s existing questions, including: effect on diabetes prevention and other health outcomes; cost effectiveness; equal access; and understanding implementation and service delivery. New topics were suggested that were added to potential research plans: choice of service, and ability to cope with the risk of diabetes; the impact of wider social networks on uptake; change in GP referrals over time; take-up by people with new diagnosis or established conditions; and clarity of information provided at time of referral.

Post-funding: involvement in the DIPLOMA research project

PPIE in the DIPLOMA project is summarised in Table ​ Table1. 1 . Five of the six public contributors involved in developing the research priorities pre-funding continued their involvement when DIPLOMA was funded. The involvement of public contributors in the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme design was somewhat limited given that (a) this was a commissioned research evaluation where funders set out a broad outline to answer specific research questions, and (b) the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme was already implemented in routine practice. Since the aim of DIPLOMA was to provide recommendations for the wider implementation of the programme to improve outcomes for patients, we therefore planned to have an equal focus on public ‘engagement’ to disseminate the research findings to members of the public throughout the DIPLOMA project, keeping members of the public informed of the findings through blogs, videos and lay summaries. DIPLOMA had therefore budgeted for engagement activities throughout the duration of the research, an example of a best practice activity to support stakeholder engagement [ 16 ].

Involvement of Public Contributors in the DIPLOMA Research Project

Study results

PPIE contribution was specifically for the DIPLOMA project, rather than for the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme, as the service had already been developed and was implemented in routine practice at the time of the research evaluation. Therefore, public contributors were involved during all phases of the research, from the design and preparation of studies, conduct and implementation, and dissemination of research findings [ 15 ].

Design of research studies

Prior to the start of DIPLOMA, the research team worked with six members of the public in writing the funding bid: they raised new ideas about what research questions we should ask, advised the team about how to involve people in the study, and suggested the important role the public can have in engagement. Once the PPIE group was set up, members provided input on the wording of study materials including, but not limited to: topic guides, consent forms, information sheets and study questionnaires to ensure these were understandable and written in Plain English. Members also helped the researchers identify other areas of exploration to ask during participant interviews. For example, for one of the research topic guides the group suggested that it would be beneficial to ask the interviewees if they felt their expectations of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme had been met, and the group also highlighted that interviewees may need breaks factored into the interview. Researchers have also explored recruitment procedures with the PPIE group; we have provided suggestions for strategies such as approaching charities and places of worship, displaying posters in GP surgeries, and posting on social media platforms and specific online groups. As public contributors, being involved early during the research studies ensured that the research was acceptable to potential participants, and is considered a best practice approach [ 16 ].

Data analysis and interpretation

Some of our PPIE group have been involved in early stages of qualitative data analysis, for example, reading through a sample of anonymised transcripts of healthcare professional referrals of patients onto the programme, and providing their views on developing themes. Members of our group have also commented on quantitative results from studies, which can be more difficult to convey to a lay audience. For example, researchers asked the PPIE group on their interpretations of quality-of-life data from the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme.

Researchers from all DIPLOMA work packages have presented findings to the PPIE group at various stages of the evaluation, and we have provided feedback and further interpretation of the findings. Members have fed back on the terminology used and some of the graphs which were too technical for lay members to understand initially. The researchers produced alternative presentation formats, which the PPIE group fed back on. This regular dialogue between the research team and PPIE group [ 16 ] ensured we were able to input on study results, provide interpretations of results, and suggest ways to present the results and complicated statistics to a wider audience.

The PPIE group have also advised on analysis plans, for example, analysis of uptake to the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme. This dataset included data fields collected by primary care when patients registered on the programme. Some of our group highlighted that religious reasons for declining the programme and the time of year that the programme was declined (e.g., to account for religious holidays) were also important considerations for programme uptake, which was not captured in the dataset that the DIPLOMA research team had access to. In this case, the PPIE group provided valuable insight about how data collection for uptake could be optimised. However, it was not in the remit of the research team to make these direct changes and we could only feedback to commissioners.

Dissemination of research findings

Our PPIE group were passionate about getting involved in raising awareness about diabetes prevention. For example, we raised ideas about wider community engagement and making information as accessible as possible, especially in communities and networks where there would likely be more risks related to inequalities in diabetes and challenges for addressing this. However, it was out of the remit of the research team to ‘promote’ the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme, although the PPIE group were able to provide valuable input for communications and dissemination of DIPLOMA findings.

Over the five-year project, we have collaborated with video producers, illustrators and scriptwriters to create a range of accessible web-based videos to promote public engagement of different aspects of DIPLOMA. This has included three animation videos describing (a) the planned DIPLOMA evaluation at the start of the project [ 18 ], (b) the overall research findings at the end of the project [ 19 ], and (c) information about making changes to health behaviours [ 20 ]. We have also co-produced two ‘Talking Heads’ videos [ 21 , 22 ]; the first video summarised a qualitative study on how service users understood their type 2 diabetes risk [ 23 ], and the second video summarised research on service user take-up and experiences of the NHS Digital Diabetes Prevention Programme [ 24 ]. These have been disseminated in the public domain (e.g., via social media channels and NHS England Health Care Innovation Expo). The PPIE group co-produced the video scripts, inputted into the storyboards, and provided feedback on the overall ‘look and feel’ of the videos to ensure they were appealing and understandable for the public. We also featured in some of these videos.

The group have also co-produced lay summaries of studies, working closely with DIPLOMA researchers. This again ensured that our research findings were of wider interest to a non-academic audience. We have worked with an illustrator to produce illustrated summaries to disseminate research findings in different formats for diverse audiences. Disseminating research to the general public was particularly important for DIPLOMA, given that it was taxpayer’s money subsidising both the research and the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme, and patients and the public have a right to influence what is supported [ 25 ]. We have provided feedback on how to optimise engagement and understanding of these materials for a lay audience, particularly commenting on use of complex statistics and acronyms. PPIE members have also written blogs about their experiences of involvement in evaluations of national programmes [ 26 , 27 ].

Discussion and conclusions

PPIE has been vital throughout the life of the DIPLOMA evaluation, from study design through to dissemination of findings. As public contributors, we have provided a unique and broader perspective on the work, which increased the potential of the DIPLOMA research to meet the needs of patients and members of the public.

However, PPIE contribution for a commissioned research evaluation of an NHS service already implemented had unique challenges. For example, there have been several occasions where the PPIE group have provided valuable feedback on the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme, but it was not within the remit of the DIPLOMA research team to make changes to the programme itself. The purpose of the PPIE group was instead to support a research evaluation of an intervention developed by a third party, rather than supporting a research project designing the intervention; an approach much less direct than what some contributors might have been used to. The literature on public involvement has previously identified that one of the most common issues in PPIE work is unclear definition of roles and expectations of public contributors [ 25 ]; this could have been better addressed in DIPLOMA and we further reflect on this below.

Given that there was less scope for our PPIE group to provide direct feedback on the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme itself, we were keen to give at least equal focus to ‘engagement’ as well as ‘involvement’, to produce accessible materials on findings for the public. We view this as a particular strength of our approach as this gave the PPIE a higher profile than might be the case with other research projects. Reflecting on the UK standards for PPIE [ 14 ], we were involved in developing a high number of accessible co-produced communications for a high profile policy-related national programme [ 18 – 22 ], demonstrating a clear focus on both ‘communications’ and ‘impact’ [ 14 ]. However, engagement work also came with its own challenges to ensure we kept a clear distinction between dissemination of the research findings and ‘promotion’ of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme.

Finally, national evaluations of programmes such as the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme are often of greater complexity in terms of methods and data analyses, as was the case for DIPLOMA. For example, this research involved complex health economics and effectiveness analyses, and some public contributors found it more challenging to get involved in these quantitative components. This highlights an example of why there is a greater need for support, resources and training for both public contributors and group facilitators in large commissioned research projects such as DIPLOMA, and PPIE input on these components can take considerable time for all team members. A previous commentary on PPIE contribution in diabetes research has discussed ways in which they have achieved this, such as yearly training on research methods though interactive quizzes for patients [ 6 ]. In relation to the UK PPIE standards [ 14 ], there could have been some further learning and development opportunities identified for both PPIE contributors and the research team to help facilitate this challenge in DIPLOMA. However, the researchers very much valued the input from our PPIE group on presenting the research findings in a way that was more understandable for lay audiences, and PPIE feedback was taken on board.

Reflections/critical perspective

Our PPIE group agreed that being involved in DIPLOMA was a positive experience where we felt listened to and our feedback was incorporated throughout the entire project; we discussed our views during a meeting specifically organised to reflect on each aspect of the research evaluation. Being part of this research team gave the opportunity for members to learn about how academic research is conducted. Importantly, it also increased our awareness of the constraints involved in both academic research and the implementation of programmes such as the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme.

Lessons learned in the transition to online meetings

Partway through the project, the Covid-19 pandemic changed the way we were able to work together; it was no longer possible to meet in-person, thus we decided to use a video conferencing platform to host meetings. Although the group have missed face-to-face meetings, there have been some advantages to online meetings and this new way of working. For example, travelling to the university campus for in-person meetings was at times daunting for some members, and could take up a substantial amount of their day for a two-hour meeting. Online meetings have been more time efficient and cost-effective. Thus, the group reflected the importance of still meeting up in-person, whilst also embracing this new way of working online. Similar issues of adapting to PPIE during the pandemic have been discussed in more depth elsewhere [ 28 ].

However, this new way of working together has taught the research team some lessons which we will learn from. For example, one of our public contributors did not have access to a camera for the online meetings, which made both visual communication and feeling included difficult for this individual. It was correctly highlighted by another member of our PPIE group that such access issues would not arise in a face-to-face environment, as every effort would have been made to help members ‘get into the room’. Whilst online working was new to all of the research team during the Covid-19 pandemic, it is something we have now all become accustomed to. On reflection, this would have been an issue easily dealt with by the research team to ensure all PPIE members had equality of access and inclusive opportunities; one of the UK standards of PPIE [ 14 ]. The option to also receive some training or practice of how to use video conferencing during the transition to online meetings could have been another way to ensure the PPIE group felt included and confident in participating in online meetings and is recognised as a best practice activity for stakeholder involvement [ 16 ].

Challenges of being part of a longer-term research project

Our group appreciated timely and effective communication from the research team, even when all communication transferred online. However, DIPLOMA has faced its unique challenges due to the project being a lengthy and complicated programme of research, and much longer in comparison to some research projects. This resulted in a lack of continuity of researchers taking on a facilitator role over such a long programme of work, with three different PPIE research facilitators during the five-year project (REH, LB and KH), and a turnover of PPIE contributors, both of which had an impact on continuity and group dynamics. Although this was unavoidable, this had at times resulted in unintended consequences. Firstly, there was a loss of contact with original members of the PPIE group who stepped away from the group due to health issues. Secondly, newer members recruited to the PPIE group later in the project had to quickly understand and deal with the complexities of the different work packages in DIPLOMA. Although the research team provided an introduction to the DIPLOMA research when new members of the PPIE group joined, there was a lot of information for new members to take on board for a large project.

Despite DIPLOMA being a complex project with eight work packages, our group felt that the work packages had been usefully broken up to ease understanding. However, some members reported to not always comprehend where their contribution fitted into the wider project. Although during early PPIE meetings there was discussion of timelines to help show where PPIE would be sought at different time points, these had been somewhat impacted by the switch to working online. As with other policy programmes, the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme had shifting timelines beyond the control of the research team, which made PPIE work more complex.

It was also noted that at times the duration between the meetings were too long. This led to members forgetting about some of the previous work; a particular difficulty of facilitating PPIE for a longer-term evaluation. To mitigate this, a meeting schedule could have been planned in advance for upcoming months of PPIE meetings to reduce the time between meetings when trying to find suitable dates to accommodate the group. Although the above highlights a general issue in PPIE work about desires to avoid burdening the group compared with neglecting the group [ 29 ], a more formal procedure could have been put in place for public contributors to regularly feedback any potential issues to the research team so that they could be detected earlier on during the research evaluation. For example, PPIE contribution in diabetes research has previously reported an anonymous survey to work well in obtaining feedback from the group [ 6 ].

Challenges of being part of a national evaluation of a commissioned NHS service

Some of our group reflected on the difficulties of PPIE contribution for a research project where the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme was already in service, rather than an intervention being developed by the research team. It was at times frustrating for PPIE members when we were not able to have a direct impact on the design and delivery of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme. Although views were noted and could be fed back to commissioners, the research team had a mediating role between the PPIE group and programme developers. On reflection, the research team could have better explained at the outset to the group what was (not) in the remit of DIPLOMA to ensure better expectation management for working together [ 14 ]. The clarification of roles of public contributors in research is discussed in the literature [ 25 , 29 ] and described as a best practice activity which should be established early on during the research project [ 15 ].

We also reflected on our input on the public engagement resources produced by DIPLOMA, including the blogs and videos. We discussed that DIPLOMA has been successful in informing the public via the PPIE group about the research, which were seen as examples of genuine collaboration. However, it was noted that getting this information out to the general public is a more difficult task, as there is already a lot of information on social media about diabetes and uptake on some of these resources was lower than we had hoped. This was anticipated to be a challenge, given that most people seeking diabetes resources would be looking for help and support with their self-management rather than research on that issue, and thus our expectations on resource uptake were modest.

Considerations prior to the commencement of research

The use of the project name ‘DIPLOMA’ was confusing for us as public contributors, as the acronym bears no meaning with the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme. Such acronyms used by academics can hinder understanding among public contributors; for example, when PPIE members tried to find out more information about the DIPLOMA project, internet searches brought up information about education courses rather than the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme. It was reflected that although project acronyms can ease communication internally within the research team, it may not be an accessible shorthand for public contributors, and the wider public, to understand. Going forward, it was discussed that any acronyms and project names could be agreed at the start of the project with the PPIE group who are an integral part of the team and need to be comfortable with using them.

The PPIE group were paid for their involvement throughout DIPLOMA, in line with NIHR guidance [ 17 ]. However, one of our PPIE members experienced difficulties in receiving cash reimbursements as this was considered as income by their local Job Centre office, and hence impacted the benefits they were entitled to receive. Alternative arrangements were therefore put in place by the PPIE facilitator to provide payment to this member using vouchers instead. This, however, took considerable time to put in place and the PPIE member received a late payment as a result. Researchers should consider ensuring that they include arrangements in their PPIE strategy for the option to pay public contributors in vouchers, prior to receiving project funding.

Involvement with different aspects of the research project

The group have enjoyed being involved in so many aspects of the research, from commenting on study materials (e.g., topic guides, questionnaires) to involvement with the public engagement work. We appreciated how researchers genuinely involved us in every area of the project, as well as the positive feedback on our involvement from the research team, which made our hard work and contributions feel appreciated; an example where the group have worked together towards a common purpose and respected different perspectives [ 14 ].

When asked to review study materials, our group appreciated the flexibility of the timings to review documents, especially if some members were unable to meet deadlines due to personal circumstances (e.g., caring responsibilities, health reasons). In line with the inclusive opportunities standard of the recently developed framework [ 14 ], providing this flexibility meant that all voices were still heard and provided a more inclusive and considerate approach. Being part of this PPIE group allowed members to contribute to research where we felt we were really making a difference, especially those members who have experience of pre-diabetes and diabetes either personally or within their family. It was felt that comments were taken on board and voices were heard, which felt like ‘true PPIE’ rather than just a tick box exercise.

Conclusions and recommendations

This commentary has reflected on the PPIE contribution to the DIPLOMA evaluation of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme. Based on our learning, we have put together recommendations for other research teams involved in longer-term commissioned research projects like DIPLOMA (see Table ​ Table2), 2 ), in addition to what NIHR already advise as best practice in involving members of the public in research [ 30 ]. Many of our reflections correspond with those previously identified in research involving patients and members of the public [ 6 , 16 , 31 ]. However, we have added a unique reflection of PPIE contribution for a longer-term commissioned research evaluation of an NHS service that was already implemented in routine practice, which comes with its own challenges. These reflections and recommendations provide insights to inform future PPIE plans for stakeholders involved in commissioned research evaluations.

Recommendations for PPIE in commissioned research evaluations of nationally implemented programmes

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our thanks to all public contributors, past and present, who have been involved in any aspect of the DIPLOMA research programme, including those involved in the Study Steering Committee Group. We would also like to acknowledge the video producers, scriptwriters and illustrators who have worked with us throughout the DIPLOMA project to create the high quality public engagement materials alongside our PPIE group.

Abbreviations

Author contributions.

PB, CS and SC secured funding for the DIPLOMA project. PB and CSR had overall responsibility for the PPIE group. MM, EL, HW and CB were all members of the DIPLOMA PPIE group. PB, CS, CSR, SC, KH, LB and REH all had responsibilities for the facilitation of the PPIE group throughout the project duration. REH prepared the manuscript. All authors contributed substantively and read and approved the final manuscript.

The PPIE group was funded as part of the DIPLOMA research programme. This work is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (The Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR) Programme, 16/48/07—Evaluating the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP): the DIPLOMA research programme (Diabetes Prevention—Long Term Multimethod Assessment)). The views and opinions expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Institute for Health and Care Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

The DIPLOMA research programme received ethical approval by the North West Greater Manchester East NHS Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 17/NW/0426, 1st August 2017), but ethical approval was not required for the DIPLOMA PPIE group specifically. However, the group provided consent for the research team to securely store some of the personal data (contact details) for the purposes of communication and facilitating reimbursement for their time.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

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

CultureHive

Commissioning market research – writing a research brief

By liz hill.

Writing a research brief

Having identified the problems that have led to a need for information, the next step is to prepare a research brief that will help the researcher to design a suitable research methodology. The brief should include background material that helps the researcher understand why the project has come about, including the research problem and research decisions to be made. It should include an indication of the type of people whose views should be sought during the research (known as ‘the population’) and details of the information that must be generated.

Many arts organisations will feel sufficiently unclear about all this to want some help preparing a brief. Indeed the process of identifying research problems and information needs can be extremely complex for large projects, and taking advice from consultants who can help with this process (not necessarily the consultants or researchers who will ultimately conduct the research) can save time and money later on. It will also ensure that you fully understand the task that you want your researchers to undertake before you begin the process of selecting and commissioning them. Structure of a brief

A document containing the sections indicated below would be a useful starting point for a researcher trying to prepare an appropriate research brief.

  • Elements of a research brief
  • Background information about the organisation
  • Purpose of the research
  • Aims - why is information needed and what will the research findings be used for?
  • Objectives - what do you want to know when the research findings are reported?
  • Information needs - what, in particular, do you need to find out about?
  • Population and segments of interest - whose responses are you interested in?
  • Timescale - by when must the research be completed?
  • Budget - what is the maximum sum that will be spent on this research?
  • Reporting - in what form must the findings be reported?
  • Closing date for proposals - until when will research proposals be accepted?
  • Contact name and number - who can provide further information or clarify the brief?

This section should provide the prospective researcher with key information about your organisation - anything that helps someone outside the organisation understand its mission, the customer groups it serves, the products and services it produces or supplies, and the departments, funders and other stakeholders who may be interested in the research findings.

For example, it may be that the research is to be used in support of a bid for funding, or as supporting evidence in discussions with potential sponsors. Researchers need to know both the explicit and the hidden agendas for the research, if any, before they start. Download the guide to read more: Commissioning market research - writing a research brief (PDF)

commissioned research project meaning

Research brief samples

commissioned research project meaning

A guide on when to use qualitative or quantitative market research

Go to the homepage

Example sentences commission research

When a company spots a trend, it should commission research to test consumer opinions, she advised.
We need to commission research to pilot new teaching methods in schools that better reflect the developmental profile of young people.
Over the past 15 years, the government's main response has been to commission research .
It will use academic literature, commission research and take evidence from the public.
That money was to be used to commission research into gaming, for education and treatment.

Definition of 'commission' commission

IPA Pronunciation Guide

Definition of 'research' research

B1+

COBUILD Collocations commission research

Browse alphabetically commission research.

  • commission recommendation
  • commission recommends
  • commission report
  • commission research
  • commission revenue
  • commission rules
  • commission staff
  • All ENGLISH words that begin with 'C'

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

Tile

Wordle Helper

Tile

Scrabble Tools

Horizon IP Scan – A Successful IP Advisory Service for European SMEs Involved in Collaborative R&I Projects

The main results and lessons learnt from the provision of Horizon IP Scan services have been analysed and summarised in a study report. The Horizon IP Scan was a pilot operating from November 2020 until November 2023. The service helped European start-ups and SMEs involved in EU-funded collaborative research projects to efficiently develop and implement strategies to valorise intellectual assets generated in collaborative R&I activities. Over 350 SMEs involved in collaborative Horizon 2020/Europe and Eureka projects benefitted from the comprehensive service offered by a larger team of international IP experts.

The service was aligned with the strategic objectives outlined in the EU IP Action Plan , particularly in its efforts to promote the effective use and deployment of intellectual property (IP), specifically by small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Furthermore, its objectives were fully in line with the Guiding Principles for Knowledge Valorisation , which aim to enhance the socioeconomic impact of research and innovation (R&I) endeavours.

Horizon IP Scan adhered to its mandate of assisting SMEs in shifting away from perceiving intellectual property rights (IPR) merely for securing business assets and instead promote a better understanding of developing comprehensive and impactful intellectual assets management strategies for value creation. Horizon IP Scan referred to key elements of the Code of practice on the management of intellectual assets for knowledge valorisation , such as clarifying IP ownership and defining clear collaboration conditions for exploitation pathways.

As a main outcome, the service raised awareness of IP-related issues and identified areas for improvement with respect to the development and management of intellectual assets management strategies. This helped SMEs to gain a clearer picture of their intellectual assets portfolio and associated strategies, and hence enter into the collaborative R&I project with more confidence while understanding the importance of discussing (joint) intellectual assets strategies as early as possible.

The Study Report provides a brief statistical analysis of Horizon IP Scan applicant profiles, and includes insights about challenges, and blocking and enabling factors to run the service in the given format. Moreover, the report highlights motivations of SMEs to apply for the service and provides insights into main IP challenges faced by SMEs when participating in collaborative Horizon 2020/Horizon Europe projects.

2024 LIFE - Calls for proposals

Life calls for proposals 2024.

The LIFE Calls for proposals 2024 are expected to be published on the  Funding & tender opportunities portal  on 18 April 2024. 

CINEA will hold virtual information sessions from 23 to 26 April 2024 to guide potential applicants through the LIFE Calls for proposals 2024. See the  LIFE YouTube channel  for previous  recordings .  

Anticipated submission deadlines

Standard Action Projects (SAPs) for circular economy and quality of life Deadline date: 19 September 2024 

Standard Action Projects (SAPs) for nature and biodiversity Deadline date: 19 September 2024 

Standard Action Projects (SAPs) for climate change mitigation and adaptation Deadline date: 17 September 2024   

Coordination and Support Action Grants (CSA) for clean energy transition sub-programme Deadline date: 19 September 2024

  • Concept notes:  Deadline date: 5 September 2024 
  • Full proposals:  Deadline date: 6 March 2025  

Technical Assistance preparation for SIPs and SNAPs: Deadline date: 19 September 2024    

Technical Assistance Replication Deadline date: 19 September 2024  

Framework Partnership Agreements (FPA OG)  Deadline date: 5 September 2024

Specific Operating Grant Agreements (SGA OG)  Deadline date: 17 September 2024 

LIFE Preparatory Projects (addressing ad hoc Legislative and Policy Priorities - PLP) Deadline date: 19 September 2024 

Type of grants

Standard action projects (sap).

Projects, other than strategic integrated projects, strategic nature projects or technical assistance projects, that pursue the specific objectives of the LIFE programme.

Strategic Nature Projects (SNAP)

Projects that support the achievement of Union nature and biodiversity objectives by implementing coherent programmes of action in Member States in order to mainstream those objectives and priorities into other policies and financing instruments, including through coordinated implementation of the prioritised action frameworks adopted pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC.

Strategic Integrated Projects (SIP)

Projects that implement, on a regional, multi-regional, national or transnational scale, environmental or climate strategies or action plans developed by Member States' authorities and required by specific environmental, climate or relevant energy legislation or policy of the Union, while ensuring that stakeholders are involved and promoting coordination with and mobilisation of at least one other Union, national or private funding source.

Technical Assistance Projects (TA)

Projects that support the development of capacity for participation in standard action projects, the preparation of strategic nature projects and strategic integrated projects, the preparation for accessing other Union financial instruments or other measures necessary for preparing the upscaling or replication of results from other projects funded by the LIFE programme, its predecessor programmes or other Union programmes, with a view to pursuing the LIFE programme objectives set out in Article 3; such projects can also include capacity-building related to the activities of Member States' authorities for effective participation in the LIFE programme.

Other Action Grants (OAG)

Actions needed for the purpose of achieving the general objective of the LIFE programme, including coordination and support actions aimed at capacity-building, at dissemination of information and of knowledge, and at awareness-raising to support the transition to renewable energy and increased energy efficiency.

Operating Grants (OG)

Grants that support the functioning of non-profit making entities which are involved in the development, implementation and enforcement of Union legislation and policy, and which are primarily active in the area of the environment or climate action, including energy transition, in line with the objectives of the LIFE programme.

Project proposals submitted under LIFE calls are evaluated and scored against selection and award criteria.

Support for applicants

Guidance on the application process, evaluation and grant signature, and working as an expert will be available on the Funding & Tender portal .

Please see our dedicated page on Support for Applicants.

Expert evaluators

The LIFE Programme appoints external experts to assist in the evaluation of grant applications, projects and tenders. 

If you have skills and experiences in the sustainable energy field and like to evaluate proposals submitted under the LIFE Clean Energy Transition sub-programme, please register in the European Commission’s database of independent experts . 

If you have skills and experiences in the fields of nature & biodiversity, circular economy and climate action and like to evaluate in the LIFE sub-programmes Nature and Biodiversity, Circular economy and quality of life, Climate change mitigation and adaptation, please register your interest with the external Framework Contractor .

Potential expert evaluators can register interest for any of the LIFE sub-programmes. 

Previous calls

  • 2023 calls for proposals
  • 2022 calls for proposals
  • 2021 calls for proposals
  • NGO Call for proposals on European Green Deal
  • 2020 calls for project proposals
  • 2019 calls for project proposals
  • Older 2018 and 2017 calls are available on the archived LIFE website

Share this page

IMAGES

  1. Commissioned Research

    commissioned research project meaning

  2. Writing a research project. A Guide to Writing Research Objectives and

    commissioned research project meaning

  3. Mapping of commissioned R&D publications

    commissioned research project meaning

  4. Commissioned Research Projects

    commissioned research project meaning

  5. FREE 12+ Sample Research Project Templates in PDF

    commissioned research project meaning

  6. Timeline of a Research Project

    commissioned research project meaning

VIDEO

  1. Commissioned work 💸🤑🤑✍️ #shorts

  2. 28 January 2024. GPB- Research on Misinformation Awareness

  3. What Will You Say

  4. The Non-Commissioned Officers-Evolve

  5. i tried a commissioned🎨👩‍🎨 work#pls comment 😍😍💖 your opinions#

  6. Commissioned-Be an Example

COMMENTS

  1. Commissioned research

    Published: 8/3/2015 Can we trust research findings that stem from projects commissioned by particular users who have defined the themes and paid the bill? Will the relationship to a commissioning body jeopardise the independence of research and lead to biased results?

  2. Commissioned Research and Other Assignments for External Clients

    Commissioned R&D is associated with a number of distinctive research ethical issues. Many researchers are particularly interested in applied research and development.

  3. PDF How to effectively commission research

    2.4 When would you use primary research? 2.5 What questions can it help address? 2.6 What insight will it give? Section 3: Commissioning new research 3.1 Key considerations 3.2 Examples of costs and timescales with Audiences London Section 4: How reliable is your research and your researcher? 4.1 Samples and sample sizes

  4. PDF Commissioning social research

    This guide discusses ways of commissioning social research projects and choosing researchers, and makes recommendations about good practice. It is intended to inform and advise members, organisations commissioning social research, research practitioners and related professional associations. The way in which buyers go about commissioning

  5. Commissioned Research

    Describes the role of the board in overseeing risk management; ♦ States whether the company has followed ASB guidance on narrative reporting; ♦ States whether the company produces key performance indicators (KPIs) on material ESG risks, and such KPIs for each business unit.

  6. Developing a research commissioning process

    Commissioning research from outside organisations and researchers is a way of achieving core goals through a broader definition of the "mySociety team", but our approach to doing so must reflect the underlying principles that drive our public work and values. In the context of commissioning research, this involves three key principles:

  7. How does research get commissioned?

    The way research is commissioned is likely to be influenced by the aims and budget of the organisation. Third-party commissioning does carry risk of bias, because of potential interests of the commissioner.

  8. Commissioned Research and Consultancy Services

    Commissioned research is typically a clearly defined project, such as a specific statistical analysis or a sequencing of a DNA string. Consultancy services If a company, organisation or public body wants to buy consultancy services from a researcher, they must contact the researcher or research team directly.

  9. Commissioned research program

    The Commissioned Research Program supports the delivery of a wide range of tailored research, evaluation and other consultancy services that are underpinned by strong methodological rigour and delivered by highly experienced staff members. ... Projects. A selection of contract work we have completed, including links to the final product, are ...

  10. Commissioned Research

    Commissioned and Partnered Research. Our access to more than 70,000 commercial and contract professionals provides an unparalleled ability to gather data. We work with business, government, academia, software providers and top consultancies to deliver up-to-the-minute market information and intelligence. Sometimes this is commissioned and ...

  11. Analyzing the contributions of a government-commissioned research

    Consequently, research projects commissioned to the RIVM are often intended to contribute to the scientific basis of the Inspectorate's work. ... RIVM Manager 1: "So it was a knowledge question and actually, you were told to elaborate it per definition. So the only choice we had, was to choose the way to deal with the knowledge question ...

  12. Can research integrity prevail in the market? Lessons from commissioned

    It involves a high degree of impact and access to good data, as clients commission research projects because they want knowledge to solve specific problems. Moreover, the participants discussed how they and the organizations where they worked learned from their experiences how to counteract the negative aspects of competition.

  13. Commissioned research

    Tilburg University conducts a wide range of commissioned research or research in conjunction with third parties. From large-scale and long-term, involving just a few or many parties, to students' graduation research. Research always focuses on one or more of the following fields: economics and industry, law, social sciences, communications ...

  14. Asking the right questions: Scoping studies in the commissioning of

    A recent review of the impact of research commissioned by the SDO Programme has demonstrated the many different types of impact that result . An important feature of many scoping studies commissioned by the SDO Programme is the extent to which they identify topic areas for future research; however, this is rarely the only consequence of a ...

  15. How to commission research

    This set of three Guidelines deals with issues that need to be considered when commissioning a marketing research project. Such projects may be carried out by a variety of organizations ranging from individual researchers or consultants to large multi-national companies offering a wide range of services. Throughout these Guidelines, the term agency is used to cover all such possibilities.

  16. Commissioned Research

    Commissioned Research Commissioned Research Industry-Government-Academia Collaboration Program Collaborative Research Collaborative Research Courses and Collaborative Research Research Researchers Endowments Endowed Chairs and Endowed Research Laboratories Academic Consulting

  17. What is a research project?

    A research project is an academic, scientific, or professional undertaking to answer a research question. Research projects can take many forms, such as qualitative or quantitative, descriptive, longitudinal, experimental, or correlational. What kind of research approach you choose will depend on your topic.

  18. What is a Research Contract?

    Research contracts contain the terms and conditions under which specific research is to be conducted by the University and the external organisation(s). The University sets up all types of research contracts with a wide range of external organizations including. European Commission; universities; industry; charities; government departments

  19. Research Project

    Research Project is a planned and systematic investigation into a specific area of interest or problem, with the goal of generating new knowledge, insights, or solutions. It typically involves identifying a research question or hypothesis, designing a study to test it, collecting and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions based on the findings.

  20. Reflections of patient and public involvement from a commissioned

    Reflections of patient and public involvement from a commissioned research project evaluating a nationally implemented NHS programme focused on diabetes prevention. ... design the research, clarify the meaning of the research results, and help communicate the results to the wider public. However, given that the programme was an NHS service ...

  21. Commissioning market research

    Writing a research brief. Having identified the problems that have led to a need for information, the next step is to prepare a research brief that will help the researcher to design a suitable research methodology. The brief should include background material that helps the researcher understand why the project has come about, including the ...

  22. Commissioned Research Definition

    Commissioned Research means research projects carried out by the University under a commission contract with a client. The University is legally obliged to charge fees for commissioned research corresponding to the University 's costs for the project ( full cost recovery ).

  23. COMMISSION RESEARCH definition and meaning

    (kəmɪʃən ) verb If you commission something or commission someone to do something, you formally arrange for someone to do a piece of work for you. [...] Commission is also a noun. [...] -commissioned combining form in adjective See full entry for 'commission' Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

  24. The African Union Commission and World Bank Seal a New Grant Agreement

    ADDIS ABABA, February 23, 2024 — The African Union Commission (AUC) and the World Bank have marked a significant milestone in their partnership with the signing today of a grant agreement to support the implementation of the Africa Think Tank Platform Project aimed to help think tanks across the continent to produce policy-relevant research on critical cross-border priority issues.

  25. Horizon IP Scan

    The main results and lessons learnt from the provision of Horizon IP Scan services have been analysed and summarised in a study report. The Horizon IP Scan was a pilot operating from November 2020 until November 2023. The service helped European start-ups and SMEs involved in EU-funded collaborative research projects to efficiently develop and implement strategies to valorise intellectual ...

  26. 2024 LIFE

    The LIFE Programme appoints external experts to assist in the evaluation of grant applications, projects and tenders. If you have skills and experiences in the sustainable energy field and like to evaluate proposals submitted under the LIFE Clean Energy Transition sub-programme, please register in the European Commission's database of independent experts.