discussion paper methodology

How to Write the Discussion Section of a Research Paper

The discussion section of a research paper analyzes and interprets the findings, provides context, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future research directions.

Updated on September 15, 2023

Structure your discussion section right, and you’ll be cited more often while doing a greater service to the scientific community. So, what actually goes into the discussion section? And how do you write it?

The discussion section of your research paper is where you let the reader know how your study is positioned in the literature, what to take away from your paper, and how your work helps them. It can also include your conclusions and suggestions for future studies.

First, we’ll define all the parts of your discussion paper, and then look into how to write a strong, effective discussion section for your paper or manuscript.

Discussion section: what is it, what it does

The discussion section comes later in your paper, following the introduction, methods, and results. The discussion sets up your study’s conclusions. Its main goals are to present, interpret, and provide a context for your results.

What is it?

The discussion section provides an analysis and interpretation of the findings, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future directions for research.

This section combines information from the preceding parts of your paper into a coherent story. By this point, the reader already knows why you did your study (introduction), how you did it (methods), and what happened (results). In the discussion, you’ll help the reader connect the ideas from these sections.

Why is it necessary?

The discussion provides context and interpretations for the results. It also answers the questions posed in the introduction. While the results section describes your findings, the discussion explains what they say. This is also where you can describe the impact or implications of your research.

Adds context for your results

Most research studies aim to answer a question, replicate a finding, or address limitations in the literature. These goals are first described in the introduction. However, in the discussion section, the author can refer back to them to explain how the study's objective was achieved. 

Shows what your results actually mean and real-world implications

The discussion can also describe the effect of your findings on research or practice. How are your results significant for readers, other researchers, or policymakers?

What to include in your discussion (in the correct order)

A complete and effective discussion section should at least touch on the points described below.

Summary of key findings

The discussion should begin with a brief factual summary of the results. Concisely overview the main results you obtained.

Begin with key findings with supporting evidence

Your results section described a list of findings, but what message do they send when you look at them all together?

Your findings were detailed in the results section, so there’s no need to repeat them here, but do provide at least a few highlights. This will help refresh the reader’s memory and help them focus on the big picture.

Read the first paragraph of the discussion section in this article (PDF) for an example of how to start this part of your paper. Notice how the authors break down their results and follow each description sentence with an explanation of why each finding is relevant. 

State clearly and concisely

Following a clear and direct writing style is especially important in the discussion section. After all, this is where you will make some of the most impactful points in your paper. While the results section often contains technical vocabulary, such as statistical terms, the discussion section lets you describe your findings more clearly. 

Interpretation of results

Once you’ve given your reader an overview of your results, you need to interpret those results. In other words, what do your results mean? Discuss the findings’ implications and significance in relation to your research question or hypothesis.

Analyze and interpret your findings

Look into your findings and explore what’s behind them or what may have caused them. If your introduction cited theories or studies that could explain your findings, use these sources as a basis to discuss your results.

For example, look at the second paragraph in the discussion section of this article on waggling honey bees. Here, the authors explore their results based on information from the literature.

Unexpected or contradictory results

Sometimes, your findings are not what you expect. Here’s where you describe this and try to find a reason for it. Could it be because of the method you used? Does it have something to do with the variables analyzed? Comparing your methods with those of other similar studies can help with this task.

Context and comparison with previous work

Refer to related studies to place your research in a larger context and the literature. Compare and contrast your findings with existing literature, highlighting similarities, differences, and/or contradictions.

How your work compares or contrasts with previous work

Studies with similar findings to yours can be cited to show the strength of your findings. Information from these studies can also be used to help explain your results. Differences between your findings and others in the literature can also be discussed here. 

How to divide this section into subsections

If you have more than one objective in your study or many key findings, you can dedicate a separate section to each of these. Here’s an example of this approach. You can see that the discussion section is divided into topics and even has a separate heading for each of them. 

Limitations

Many journals require you to include the limitations of your study in the discussion. Even if they don’t, there are good reasons to mention these in your paper.

Why limitations don’t have a negative connotation

A study’s limitations are points to be improved upon in future research. While some of these may be flaws in your method, many may be due to factors you couldn’t predict.

Examples include time constraints or small sample sizes. Pointing this out will help future researchers avoid or address these issues. This part of the discussion can also include any attempts you have made to reduce the impact of these limitations, as in this study .

How limitations add to a researcher's credibility

Pointing out the limitations of your study demonstrates transparency. It also shows that you know your methods well and can conduct a critical assessment of them.  

Implications and significance

The final paragraph of the discussion section should contain the take-home messages for your study. It can also cite the “strong points” of your study, to contrast with the limitations section.

Restate your hypothesis

Remind the reader what your hypothesis was before you conducted the study. 

How was it proven or disproven?

Identify your main findings and describe how they relate to your hypothesis.

How your results contribute to the literature

Were you able to answer your research question? Or address a gap in the literature?

Future implications of your research

Describe the impact that your results may have on the topic of study. Your results may show, for instance, that there are still limitations in the literature for future studies to address. There may be a need for studies that extend your findings in a specific way. You also may need additional research to corroborate your findings. 

Sample discussion section

This fictitious example covers all the aspects discussed above. Your actual discussion section will probably be much longer, but you can read this to get an idea of everything your discussion should cover.

Our results showed that the presence of cats in a household is associated with higher levels of perceived happiness by its human occupants. These findings support our hypothesis and demonstrate the association between pet ownership and well-being. 

The present findings align with those of Bao and Schreer (2016) and Hardie et al. (2023), who observed greater life satisfaction in pet owners relative to non-owners. Although the present study did not directly evaluate life satisfaction, this factor may explain the association between happiness and cat ownership observed in our sample.

Our findings must be interpreted in light of some limitations, such as the focus on cat ownership only rather than pets as a whole. This may limit the generalizability of our results.

Nevertheless, this study had several strengths. These include its strict exclusion criteria and use of a standardized assessment instrument to investigate the relationships between pets and owners. These attributes bolster the accuracy of our results and reduce the influence of confounding factors, increasing the strength of our conclusions. Future studies may examine the factors that mediate the association between pet ownership and happiness to better comprehend this phenomenon.

This brief discussion begins with a quick summary of the results and hypothesis. The next paragraph cites previous research and compares its findings to those of this study. Information from previous studies is also used to help interpret the findings. After discussing the results of the study, some limitations are pointed out. The paper also explains why these limitations may influence the interpretation of results. Then, final conclusions are drawn based on the study, and directions for future research are suggested.

How to make your discussion flow naturally

If you find writing in scientific English challenging, the discussion and conclusions are often the hardest parts of the paper to write. That’s because you’re not just listing up studies, methods, and outcomes. You’re actually expressing your thoughts and interpretations in words.

• How formal should it be?
• What words should you use, or not use?
• How do you meet strict word limits, or make it longer and more informative?

Always give it your best, but sometimes a helping hand can, well, help. Getting a professional edit can help clarify your work’s importance while improving the English used to explain it. When readers know the value of your work, they’ll cite it. We’ll assign your study to an expert editor knowledgeable in your area of research. Their work will clarify your discussion, helping it to tell your story. Find out more about AJE Editing.

Adam Goulston, PsyD, MS, MBA, MISD, ELS

Science Marketing Consultant

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

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

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

• 4 minute read
• 25.1K views

Table of Contents

The discussion section in scientific manuscripts might be the last few paragraphs, but its role goes far beyond wrapping up. It’s the part of an article where scientists talk about what they found and what it means, where raw data turns into meaningful insights. Therefore, discussion is a vital component of the article.  

An excellent discussion is well-organized. We bring to you authors a classic 6-step method for writing discussion sections, with examples to illustrate the functions and specific writing logic of each step. Take a look at how you can impress journal reviewers with a concise and focused discussion section!  

Discussion frame structure   

Conventionally, a discussion section has three parts: an introductory paragraph, a few intermediate paragraphs, and a conclusion¹.  Please follow the steps below:  

1.Introduction—mention gaps in previous research¹⁻ ²

Here, you orient the reader to your study. In the first paragraph, it is advisable to mention the research gap your paper addresses.  

Example: This study investigated the cognitive effects of a meat-only diet on adults. While earlier studies have explored the impact of a carnivorous diet on physical attributes and agility, they have not explicitly addressed its influence on cognitively intense tasks involving memory and reasoning.  

2. Summarizing key findings—let your data speak ¹⁻ ²

After you have laid out the context for your study, recapitulate some of its key findings. Also, highlight key data and evidence supporting these findings.  

Example: We found that risk-taking behavior among teenagers correlates with their tendency to invest in cryptocurrencies. Risk takers in this study, as measured by the Cambridge Gambling Task, tended to have an inordinately higher proportion of their savings invested as crypto coins.  

3. Interpreting results—compare with other papers¹⁻²    

Here, you must analyze and interpret any results concerning the research question or hypothesis. How do the key findings of your study help verify or disprove the hypothesis? What practical relevance does your discovery have?  

Example: Our study suggests that higher daily caffeine intake is not associated with poor performance in major sporting events. Athletes may benefit from the cardiovascular benefits of daily caffeine intake without adversely impacting performance.    

Remember, unlike the results section, the discussion ideally focuses on locating your findings in the larger body of existing research. Hence, compare your results with those of other peer-reviewed papers.  

Example: Although Miller et al. (2020) found evidence of such political bias in a multicultural population, our findings suggest that the bias is weak or virtually non-existent among politically active citizens.  

4. Addressing limitations—their potential impact on the results¹⁻²    

Discuss the potential impact of limitations on the results. Most studies have limitations, and it is crucial to acknowledge them in the intermediary paragraphs of the discussion section. Limitations may include low sample size, suspected interference or noise in data, low effect size, etc.  

Example: This study explored a comprehensive list of adverse effects associated with the novel drug ‘X’. However, long-term studies may be needed to confirm its safety, especially regarding major cardiac events.  

5. Implications for future research—how to explore further¹⁻²    

Locate areas of your research where more investigation is needed. Concluding paragraphs of the discussion can explain what research will likely confirm your results or identify knowledge gaps your study left unaddressed.  

Example: Our study demonstrates that roads paved with the plastic-infused compound ‘Y’ are more resilient than asphalt. Future studies may explore economically feasible ways of producing compound Y in bulk.  

6. Conclusion—summarize content¹⁻²    

A good way to wind up the discussion section is by revisiting the research question mentioned in your introduction. Sign off by expressing the main findings of your study.  

Example: Recent observations suggest that the fish ‘Z’ is moving upriver in many parts of the Amazon basin. Our findings provide conclusive evidence that this phenomenon is associated with rising sea levels and climate change, not due to elevated numbers of invasive predators.  

A rigorous and concise discussion section is one of the keys to achieving an excellent paper. It serves as a critical platform for researchers to interpret and connect their findings with the broader scientific context. By detailing the results, carefully comparing them with existing research, and explaining the limitations of this study, you can effectively help reviewers and readers understand the entire research article more comprehensively and deeply¹⁻² , thereby helping your manuscript to be successfully published and gain wider dissemination.  

In addition to keeping this writing guide, you can also use Elsevier Language Services to improve the quality of your paper more deeply and comprehensively. We have a professional editing team covering multiple disciplines. With our profound disciplinary background and rich polishing experience, we can significantly optimize all paper modules including the discussion, effectively improve the fluency and rigor of your articles, and make your scientific research results consistent, with its value reflected more clearly. We are always committed to ensuring the quality of papers according to the standards of top journals, improving the publishing efficiency of scientific researchers, and helping you on the road to academic success. Check us out here !  

Type in wordcount for Standard Total: USD EUR JPY Follow this link if your manuscript is longer than 12,000 words. Upload  

References:   

• Masic, I. (2018). How to write an efficient discussion? Medical Archives , 72(3), 306. https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2018.72.306-307  
• Şanlı, Ö., Erdem, S., & Tefik, T. (2014). How to write a discussion section? Urology Research & Practice , 39(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2013.049  

Navigating “Chinglish” Errors in Academic English Writing

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

You may also like.

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

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

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

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

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

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

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

The methods section describes actions taken to investigate a research problem and the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information applied to understanding the problem, thereby, allowing the reader to critically evaluate a study’s overall validity and reliability. The methodology section of a research paper answers two main questions: How was the data collected or generated? And, how was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and always written in the past tense.

Kallet, Richard H. "How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004): 1229-1232.

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

You must explain how you obtained and analyzed your results for the following reasons:

• Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you chose affects the results and, by extension, how you interpreted their significance in the discussion section of your paper.
• Methodology is crucial for any branch of scholarship because an unreliable method produces unreliable results and, as a consequence, undermines the value of your analysis of the findings.
• In most cases, there are a variety of different methods you can choose to investigate a research problem. The methodology section of your paper should clearly articulate the reasons why you have chosen a particular procedure or technique.
• The reader wants to know that the data was collected or generated in a way that is consistent with accepted practice in the field of study. For example, if you are using a multiple choice questionnaire, readers need to know that it offered your respondents a reasonable range of answers to choose from.
• The method must be appropriate to fulfilling the overall aims of the study. For example, you need to ensure that you have a large enough sample size to be able to generalize and make recommendations based upon the findings.
• The methodology should discuss the problems that were anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them from occurring. For any problems that do arise, you must describe the ways in which they were minimized or why these problems do not impact in any meaningful way your interpretation of the findings.
• In the social and behavioral sciences, it is important to always provide sufficient information to allow other researchers to adopt or replicate your methodology. This information is particularly important when a new method has been developed or an innovative use of an existing method is utilized.

Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Denscombe, Martyn. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects . 5th edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 2014; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Groups of Research Methods

There are two main groups of research methods in the social sciences:

• The e mpirical-analytical group approaches the study of social sciences in a similar manner that researchers study the natural sciences . This type of research focuses on objective knowledge, research questions that can be answered yes or no, and operational definitions of variables to be measured. The empirical-analytical group employs deductive reasoning that uses existing theory as a foundation for formulating hypotheses that need to be tested. This approach is focused on explanation.
• The i nterpretative group of methods is focused on understanding phenomenon in a comprehensive, holistic way . Interpretive methods focus on analytically disclosing the meaning-making practices of human subjects [the why, how, or by what means people do what they do], while showing how those practices arrange so that it can be used to generate observable outcomes. Interpretive methods allow you to recognize your connection to the phenomena under investigation. However, the interpretative group requires careful examination of variables because it focuses more on subjective knowledge.

II.  Content

The introduction to your methodology section should begin by restating the research problem and underlying assumptions underpinning your study. This is followed by situating the methods you used to gather, analyze, and process information within the overall “tradition” of your field of study and within the particular research design you have chosen to study the problem. If the method you choose lies outside of the tradition of your field [i.e., your review of the literature demonstrates that the method is not commonly used], provide a justification for how your choice of methods specifically addresses the research problem in ways that have not been utilized in prior studies.

The remainder of your methodology section should describe the following:

• Decisions made in selecting the data you have analyzed or, in the case of qualitative research, the subjects and research setting you have examined,
• Tools and methods used to identify and collect information, and how you identified relevant variables,
• The ways in which you processed the data and the procedures you used to analyze that data, and
• The specific research tools or strategies that you utilized to study the underlying hypothesis and research questions.

In addition, an effectively written methodology section should:

• Introduce the overall methodological approach for investigating your research problem . Is your study qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both (mixed method)? Are you going to take a special approach, such as action research, or a more neutral stance?
• Indicate how the approach fits the overall research design . Your methods for gathering data should have a clear connection to your research problem. In other words, make sure that your methods will actually address the problem. One of the most common deficiencies found in research papers is that the proposed methodology is not suitable to achieving the stated objective of your paper.
• Describe the specific methods of data collection you are going to use , such as, surveys, interviews, questionnaires, observation, archival research. If you are analyzing existing data, such as a data set or archival documents, describe how it was originally created or gathered and by whom. Also be sure to explain how older data is still relevant to investigating the current research problem.
• Explain how you intend to analyze your results . Will you use statistical analysis? Will you use specific theoretical perspectives to help you analyze a text or explain observed behaviors? Describe how you plan to obtain an accurate assessment of relationships, patterns, trends, distributions, and possible contradictions found in the data.
• Provide background and a rationale for methodologies that are unfamiliar for your readers . Very often in the social sciences, research problems and the methods for investigating them require more explanation/rationale than widely accepted rules governing the natural and physical sciences. Be clear and concise in your explanation.
• Provide a justification for subject selection and sampling procedure . For instance, if you propose to conduct interviews, how do you intend to select the sample population? If you are analyzing texts, which texts have you chosen, and why? If you are using statistics, why is this set of data being used? If other data sources exist, explain why the data you chose is most appropriate to addressing the research problem.
• Provide a justification for case study selection . A common method of analyzing research problems in the social sciences is to analyze specific cases. These can be a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis that are either examined as a singular topic of in-depth investigation or multiple topics of investigation studied for the purpose of comparing or contrasting findings. In either method, you should explain why a case or cases were chosen and how they specifically relate to the research problem.
• Describe potential limitations . Are there any practical limitations that could affect your data collection? How will you attempt to control for potential confounding variables and errors? If your methodology may lead to problems you can anticipate, state this openly and show why pursuing this methodology outweighs the risk of these problems cropping up.

NOTE:   Once you have written all of the elements of the methods section, subsequent revisions should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and as logically as possibly. The description of how you prepared to study the research problem, how you gathered the data, and the protocol for analyzing the data should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic. If necessary, consider using appendices for raw data.

ANOTHER NOTE: If you are conducting a qualitative analysis of a research problem , the methodology section generally requires a more elaborate description of the methods used as well as an explanation of the processes applied to gathering and analyzing of data than is generally required for studies using quantitative methods. Because you are the primary instrument for generating the data [e.g., through interviews or observations], the process for collecting that data has a significantly greater impact on producing the findings. Therefore, qualitative research requires a more detailed description of the methods used.

YET ANOTHER NOTE:   If your study involves interviews, observations, or other qualitative techniques involving human subjects , you may be required to obtain approval from the university's Office for the Protection of Research Subjects before beginning your research. This is not a common procedure for most undergraduate level student research assignments. However, i f your professor states you need approval, you must include a statement in your methods section that you received official endorsement and adequate informed consent from the office and that there was a clear assessment and minimization of risks to participants and to the university. This statement informs the reader that your study was conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. In some cases, the approval notice is included as an appendix to your paper.

III.  Problems to Avoid

Irrelevant Detail The methodology section of your paper should be thorough but concise. Do not provide any background information that does not directly help the reader understand why a particular method was chosen, how the data was gathered or obtained, and how the data was analyzed in relation to the research problem [note: analyzed, not interpreted! Save how you interpreted the findings for the discussion section]. With this in mind, the page length of your methods section will generally be less than any other section of your paper except the conclusion.

Unnecessary Explanation of Basic Procedures Remember that you are not writing a how-to guide about a particular method. You should make the assumption that readers possess a basic understanding of how to investigate the research problem on their own and, therefore, you do not have to go into great detail about specific methodological procedures. The focus should be on how you applied a method , not on the mechanics of doing a method. An exception to this rule is if you select an unconventional methodological approach; if this is the case, be sure to explain why this approach was chosen and how it enhances the overall process of discovery.

Problem Blindness It is almost a given that you will encounter problems when collecting or generating your data, or, gaps will exist in existing data or archival materials. Do not ignore these problems or pretend they did not occur. Often, documenting how you overcame obstacles can form an interesting part of the methodology. It demonstrates to the reader that you can provide a cogent rationale for the decisions you made to minimize the impact of any problems that arose.

Literature Review Just as the literature review section of your paper provides an overview of sources you have examined while researching a particular topic, the methodology section should cite any sources that informed your choice and application of a particular method [i.e., the choice of a survey should include any citations to the works you used to help construct the survey].

It’s More than Sources of Information! A description of a research study's method should not be confused with a description of the sources of information. Such a list of sources is useful in and of itself, especially if it is accompanied by an explanation about the selection and use of the sources. The description of the project's methodology complements a list of sources in that it sets forth the organization and interpretation of information emanating from those sources.

Azevedo, L.F. et al. "How to Write a Scientific Paper: Writing the Methods Section." Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia 17 (2011): 232-238; Blair Lorrie. “Choosing a Methodology.” In Writing a Graduate Thesis or Dissertation , Teaching Writing Series. (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2016), pp. 49-72; Butin, Dan W. The Education Dissertation A Guide for Practitioner Scholars . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010; Carter, Susan. Structuring Your Research Thesis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Kallet, Richard H. “How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper.” Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004):1229-1232; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Methods Section. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Rudestam, Kjell Erik and Rae R. Newton. “The Method Chapter: Describing Your Research Plan.” In Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process . (Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2015), pp. 87-115; What is Interpretive Research. Institute of Public and International Affairs, University of Utah; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Methods and Materials. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College.

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

Don't avoid using a quantitative approach to analyzing your research problem just because you fear the idea of applying statistical designs and tests. A qualitative approach, such as conducting interviews or content analysis of archival texts, can yield exciting new insights about a research problem, but it should not be undertaken simply because you have a disdain for running a simple regression. A well designed quantitative research study can often be accomplished in very clear and direct ways, whereas, a similar study of a qualitative nature usually requires considerable time to analyze large volumes of data and a tremendous burden to create new paths for analysis where previously no path associated with your research problem had existed.

To locate data and statistics, GO HERE .

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

There can be multiple meaning associated with the term "theories" and the term "methods" in social sciences research. A helpful way to delineate between them is to understand "theories" as representing different ways of characterizing the social world when you research it and "methods" as representing different ways of generating and analyzing data about that social world. Framed in this way, all empirical social sciences research involves theories and methods, whether they are stated explicitly or not. However, while theories and methods are often related, it is important that, as a researcher, you deliberately separate them in order to avoid your theories playing a disproportionate role in shaping what outcomes your chosen methods produce.

Introspectively engage in an ongoing dialectic between the application of theories and methods to help enable you to use the outcomes from your methods to interrogate and develop new theories, or ways of framing conceptually the research problem. This is how scholarship grows and branches out into new intellectual territory.

Reynolds, R. Larry. Ways of Knowing. Alternative Microeconomics . Part 1, Chapter 3. Boise State University; The Theory-Method Relationship. S-Cool Revision. United Kingdom.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Methods and the Methodology

Do not confuse the terms "methods" and "methodology." As Schneider notes, a method refers to the technical steps taken to do research . Descriptions of methods usually include defining and stating why you have chosen specific techniques to investigate a research problem, followed by an outline of the procedures you used to systematically select, gather, and process the data [remember to always save the interpretation of data for the discussion section of your paper].

The methodology refers to a discussion of the underlying reasoning why particular methods were used . This discussion includes describing the theoretical concepts that inform the choice of methods to be applied, placing the choice of methods within the more general nature of academic work, and reviewing its relevance to examining the research problem. The methodology section also includes a thorough review of the methods other scholars have used to study the topic.

Bryman, Alan. "Of Methods and Methodology." Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 3 (2008): 159-168; Schneider, Florian. “What's in a Methodology: The Difference between Method, Methodology, and Theory…and How to Get the Balance Right?” PoliticsEastAsia.com. Chinese Department, University of Leiden, Netherlands.

• << Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Next: Qualitative Methods >>
• Last Updated: Aug 27, 2024 1:14 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Affiliate Program

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

How to Write a Discussion Section for a Research Paper

We’ve talked about several useful writing tips that authors should consider while drafting or editing their research papers. In particular, we’ve focused on  figures and legends , as well as the Introduction ,  Methods , and  Results . Now that we’ve addressed the more technical portions of your journal manuscript, let’s turn to the analytical segments of your research article. In this article, we’ll provide tips on how to write a strong Discussion section that best portrays the significance of your research contributions.

What is the Discussion section of a research paper?

In a nutshell,  your Discussion fulfills the promise you made to readers in your Introduction . At the beginning of your paper, you tell us why we should care about your research. You then guide us through a series of intricate images and graphs that capture all the relevant data you collected during your research. We may be dazzled and impressed at first, but none of that matters if you deliver an anti-climactic conclusion in the Discussion section!

Are you feeling pressured? Don’t worry. To be honest, you will edit the Discussion section of your manuscript numerous times. After all, in as little as one to two paragraphs ( Nature ‘s suggestion  based on their 3,000-word main body text limit), you have to explain how your research moves us from point A (issues you raise in the Introduction) to point B (our new understanding of these matters). You must also recommend how we might get to point C (i.e., identify what you think is the next direction for research in this field). That’s a lot to say in two paragraphs!

So, how do you do that? Let’s take a closer look.

What should I include in the Discussion section?

As we stated above, the goal of your Discussion section is to  answer the questions you raise in your Introduction by using the results you collected during your research . The content you include in the Discussions segment should include the following information:

• Remind us why we should be interested in this research project.
• Describe the nature of the knowledge gap you were trying to fill using the results of your study.
• Don’t repeat your Introduction. Instead, focus on why  this  particular study was needed to fill the gap you noticed and why that gap needed filling in the first place.
• Mainly, you want to remind us of how your research will increase our knowledge base and inspire others to conduct further research.
• Clearly tell us what that piece of missing knowledge was.
• Answer each of the questions you asked in your Introduction and explain how your results support those conclusions.
• Make sure to factor in all results relevant to the questions (even if those results were not statistically significant).
• Focus on the significance of the most noteworthy results.
• If conflicting inferences can be drawn from your results, evaluate the merits of all of them.
• Don’t rehash what you said earlier in the Results section. Rather, discuss your findings in the context of answering your hypothesis. Instead of making statements like “[The first result] was this…,” say, “[The first result] suggests [conclusion].”
• Do your conclusions line up with existing literature?
• Discuss whether your findings agree with current knowledge and expectations.
• Keep in mind good persuasive argument skills, such as explaining the strengths of your arguments and highlighting the weaknesses of contrary opinions.
• If you discovered something unexpected, offer reasons. If your conclusions aren’t aligned with current literature, explain.
• Address any limitations of your study and how relevant they are to interpreting your results and validating your findings.
• Make sure to acknowledge any weaknesses in your conclusions and suggest room for further research concerning that aspect of your analysis.
• Make sure your suggestions aren’t ones that should have been conducted during your research! Doing so might raise questions about your initial research design and protocols.
• Similarly, maintain a critical but unapologetic tone. You want to instill confidence in your readers that you have thoroughly examined your results and have objectively assessed them in a way that would benefit the scientific community’s desire to expand our knowledge base.
• Recommend next steps.
• Your suggestions should inspire other researchers to conduct follow-up studies to build upon the knowledge you have shared with them.
• Keep the list short (no more than two).

How to Write the Discussion Section

The above list of what to include in the Discussion section gives an overall idea of what you need to focus on throughout the section. Below are some tips and general suggestions about the technical aspects of writing and organization that you might find useful as you draft or revise the contents we’ve outlined above.

Technical writing elements

• Embrace active voice because it eliminates the awkward phrasing and wordiness that accompanies passive voice.
• Use the present tense, which should also be employed in the Introduction.
• Sprinkle with first person pronouns if needed, but generally, avoid it. We want to focus on your findings.
• Maintain an objective and analytical tone.

Discussion section organization

• Keep the same flow across the Results, Methods, and Discussion sections.
• We develop a rhythm as we read and parallel structures facilitate our comprehension. When you organize information the same way in each of these related parts of your journal manuscript, we can quickly see how a certain result was interpreted and quickly verify the particular methods used to produce that result.
• Notice how using parallel structure will eliminate extra narration in the Discussion part since we can anticipate the flow of your ideas based on what we read in the Results segment. Reducing wordiness is important when you only have a few paragraphs to devote to the Discussion section!
• Within each subpart of a Discussion, the information should flow as follows: (A) conclusion first, (B) relevant results and how they relate to that conclusion and (C) relevant literature.
• End with a concise summary explaining the big-picture impact of your study on our understanding of the subject matter. At the beginning of your Discussion section, you stated why  this  particular study was needed to fill the gap you noticed and why that gap needed filling in the first place. Now, it is time to end with “how your research filled that gap.”

Discussion Part 1: Summarizing Key Findings

Begin the Discussion section by restating your  statement of the problem  and briefly summarizing the major results. Do not simply repeat your findings. Rather, try to create a concise statement of the main results that directly answer the central research question that you stated in the Introduction section . This content should not be longer than one paragraph in length.

Many researchers struggle with understanding the precise differences between a Discussion section and a Results section . The most important thing to remember here is that your Discussion section should subjectively evaluate the findings presented in the Results section, and in relatively the same order. Keep these sections distinct by making sure that you do not repeat the findings without providing an interpretation.

Phrase examples: Summarizing the results

• The findings indicate that …
• These results suggest a correlation between A and B …
• The data present here suggest that …
• An interpretation of the findings reveals a connection between…

Discussion Part 2: Interpreting the Findings

What do the results mean? It may seem obvious to you, but simply looking at the figures in the Results section will not necessarily convey to readers the importance of the findings in answering your research questions.

The exact structure of interpretations depends on the type of research being conducted. Here are some common approaches to interpreting data:

• Identifying correlations and relationships in the findings
• Explaining whether the results confirm or undermine your research hypothesis
• Giving the findings context within the history of similar research studies
• Discussing unexpected results and analyzing their significance to your study or general research
• Offering alternative explanations and arguing for your position

Organize the Discussion section around key arguments, themes, hypotheses, or research questions or problems. Again, make sure to follow the same order as you did in the Results section.

Discussion Part 3: Discussing the Implications

In addition to providing your own interpretations, show how your results fit into the wider scholarly literature you surveyed in the  literature review section. This section is called the implications of the study . Show where and how these results fit into existing knowledge, what additional insights they contribute, and any possible consequences that might arise from this knowledge, both in the specific research topic and in the wider scientific domain.

Questions to ask yourself when dealing with potential implications:

• Do your findings fall in line with existing theories, or do they challenge these theories or findings? What new information do they contribute to the literature, if any? How exactly do these findings impact or conflict with existing theories or models?
• What are the practical implications on actual subjects or demographics?
• What are the methodological implications for similar studies conducted either in the past or future?

Your purpose in giving the implications is to spell out exactly what your study has contributed and why researchers and other readers should be interested.

Phrase examples: Discussing the implications of the research

• These results confirm the existing evidence in X studies…
• The results are not in line with the foregoing theory that…
• This experiment provides new insights into the connection between…
• These findings present a more nuanced understanding of…
• While previous studies have focused on X, these results demonstrate that Y.

Step 4: Acknowledging the limitations

All research has study limitations of one sort or another. Acknowledging limitations in methodology or approach helps strengthen your credibility as a researcher. Study limitations are not simply a list of mistakes made in the study. Rather, limitations help provide a more detailed picture of what can or cannot be concluded from your findings. In essence, they help temper and qualify the study implications you listed previously.

Study limitations can relate to research design, specific methodological or material choices, or unexpected issues that emerged while you conducted the research. Mention only those limitations directly relate to your research questions, and explain what impact these limitations had on how your study was conducted and the validity of any interpretations.

Possible types of study limitations:

• Insufficient sample size for statistical measurements
• Lack of previous research studies on the topic
• Methods/instruments/techniques used to collect the data
• Limited access to data
• Time constraints in properly preparing and executing the study

After discussing the study limitations, you can also stress that your results are still valid. Give some specific reasons why the limitations do not necessarily handicap your study or narrow its scope.

Phrase examples: Limitations sentence beginners

• “There may be some possible limitations in this study.”
• “The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations.”
•  “The first limitation is the…The second limitation concerns the…”
•  “The empirical results reported herein should be considered in the light of some limitations.”
• “This research, however, is subject to several limitations.”
• “The primary limitation to the generalization of these results is…”
• “Nonetheless, these results must be interpreted with caution and a number of limitations should be borne in mind.”

Discussion Part 5: Giving Recommendations for Further Research

Based on your interpretation and discussion of the findings, your recommendations can include practical changes to the study or specific further research to be conducted to clarify the research questions. Recommendations are often listed in a separate Conclusion section , but often this is just the final paragraph of the Discussion section.

Suggestions for further research often stem directly from the limitations outlined. Rather than simply stating that “further research should be conducted,” provide concrete specifics for how future can help answer questions that your research could not.

Phrase examples: Recommendation sentence beginners

• Further research is needed to establish …
• There is abundant space for further progress in analyzing…
• A further study with more focus on X should be done to investigate…
• Further studies of X that account for these variables must be undertaken.

Consider Receiving Professional Language Editing

As you edit or draft your research manuscript, we hope that you implement these guidelines to produce a more effective Discussion section. And after completing your draft, don’t forget to submit your work to a professional proofreading and English editing service like Wordvice, including our manuscript editing service for  paper editing , cover letter editing , SOP editing , and personal statement proofreading services. Language editors not only proofread and correct errors in grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and formatting but also improve terms and revise phrases so they read more naturally. Wordvice is an industry leader in providing high-quality revision for all types of academic documents.

For additional information about how to write a strong research paper, make sure to check out our full  research writing series !

Wordvice Writing Resources

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

Additional Academic Resources

•   Guide for Authors.  (Elsevier)
•  How to Write the Results Section of a Research Paper.  (Bates College)
•   Structure of a Research Paper.  (University of Minnesota Biomedical Library)
•   How to Choose a Target Journal  (Springer)
•   How to Write Figures and Tables  (UNC Writing Center)

How To Write The Discussion Chapter

A Simple Explainer With Examples + Free Template

By: Jenna Crossley (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2021

If you’re reading this, chances are you’ve reached the discussion chapter of your thesis or dissertation and are looking for a bit of guidance. Well, you’ve come to the right place ! In this post, we’ll unpack and demystify the typical discussion chapter in straightforward, easy to understand language, with loads of examples .

Overview: The Discussion Chapter

• What  the discussion chapter is
• What to include in your discussion
• How to write up your discussion
• A few tips and tricks to help you along the way
• Free discussion template

What (exactly) is the discussion chapter?

The discussion chapter is where you interpret and explain your results within your thesis or dissertation. This contrasts with the results chapter, where you merely present and describe the analysis findings (whether qualitative or quantitative ). In the discussion chapter, you elaborate on and evaluate your research findings, and discuss the significance and implications of your results .

In this chapter, you’ll situate your research findings in terms of your research questions or hypotheses and tie them back to previous studies and literature (which you would have covered in your literature review chapter). You’ll also have a look at how relevant and/or significant your findings are to your field of research, and you’ll argue for the conclusions that you draw from your analysis. Simply put, the discussion chapter is there for you to interact with and explain your research findings in a thorough and coherent manner.

What should I include in the discussion chapter?

First things first: in some studies, the results and discussion chapter are combined into one chapter .  This depends on the type of study you conducted (i.e., the nature of the study and methodology adopted), as well as the standards set by the university.  So, check in with your university regarding their norms and expectations before getting started. In this post, we’ll treat the two chapters as separate, as this is most common.

Basically, your discussion chapter should analyse , explore the meaning and identify the importance of the data you presented in your results chapter. In the discussion chapter, you’ll give your results some form of meaning by evaluating and interpreting them. This will help answer your research questions, achieve your research aims and support your overall conclusion (s). Therefore, you discussion chapter should focus on findings that are directly connected to your research aims and questions. Don’t waste precious time and word count on findings that are not central to the purpose of your research project.

As this chapter is a reflection of your results chapter, it’s vital that you don’t report any new findings . In other words, you can’t present claims here if you didn’t present the relevant data in the results chapter first.  So, make sure that for every discussion point you raise in this chapter, you’ve covered the respective data analysis in the results chapter. If you haven’t, you’ll need to go back and adjust your results chapter accordingly.

If you’re struggling to get started, try writing down a bullet point list everything you found in your results chapter. From this, you can make a list of everything you need to cover in your discussion chapter. Also, make sure you revisit your research questions or hypotheses and incorporate the relevant discussion to address these.  This will also help you to see how you can structure your chapter logically.

Need a helping hand?

How to write the discussion chapter

Now that you’ve got a clear idea of what the discussion chapter is and what it needs to include, let’s look at how you can go about structuring this critically important chapter. Broadly speaking, there are six core components that need to be included, and these can be treated as steps in the chapter writing process.

Step 1: Restate your research problem and research questions

The first step in writing up your discussion chapter is to remind your reader of your research problem , as well as your research aim(s) and research questions . If you have hypotheses, you can also briefly mention these. This “reminder” is very important because, after reading dozens of pages, the reader may have forgotten the original point of your research or been swayed in another direction. It’s also likely that some readers skip straight to your discussion chapter from the introduction chapter , so make sure that your research aims and research questions are clear.

Step 2: Summarise your key findings

Next, you’ll want to summarise your key findings from your results chapter. This may look different for qualitative and quantitative research , where qualitative research may report on themes and relationships, whereas quantitative research may touch on correlations and causal relationships. Regardless of the methodology, in this section you need to highlight the overall key findings in relation to your research questions.

Typically, this section only requires one or two paragraphs , depending on how many research questions you have. Aim to be concise here, as you will unpack these findings in more detail later in the chapter. For now, a few lines that directly address your research questions are all that you need.

Some examples of the kind of language you’d use here include:

• The data suggest that…
• The data support/oppose the theory that…
• The analysis identifies…

These are purely examples. What you present here will be completely dependent on your original research questions, so make sure that you are led by them .

Step 3: Interpret your results

Once you’ve restated your research problem and research question(s) and briefly presented your key findings, you can unpack your findings by interpreting your results. Remember: only include what you reported in your results section – don’t introduce new information.

From a structural perspective, it can be a wise approach to follow a similar structure in this chapter as you did in your results chapter. This would help improve readability and make it easier for your reader to follow your arguments. For example, if you structured you results discussion by qualitative themes, it may make sense to do the same here.

Alternatively, you may structure this chapter by research questions, or based on an overarching theoretical framework that your study revolved around. Every study is different, so you’ll need to assess what structure works best for you.

When interpreting your results, you’ll want to assess how your findings compare to those of the existing research (from your literature review chapter). Even if your findings contrast with the existing research, you need to include these in your discussion. In fact, those contrasts are often the most interesting findings . In this case, you’d want to think about why you didn’t find what you were expecting in your data and what the significance of this contrast is.

Here are a few questions to help guide your discussion:

• How do your results relate with those of previous studies ?
• If you get results that differ from those of previous studies, why may this be the case?
• What do your results contribute to your field of research?
• What other explanations could there be for your findings?

When interpreting your findings, be careful not to draw conclusions that aren’t substantiated . Every claim you make needs to be backed up with evidence or findings from the data (and that data needs to be presented in the previous chapter – results). This can look different for different studies; qualitative data may require quotes as evidence, whereas quantitative data would use statistical methods and tests. Whatever the case, every claim you make needs to be strongly backed up.

Step 4: Acknowledge the limitations of your study

The fourth step in writing up your discussion chapter is to acknowledge the limitations of the study. These limitations can cover any part of your study , from the scope or theoretical basis to the analysis method(s) or sample. For example, you may find that you collected data from a very small sample with unique characteristics, which would mean that you are unable to generalise your results to the broader population.

For some students, discussing the limitations of their work can feel a little bit self-defeating . This is a misconception, as a core indicator of high-quality research is its ability to accurately identify its weaknesses. In other words, accurately stating the limitations of your work is a strength, not a weakness . All that said, be careful not to undermine your own research. Tell the reader what limitations exist and what improvements could be made, but also remind them of the value of your study despite its limitations.

Step 5: Make recommendations for implementation and future research

Now that you’ve unpacked your findings and acknowledge the limitations thereof, the next thing you’ll need to do is reflect on your study in terms of two factors:

• The practical application of your findings
• Suggestions for future research

The first thing to discuss is how your findings can be used in the real world – in other words, what contribution can they make to the field or industry? Where are these contributions applicable, how and why? For example, if your research is on communication in health settings, in what ways can your findings be applied to the context of a hospital or medical clinic? Make sure that you spell this out for your reader in practical terms, but also be realistic and make sure that any applications are feasible.

The next discussion point is the opportunity for future research . In other words, how can other studies build on what you’ve found and also improve the findings by overcoming some of the limitations in your study (which you discussed a little earlier). In doing this, you’ll want to investigate whether your results fit in with findings of previous research, and if not, why this may be the case. For example, are there any factors that you didn’t consider in your study? What future research can be done to remedy this? When you write up your suggestions, make sure that you don’t just say that more research is needed on the topic, also comment on how the research can build on your study.

Step 6: Provide a concluding summary

Finally, you’ve reached your final stretch. In this section, you’ll want to provide a brief recap of the key findings – in other words, the findings that directly address your research questions . Basically, your conclusion should tell the reader what your study has found, and what they need to take away from reading your report.

When writing up your concluding summary, bear in mind that some readers may skip straight to this section from the beginning of the chapter.  So, make sure that this section flows well from and has a strong connection to the opening section of the chapter.

Tips and tricks for an A-grade discussion chapter

Now that you know what the discussion chapter is , what to include and exclude , and how to structure it , here are some tips and suggestions to help you craft a quality discussion chapter.

• When you write up your discussion chapter, make sure that you keep it consistent with your introduction chapter , as some readers will skip from the introduction chapter directly to the discussion chapter. Your discussion should use the same tense as your introduction, and it should also make use of the same key terms.
• Don’t make assumptions about your readers. As a writer, you have hands-on experience with the data and so it can be easy to present it in an over-simplified manner. Make sure that you spell out your findings and interpretations for the intelligent layman.
• Have a look at other theses and dissertations from your institution, especially the discussion sections. This will help you to understand the standards and conventions of your university, and you’ll also get a good idea of how others have structured their discussion chapters. You can also check out our chapter template .
• Avoid using absolute terms such as “These results prove that…”, rather make use of terms such as “suggest” or “indicate”, where you could say, “These results suggest that…” or “These results indicate…”. It is highly unlikely that a dissertation or thesis will scientifically prove something (due to a variety of resource constraints), so be humble in your language.
• Use well-structured and consistently formatted headings to ensure that your reader can easily navigate between sections, and so that your chapter flows logically and coherently.

If you have any questions or thoughts regarding this post, feel free to leave a comment below. Also, if you’re looking for one-on-one help with your discussion chapter (or thesis in general), consider booking a free consultation with one of our highly experienced Grad Coaches to discuss how we can help you.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

37 Comments

Thank you this is helpful!

This is very helpful to me… Thanks a lot for sharing this with us 😊

This has been very helpful indeed. Thank you.

This is actually really helpful, I just stumbled upon it. Very happy that I found it, thank you.

Me too! I was kinda lost on how to approach my discussion chapter. How helpful! Thanks a lot!

This is really good and explicit. Thanks

Thank you, this blog has been such a help.

Thank you. This is very helpful.

Dear sir/madame

Thanks a lot for this helpful blog. Really, it supported me in writing my discussion chapter while I was totally unaware about its structure and method of writing.

With regards

Syed Firoz Ahmad PhD, Research Scholar

I agree so much. This blog was god sent. It assisted me so much while I was totally clueless about the context and the know-how. Now I am fully aware of what I am to do and how I am to do it.

Thanks! This is helpful!

thanks alot for this informative website

Dear Sir/Madam,

Truly, your article was much benefited when i structured my discussion chapter.

Thank you very much!!!

This is helpful for me in writing my research discussion component. I have to copy this text on Microsoft word cause of my weakness that I cannot be able to read the text on screen a long time. So many thanks for this articles.

This was helpful

Thanks Jenna, well explained.

Thank you! This is super helpful.

Thanks very much. I have appreciated the six steps on writing the Discussion chapter which are (i) Restating the research problem and questions (ii) Summarising the key findings (iii) Interpreting the results linked to relating to previous results in positive and negative ways; explaining whay different or same and contribution to field of research and expalnation of findings (iv) Acknowledgeing limitations (v) Recommendations for implementation and future resaerch and finally (vi) Providing a conscluding summary

My two questions are: 1. On step 1 and 2 can it be the overall or you restate and sumamrise on each findings based on the reaerch question? 2. On 4 and 5 do you do the acknowlledgement , recommendations on each research finding or overall. This is not clear from your expalanattion.

Please respond.

This post is very useful. I’m wondering whether practical implications must be introduced in the Discussion section or in the Conclusion section?

Sigh, I never knew a 20 min video could have literally save my life like this. I found this at the right time!!!! Everything I need to know in one video thanks a mil ! OMGG and that 6 step!!!!!! was the cherry on top the cake!!!!!!!!!

Thanks alot.., I have gained much

This piece is very helpful on how to go about my discussion section. I can always recommend GradCoach research guides for colleagues.

Many thanks for this resource. It has been very helpful to me. I was finding it hard to even write the first sentence. Much appreciated.

Thanks so much. Very helpful to know what is included in the discussion section

this was a very helpful and useful information

This is very helpful. Very very helpful. Thanks for sharing this online!

it is very helpfull article, and i will recommend it to my fellow students. Thank you.

Superlative! More grease to your elbows.

Powerful, thank you for sharing.

Wow! Just wow! God bless the day I stumbled upon you guys’ YouTube videos! It’s been truly life changing and anxiety about my report that is due in less than a month has subsided significantly!

Simplified explanation. Well done.

The presentation is enlightening. Thank you very much.

Thanks for the support and guidance

This has been a great help to me and thank you do much

I second that “it is highly unlikely that a dissertation or thesis will scientifically prove something”; although, could you enlighten us on that comment and elaborate more please?

Sure, no problem.

Scientific proof is generally considered a very strong assertion that something is definitively and universally true. In most scientific disciplines, especially within the realms of natural and social sciences, absolute proof is very rare. Instead, researchers aim to provide evidence that supports or rejects hypotheses. This evidence increases or decreases the likelihood that a particular theory is correct, but it rarely proves something in the absolute sense.

Dissertations and theses, as substantial as they are, typically focus on exploring a specific question or problem within a larger field of study. They contribute to a broader conversation and body of knowledge. The aim is often to provide detailed insight, extend understanding, and suggest directions for further research rather than to offer definitive proof. These academic works are part of a cumulative process of knowledge building where each piece of research connects with others to gradually enhance our understanding of complex phenomena.

Furthermore, the rigorous nature of scientific inquiry involves continuous testing, validation, and potential refutation of ideas. What might be considered a “proof” at one point can later be challenged by new evidence or alternative interpretations. Therefore, the language of “proof” is cautiously used in academic circles to maintain scientific integrity and humility.

This was very helpful, thank you!

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Welcome to the new OASIS website! We have academic skills, library skills, math and statistics support, and writing resources all together in one new home.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

General Research Paper Guidelines: Discussion

Discussion section.

The overall purpose of a research paper’s discussion section is to evaluate and interpret results, while explaining both the implications and limitations of your findings. Per APA (2020) guidelines, this section requires you to “examine, interpret, and qualify the results and draw inferences and conclusions from them” (p. 89). Discussion sections also require you to detail any new insights, think through areas for future research, highlight the work that still needs to be done to further your topic, and provide a clear conclusion to your research paper. In a good discussion section, you should do the following:

• Clearly connect the discussion of your results to your introduction, including your central argument, thesis, or problem statement.
• Provide readers with a critical thinking through of your results, answering the “so what?” question about each of your findings. In other words, why is this finding important?
• Detail how your research findings might address critical gaps or problems in your field
• Compare your results to similar studies’ findings
• Provide the possibility of alternative interpretations, as your goal as a researcher is to “discover” and “examine” and not to “prove” or “disprove.” Instead of trying to fit your results into your hypothesis, critically engage with alternative interpretations to your results.

For more specific details on your Discussion section, be sure to review Sections 3.8 (pp. 89-90) and 3.16 (pp. 103-104) of your 7 th edition APA manual

*Box content adapted from:

University of Southern California (n.d.). Organizing your social sciences research paper: 8 the discussion . https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/discussion

Limitations

Limitations of generalizability or utility of findings, often over which the researcher has no control, should be detailed in your Discussion section. Including limitations for your reader allows you to demonstrate you have thought critically about your given topic, understood relevant literature addressing your topic, and chosen the methodology most appropriate for your research. It also allows you an opportunity to suggest avenues for future research on your topic. An effective limitations section will include the following:

• Detail (a) sources of potential bias, (b) possible imprecision of measures, (c) other limitations or weaknesses of the study, including any methodological or researcher limitations.
• Sample size: In quantitative research, if a sample size is too small, it is more difficult to generalize results.
• Lack of available/reliable data : In some cases, data might not be available or reliable, which will ultimately affect the overall scope of your research. Use this as an opportunity to explain areas for future study.
• Lack of prior research on your study topic: In some cases, you might find that there is very little or no similar research on your study topic, which hinders the credibility and scope of your own research. If this is the case, use this limitation as an opportunity to call for future research. However, make sure you have done a thorough search of the available literature before making this claim.
• Flaws in measurement of data: Hindsight is 20/20, and you might realize after you have completed your research that the data tool you used actually limited the scope or results of your study in some way. Again, acknowledge the weakness and use it as an opportunity to highlight areas for future study.
• Limits of self-reported data: In your research, you are assuming that any participants will be honest and forthcoming with responses or information they provide to you. Simply acknowledging this assumption as a possible limitation is important in your research.
• Access: Most research requires that you have access to people, documents, organizations, etc.. However, for various reasons, access is sometimes limited or denied altogether. If this is the case, you will want to acknowledge access as a limitation to your research.
• Time: Choosing a research focus that is narrow enough in scope to finish in a given time period is important. If such limitations of time prevent you from certain forms of research, access, or study designs, acknowledging this time restraint is important. Acknowledging such limitations is important, as they can point other researchers to areas that require future study.
• Potential Bias: All researchers have some biases, so when reading and revising your draft, pay special attention to the possibilities for bias in your own work. Such bias could be in the form you organized people, places, participants, or events. They might also exist in the method you selected or the interpretation of your results. Acknowledging such bias is an important part of the research process.
• Language Fluency: On occasion, researchers or research participants might have language fluency issues, which could potentially hinder results or how effectively you interpret results. If this is an issue in your research, make sure to acknowledge it in your limitations section.

University of Southern California (n.d.). Organizing your social sciences research paper: Limitations of the study . https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/limitations

In many research papers, the conclusion, like the limitations section, is folded into the larger discussion section. If you are unsure whether to include the conclusion as part of your discussion or as a separate section, be sure to defer to the assignment instructions or ask your instructor.

The conclusion is important, as it is specifically designed to highlight your research’s larger importance outside of the specific results of your study. Your conclusion section allows you to reiterate the main findings of your study, highlight their importance, and point out areas for future research. Based on the scope of your paper, your conclusion could be anywhere from one to three paragraphs long. An effective conclusion section should include the following:

• Describe the possibilities for continued research on your topic, including what might be improved, adapted, or added to ensure useful and informed future research.
• Provide a detailed account of the importance of your findings
• Reiterate why your problem is important, detail how your interpretation of results impacts the subfield of study, and what larger issues both within and outside of your field might be affected from such results

University of Southern California (n.d.). Organizing your social sciences research paper: 9. the conclusion . https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/conclusion

• Previous Page: Results
• Next Page: References
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Training videos   |   Faqs

Discussion Section Examples and Writing Tips

Abstract | Introduction | Literature Review | Research question | Materials & Methods | Results | Discussion | Conclusion

In this blog, we look at how to write the discussion section of a research paper. We will go through plenty of discussion examples and understand how to construct a great discussion section for your research paper.

1. What is the purpose of the discussion section?

The discussion section is one of the most important sections of your research paper. This is where you interpret your results, highlight your contributions, and explain the value of your work to your readers.  This is one of the challenging parts to write because the author must clearly explain the significance of their results and tie everything back to the research questions.

2. How should I structure my discussion section?

Generally, the discussion section of a research paper typically contains the following parts.

Research summary It is a good idea to start this section with an overall summary of your work and highlight the main findings of your research.

Interpretation of findings You must interpret your findings clearly to your readers one by one.

Comparison with literature You must talk about how your results fit into existing research in the literature.

Implications of your work You should talk about the implications and possible benefits of your research.

Limitations You should talk about the possible limitations and shortcomings of your research

Future work And finally, you can talk about the possible future directions of your work.

3. Discussion Examples

Let’s look at some examples of the discussion section.  We will be looking at discussion examples from different fields and of different formats. We have split this section into multiple components so that it is easy for you to digest and understand.

3.1. An example of research summary in discussion

It is a good idea to start your discussion section with the summary of your work. The best way to do this will be to restate your research question, and then reminding your readers about your methods, and finally providing an overall summary of your results.

Our aims were to compare the effectiveness and user-friendliness of different storm detection software for storm tracking. On the basis of these aims, we ran multiple experiments with the same conditions using different storm detection software. Our results showed that in both speed and accuracy of data, ‘software A’ performed better than ‘software B’. _  Aims summary  _  Methodology summary  _  Results summary

This discussion example is from an engineering research paper. The authors are restating their aims first, which is to compare different types of storm-tracking software. Then, they are providing a brief summary of the methods. Here, they are testing different storm-tracking software under different conditions to see which performs the best. Then, they are finally providing their main finding which is that they found ‘software A’ better than ‘software B’.  This is a very good example of how to start the discussion section by presenting a summary of your work.

3.2. An example of result interpretation in discussion

The next step is to interpret your results. You have to explain your results clearly to your readers. Here is a discussion example that shows how to interpret your results.

The results of this study indicate significant differences between classical music and pop music in terms of their effects on memory recall and cognition. This implies that as the complexity of the music increases, so does its ability to facilitate cognitive processing. This finding aligns with the well-known “Mozart effect,” which suggests that listening to classical music can enhance cognitive function. _  Result  _  Interpretation  _   Additional evidence

The authors are saying that their results show that there is a significant difference between pop music and classical music in terms of memory recall and cognition. Now they are providing their interpretation of the findings. They think it is because there is a link between the complexity of music and cognitive processing. They are also making a reference to a well-known theory called the ‘Mozart effect’ to back up their findings. It is a nicely written passage and the author’s interpretation sounds very convincing and credible.

3.3. An example of literature comparison in discussion

The next step is to compare your results to the literature. You have to explain clearly how your findings compare with similar findings made by other researchers. Here is a discussion example where authors are providing details of papers in the literature that both support and oppose their findings.

Our analysis predicts that climate change will have a significant impact on wheat yield. This finding undermines one of the central pieces of evidence in some previous simulation studies [1-3] that suggest a negative effect of climate change on wheat yield, but the result is entirely consistent with the predictions of other research [4-5] that suggests the overall change in climate could result in increases in wheat yield. _  Result  _  Comparison with literature

The authors are saying that their results show that climate change will have a significant effect on wheat production. Then, they are saying that there are some papers in the literature that are in agreement with their findings. However, there are also many papers in the literature that disagree with their findings. This is very important. Your discussion should be two-sided, not one-sided. You should not ignore the literature that doesn’t corroborate your findings.

3.4. An example of research implications in discussion

The next step is to explain to your readers how your findings will benefit society and the research community. You have to clearly explain the value of your work to your readers. Here is a discussion example where authors explain the implications of their research.

The results contribute insights with regard to the management of wildfire events using artificial intelligence. One could easily argue that the obvious practical implication of this study is that it proposes utilizing cloud-based machine vision to detect wildfires in real-time, even before the first responders receive emergency calls. _  Your finding  _  Implications of your finding

In this paper, the authors are saying that their findings indicate that Artificial intelligence can be used to effectively manage wildfire events. Then, they are talking about the practical implications of their study. They are saying that their work has proven that machine learning can be used to detect wildfires in real-time. This is a great practical application and can save thousands of lives. As you can see, after reading this passage, you can immediately understand the value and significance of the work.

3.5. An example of limitations in discussion

It is very important that you discuss the limitations of your study. Limitations are flaws and shortcomings of your study. You have to tell your readers how your limitations might influence the outcomes and conclusions of your research. Most studies will have some form of limitation. So be honest and don’t hide your limitations. In reality, your readers and reviewers will be impressed with your paper if you are upfront about your limitations. 

Study design and small sample size are important limitations. This could have led to an overestimation of the effect. Future research should reconfirm these findings by conducting larger-scale studies. _  Limitation  _  How it might affect the results?  _   How to fix the limitation?

Here is a discussion example where the author talks about study limitations. The authors are saying that the main limitations of the study are the small sample size and weak study design. Then they explain how this might have affected their results. They are saying that it is possible that they are overestimating the actual effect they are measuring. Then finally they are telling the readers that more studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted to reconfirm the findings.

As you can see, the authors are clearly explaining three things here:

3.6. An example of future work in discussion

It is important to remember not to end your paper with limitations. Finish your paper on a positive note by telling your readers about the benefits of your research and possible future directions. Here is a discussion example where the author talks about future work.

Our study highlights useful insights about the potential of biomass as a renewable energy source. Future research can extend this research in several ways, including research on how to tackle challenges that hinder the sustainability of renewable energy sources towards climate change mitigation, such as market failures, lack of information and access to raw materials.   _  Benefits of your work  _   Future work

The authors are starting the final paragraph of the discussion section by highlighting the benefit of their work which is the use of biomass as a renewable source of energy. Then they talk about future research. They are saying that future research can focus on how to improve the sustainability of biomass production. This is a very good example of how to finish the discussion section of your paper on a positive note.

4. Frequently Asked Questions

Sometimes you will have negative or unexpected results in your paper. You have to talk about it in your discussion section. A lot of students find it difficult to write this part. The best way to handle this situation is not to look at results as either positive or negative. A result is a result, and you will always have something important and interesting to say about your findings. Just spend some time investigating what might have caused this result and tell your readers about it.

You must talk about the limitations of your work in the discussion section of the paper. One of the important qualities that the scientific community expects from a researcher is honesty and admitting when they have made a mistake. The important trick you have to learn while presenting your limitations is to present them in a constructive way rather than being too negative about them.  You must try to use positive language even when you are talking about major limitations of your work. 

If you have something exciting to say about your results or found something new that nobody else has found before, then, don’t be modest and use flat language when presenting this in the discussion. Use words like ‘break through’, ‘indisputable evidence’, ‘exciting proposition’ to increase the impact of your findings.

Important thing to remember is not to overstate your findings. If you found something really interesting but are not 100% sure, you must not mislead your readers. The best way to do this will be to use words like ‘it appears’ and ‘it seems’. This will tell the readers that there is a slight possibility that you might be wrong.

Similar Posts

Figures and Tables in Research Papers – Tips and Examples

In this blog, we will look at best practices for presenting tables and figures in your research paper.

Critical Literature Review : How to Critique a Research Article?

In this blog, we will look at how to use constructive language when critiquing other’s work in your research paper.

Introduction Paragraph Examples and Writing Tips

In this blog, we will go through a few introduction paragraph examples and understand how to construct a great introduction paragraph for your research paper.

Materials and Methods Examples and Writing Tips

In this blog, we will go through many materials and methods examples and understand how to write a clear and concise method section for your research paper.

3 Costly Mistakes to Avoid in the Research Introduction

In this blog, we will discuss three common mistakes that beginner writers make while writing the research paper introduction.

Technical Terms, Notations, and Scientific Jargon in Research Papers

In this blog, we will teach you how to use specialized terminology in your research papers with some practical examples.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

• 5 Share Facebook
• 7 Share Twitter
• 5 Share LinkedIn
• 10 Share Email

Organizing Academic Research Papers: 8. The Discussion

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated, and to explain any new understanding or fresh insights about the problem after you've taken the findings into consideration. The discussion will always connect to the introduction by way of the research questions or hypotheses you posed and the literature you reviewed, but it does not simply repeat or rearrange the introduction; the discussion should always explain how your study has moved the reader's understanding of the research problem forward from where you left them at the end of the introduction.

Importance of a Good Discussion

This section is often considered the most important part of a research paper because it most effectively demonstrates your ability as a researcher to think critically about an issue, to develop creative solutions to problems based on the findings, and to formulate a deeper, more profound understanding of the research problem you are studying.

The discussion section is where you explore the underlying meaning of your research , its possible implications in other areas of study, and the possible improvements that can be made in order to further develop the concerns of your research.

This is the section where you need to present the importance of your study and how it may be able to contribute to and/or fill existing gaps in the field. If appropriate, the discussion section is also where you state how the findings from your study revealed new gaps in the literature that had not been previously exposed or adequately described.

This part of the paper is not strictly governed by objective reporting of information but, rather, it is where you can engage in creative thinking about issues through evidence-based interpretation of findings. This is where you infuse your results with meaning.

Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing to Writing an Effective Discussion Section . San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  General Rules

These are the general rules you should adopt when composing your discussion of the results :

• Do not be verbose or repetitive.
• Be concise and make your points clearly.
• Avoid using jargon.
• Follow a logical stream of thought.
• Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts; however, refer to specific works and references in the past tense.
• If needed, use subheadings to help organize your presentation or to group your interpretations into themes.

II.  The Content

The content of the discussion section of your paper most often includes :

• Explanation of results : comment on whether or not the results were expected and present explanations for the results; go into greater depth when explaining findings that were unexpected or especially profound. If appropriate, note any unusual or unanticipated patterns or trends that emerged from your results and explain their meaning.
• References to previous research : compare your results with the findings from other studies, or use the studies to support a claim. This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results than being part of the general research you cited to provide context and background information.
• Deduction : a claim for how the results can be applied more generally. For example, describing lessons learned, proposing recommendations that can help improve a situation, or recommending best practices.
• Hypothesis : a more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research].

III. Organization and Structure

Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your paper:

• Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid. Organize the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice [if appropriate].
• Use the same key terms, mode of narration, and verb tense [present] that you used when when describing the research problem in the introduction.
• Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction.
• Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships shown by each major findings and place them in proper perspective. The sequencing of providing this information is important; first state the answer, then the relevant results, then cite the work of others. If appropriate, refer the reader to a figure or table to help enhance the interpretation of the data. The order of interpreting each major finding should be in the same order as they were described in your results section.
• A good discussion section includes analysis of any unexpected findings. This paragraph should begin with a description of the unexpected finding, followed by a brief interpretation as to why you believe it appeared and, if necessary, its possible significance in relation to the overall study. If more than one unexpected finding emerged during the study, describe each them in the order they appeared as you gathered the data.
• Before concluding the discussion, identify potential limitations and weaknesses. Comment on their relative importance in relation to your overall interpretation of the results and, if necessary, note how they may affect the validity of the findings. Avoid using an apologetic tone; however, be honest and self-critical.
• The discussion section should end with a concise summary of the principal implications of the findings regardless of statistical significance. Give a brief explanation about why you believe the findings and conclusions of your study are important and how they support broader knowledge or understanding of the research problem. This can be followed by any recommendations for further research. However, do not offer recommendations which could have been easily addressed within the study. This demonstrates to the reader you have inadequately examined and interpreted the data.

IV.  Overall Objectives

The objectives of your discussion section should include the following: I.  Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings

Briefly reiterate for your readers the research problem or problems you are investigating and the methods you used to investigate them, then move quickly to describe the major findings of the study. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results.

II.  Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important

No one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have. Systematically explain the meaning of the findings and why you believe they are important. After reading the discussion section, you want the reader to think about the results [“why hadn’t I thought of that?”]. You don’t want to force the reader to go through the paper multiple times to figure out what it all means. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important finding first.

III.  Relate the Findings to Similar Studies

No study is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to other previously published research. The discussion section should relate your study findings to those of other studies, particularly if questions raised by previous studies served as the motivation for your study, the findings of other studies support your findings [which strengthens the importance of your study results], and/or they point out how your study differs from other similar studies. IV.  Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings

It is important to remember that the purpose of research is to discover and not to prove . When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your prior assumptions or biases.

V.  Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations

It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor! Describe the generalizability of your results to other situations, if applicable to the method chosen, then describe in detail problems you encountered in the method(s) you used to gather information. Note any unanswered questions or issues your study did not address, and.... VI.  Make Suggestions for Further Research

Although your study may offer important insights about the research problem, other questions related to the problem likely remain unanswered. Moreover, some unanswered questions may have become more focused because of your study. You should make suggestions for further research in the discussion section.

NOTE: Besides the literature review section, the preponderance of references to sources in your research paper are usually found in the discussion section . A few historical references may be helpful for perspective but most of the references should be relatively recent and included to aid in the interpretation of your results and/or linked to similar studies. If a study that you cited disagrees with your findings, don't ignore it--clearly explain why the study's findings differ from yours.

V.  Problems to Avoid

• Do not waste entire sentences restating your results . Should you need to remind the reader of the finding to be discussed, use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation. An example would be: “The lack of available housing to single women with children in rural areas of Texas suggests that...[then move to the interpretation of this finding].”
• Recommendations for further research can be included in either the discussion or conclusion of your paper but do not repeat your recommendations in the both sections.
• Do not introduce new results in the discussion. Be wary of mistaking the reiteration of a specific finding for an interpretation.
• Use of the first person is acceptable, but too much use of the first person may actually distract the reader from the main points.

Analyzing vs. Summarizing. Department of English Writing Guide. George Mason University; Discussion . The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Hess, Dean R. How to Write an Effective Discussion. Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004); Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing to Writing an Effective Discussion Section . San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008; The Lab Report . University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Summary: Using it Wisely . The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Schafer, Mickey S. Writing the Discussion . Writing in Psychology course syllabus. University of Florida; Yellin, Linda L. A Sociology Writer's Guide. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2009.

Writing Tip

Don’t Overinterpret the Results!

Interpretation is a subjective exercise. Therefore, be careful that you do not read more into the findings than can be supported by the evidence you've gathered. Remember that the data are the data: nothing more, nothing less.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Write Two Results Sections!

One of the most common mistakes that you can make when discussing the results of your study is to present a superficial interpretation of the findings that more or less re-states the results section of your paper. Obviously, you must refer to your results when discussing them, but focus on the interpretion of those results, not just the data itself.

Azar, Beth. Discussing Your Findings.  American Psychological Association gradPSYCH Magazine (January 2006)

Yet Another Writing Tip

Avoid Unwarranted Speculation!

The discussion section should remain focused on the findings of your study. For example, if you studied the impact of foreign aid on increasing levels of education among the poor in Bangladesh, it's generally not appropriate to speculate about how your findings might apply to populations in other countries without drawing from existing studies to support your claim. If you feel compelled to speculate, be certain that you clearly identify your comments as speculation or as a suggestion for where further research is needed. Sometimes your professor will encourage you to expand the discussion in this way, while others don’t care what your opinion is beyond your efforts to interpret the data.

• << Previous: Using Non-Textual Elements
• Next: Limitations of the Study >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Turk J Urol
• v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a discussion section?

Writing manuscripts to describe study outcomes, although not easy, is the main task of an academician. The aim of the present review is to outline the main aspects of writing the discussion section of a manuscript. Additionally, we address various issues regarding manuscripts in general. It is advisable to work on a manuscript regularly to avoid losing familiarity with the article. On principle, simple, clear and effective language should be used throughout the text. In addition, a pre-peer review process is recommended to obtain feedback on the manuscript. The discussion section can be written in 3 parts: an introductory paragraph, intermediate paragraphs and a conclusion paragraph. For intermediate paragraphs, a “divide and conquer” approach, meaning a full paragraph describing each of the study endpoints, can be used. In conclusion, academic writing is similar to other skills, and practice makes perfect.

Introduction

Sharing knowledge produced during academic life is achieved through writing manuscripts. However writing manuscripts is a challenging endeavour in that we physicians have a heavy workload, and English which is common language used for the dissemination of scientific knowledge is not our mother tongue.

The objective of this review is to summarize the method of writing ‘Discussion’ section which is the most important, but probably at the same time the most unlikable part of a manuscript, and demonstrate the easy ways we applied in our practice, and finally share the frequently made relevant mistakes. During this procedure, inevitably some issues which concerns general concept of manuscript writing process are dealt with. Therefore in this review we will deal with topics related to the general aspects of manuscript writing process, and specifically issues concerning only the ‘Discussion’ section.

A) Approaches to general aspects of manuscript writing process:

1. what should be the strategy of sparing time for manuscript writing be.

Two different approaches can be formulated on this issue? One of them is to allocate at least 30 minutes a day for writing a manuscript which amounts to 3.5 hours a week. This period of time is adequate for completion of a manuscript within a few weeks which can be generally considered as a long time interval. Fundamental advantage of this approach is to gain a habit of making academic researches if one complies with the designated time schedule, and to keep the manuscript writing motivation at persistently high levels. Another approach concerning this issue is to accomplish manuscript writing process within a week. With the latter approach, the target is rapidly attained. However longer time periods spent in order to concentrate on the subject matter can be boring, and lead to loss of motivation. Daily working requirements unrelated to the manuscript writing might intervene, and prolong manuscript writing process. Alienation periods can cause loss of time because of need for recurrent literature reviews. The most optimal approach to manuscript writing process is daily writing strategy where higher levels of motivation are persistently maintained.

Especially before writing the manuscript, the most important step at the start is to construct a draft, and completion of the manuscript on a theoretical basis. Therefore, during construction of a draft, attention distracting environment should be avoided, and this step should be completed within 1–2 hours. On the other hand, manuscript writing process should begin before the completion of the study (even the during project stage). The justification of this approach is to see the missing aspects of the study and the manuscript writing methodology, and try to solve the relevant problems before completion of the study. Generally, after completion of the study, it is very difficult to solve the problems which might be discerned during the writing process. Herein, at least drafts of the ‘Introduction’, and ‘Material and Methods’ can be written, and even tables containing numerical data can be constructed. These tables can be written down in the ‘Results’ section. [ 1 ]

2. How should the manuscript be written?

The most important principle to be remembered on this issue is to obey the criteria of simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness. [ 2 ] Herein, do not forget that, the objective should be to share our findings with the readers in an easily comprehensible format. Our approach on this subject is to write all structured parts of the manuscript at the same time, and start writing the manuscript while reading the first literature. Thus newly arisen connotations, and self-brain gyms will be promptly written down. However during this process your outcomes should be revealed fully, and roughly the message of the manuscript which be delivered. Thus with this so-called ‘hunter’s approach’ the target can be achieved directly, and rapidly. Another approach is ‘collectioner’s approach. [ 3 ] In this approach, firstly, potential data, and literature studies are gathered, read, and then selected ones are used. Since this approach suits with surgical point of view, probably ‘hunter’s approach’ serves our purposes more appropriately. However, in parallel with academic development, our novice colleague ‘manuscripters’ can prefer ‘collectioner’s approach.’

On the other hand, we think that research team consisting of different age groups has some advantages. Indeed young colleagues have the enthusiasm, and energy required for the conduction of the study, while middle-aged researchers have the knowledge to manage the research, and manuscript writing. Experienced researchers make guiding contributions to the manuscript. However working together in harmony requires assignment of a chief researcher, and periodically organizing advancement meetings. Besides, talents, skills, and experiences of the researchers in different fields (ie. research methods, contact with patients, preparation of a project, fund-raising, statistical analysis etc.) will determine task sharing, and make a favourable contribution to the perfection of the manuscript. Achievement of the shared duties within a predetermined time frame will sustain the motivation of the researchers, and prevent wearing out of updated data.

According to our point of view, ‘Abstract’ section of the manuscript should be written after completion of the manuscript. The reason for this is that during writing process of the main text, the significant study outcomes might become insignificant or vice versa. However, generally, before onset of the writing process of the manuscript, its abstract might be already presented in various congresses. During writing process, this abstract might be a useful guide which prevents deviation from the main objective of the manuscript.

On the other hand references should be promptly put in place while writing the manuscript, Sorting, and placement of the references should not be left to the last moment. Indeed, it might be very difficult to remember relevant references to be placed in the ‘Discussion’ section. For the placement of references use of software programs detailed in other sections is a rational approach.

3. Which target journal should be selected?

In essence, the methodology to be followed in writing the ‘Discussion’ section is directly related to the selection of the target journal. Indeed, in compliance with the writing rules of the target journal, limitations made on the number of words after onset of the writing process, effects mostly the ‘Discussion’ section. Proper matching of the manuscript with the appropriate journal requires clear, and complete comprehension of the available data from scientific point of view. Previously, similar articles might have been published, however innovative messages, and new perspectives on the relevant subject will facilitate acceptance of the article for publication. Nowadays, articles questioning available information, rather than confirmatory ones attract attention. However during this process, classical information should not be questioned except for special circumstances. For example manuscripts which lead to the conclusions as “laparoscopic surgery is more painful than open surgery” or “laparoscopic surgery can be performed without prior training” will not be accepted or they will be returned by the editor of the target journal to the authors with the request of critical review. Besides the target journal to be selected should be ready to accept articles with similar concept. In fact editors of the journal will not reserve the limited space in their journal for articles yielding similar conclusions.

The title of the manuscript is as important as the structured sections * of the manuscript. The title can be the most striking or the newest outcome among results obtained.

Before writing down the manuscript, determination of 2–3 titles increases the motivation of the authors towards the manuscript. During writing process of the manuscript one of these can be selected based on the intensity of the discussion. However the suitability of the title to the agenda of the target journal should be investigated beforehand. For example an article bearing the title “Use of barbed sutures in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy shortens warm ischemia time” should not be sent to “Original Investigations and Seminars in Urologic Oncology” Indeed the topic of the manuscript is out of the agenda of this journal.

4. Do we have to get a pre-peer review about the written manuscript?

Before submission of the manuscript to the target journal the opinions of internal, and external referees should be taken. [ 1 ] Internal referees can be considered in 2 categories as “General internal referees” and “expert internal referees” General internal referees (ie. our colleagues from other medical disciplines) are not directly concerned with your subject matter but as mentioned above they critically review the manuscript as for simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness of its writing style. Expert internal reviewers have a profound knowledge about the subject, and they can provide guidance about the writing process of the manuscript (ie. our senior colleagues more experienced than us). External referees are our colleagues who did not contribute to data collection of our study in any way, but we can request their opinions about the subject matter of the manuscript. Since they are unrelated both to the author(s), and subject matter of the manuscript, these referees can review our manuscript more objectively. Before sending the manuscript to internal, and external referees, we should contact with them, and ask them if they have time to review our manuscript. We should also give information about our subject matter. Otherwise pre-peer review process can delay publication of the manuscript, and decrease motivation of the authors. In conclusion, whoever the preferred referee will be, these internal, and external referees should respond the following questions objectively. 1) Does the manuscript contribute to the literature?; 2) Does it persuasive? 3) Is it suitable for the publication in the selected journal? 4) Has a simple, clear, and effective language been used throughout the manuscript? In line with the opinions of the referees, the manuscript can be critically reviewed, and perfected. [ 1 ]**

Following receival of the opinions of internal, and external referees, one should concentrate priorly on indicated problems, and their solutions. Comments coming from the reviewers should be criticized, but a defensive attitude should not be assumed during this evaluation process. During this “incubation” period where the comments of the internal, and external referees are awaited, literature should be reviewed once more. Indeed during this time interval a new article which you should consider in the ‘Discussion’ section can be cited in the literature.

5. What are the common mistakes made related to the writing process of a manuscript?

Probably the most important mistakes made related to the writing process of a manuscript include lack of a clear message of the manuscript , inclusion of more than one main idea in the same text or provision of numerous unrelated results at the same time so as to reinforce the assertions of the manuscript. This approach can be termed roughly as “loss of the focus of the study” In conclusion, the author(s) should ask themselves the following question at every stage of the writing process:. “What is the objective of the study? If you always get clear-cut answers whenever you ask this question, then the study is proceeding towards the right direction. Besides application of a template which contains the intended clear-cut messages to be followed will contribute to the communication of net messages.

One of the important mistakes is refraining from critical review of the manuscript as a whole after completion of the writing process. Therefore, the authors should go over the manuscript for at least three times after finalization of the manuscript based on joint decision. The first control should concentrate on the evaluation of the appropriateness of the logic of the manuscript, and its organization, and whether desired messages have been delivered or not. Secondly, syutax, and grammar of the manuscript should be controlled. It is appropriate to review the manuscript for the third time 1 or 2 weeks after completion of its writing process. Thus, evaluation of the “cooled” manuscript will be made from a more objective perspective, and assessment process of its integrity will be facilitated.

Other erroneous issues consist of superfluousness of the manuscript with unnecessary repetitions, undue, and recurrent references to the problems adressed in the manuscript or their solution methods, overcriticizing or overpraising other studies, and use of a pompous literary language overlooking the main objective of sharing information. [ 4 ]

B) Approaches to the writing process of the ‘Discussion’ section:

1. how should the main points of ‘discussion’ section be constructed.

Generally the length of the ‘Discussion ‘ section should not exceed the sum of other sections (ıntroduction, material and methods, and results), and it should be completed within 6–7 paragraphs.. Each paragraph should not contain more than 200 words, and hence words should be counted repeteadly. The ‘Discussion’ section can be generally divided into 3 separate paragraphs as. 1) Introductory paragraph, 2) Intermediate paragraphs, 3) Concluding paragraph.

The introductory paragraph contains the main idea of performing the study in question. Without repeating ‘Introduction’ section of the manuscript, the problem to be addressed, and its updateness are analysed. The introductory paragraph starts with an undebatable sentence, and proceeds with a part addressing the following questions as 1) On what issue we have to concentrate, discuss or elaborate? 2) What solutions can be recommended to solve this problem? 3) What will be the new, different, and innovative issue? 4) How will our study contribute to the solution of this problem An introductory paragraph in this format is helpful to accomodate reader to the rest of the Discussion section. However summarizing the basic findings of the experimental studies in the first paragraph is generally recommended by the editors of the journal. [ 5 ]

In the last paragraph of the Discussion section “strong points” of the study should be mentioned using “constrained”, and “not too strongly assertive” statements. Indicating limitations of the study will reflect objectivity of the authors, and provide answers to the questions which will be directed by the reviewers of the journal. On the other hand in the last paragraph, future directions or potential clinical applications may be emphasized.

2. How should the intermediate paragraphs of the Discussion section be formulated?

The reader passes through a test of boredom while reading paragraphs of the Discussion section apart from the introductory, and the last paragraphs. Herein your findings rather than those of the other researchers are discussed. The previous studies can be an explanation or reinforcement of your findings. Each paragraph should contain opinions in favour or against the topic discussed, critical evaluations, and learning points.

Our management approach for intermediate paragraphs is “divide and conquer” tactics. Accordingly, the findings of the study are determined in order of their importance, and a paragraph is constructed for each finding ( Figure 1 ). Each paragraph begins with an “indisputable” introductory sentence about the topic to be discussed. This sentence basically can be the answer to the question “What have we found?” Then a sentence associated with the subject matter to be discussed is written. Subsequently, in the light of the current literature this finding is discussed, new ideas on this subject are revealed, and the paragraph ends with a concluding remark.

Divide and Conquer tactics

In this paragraph, main topic should be emphasized without going into much detail. Its place, and importance among other studies should be indicated. However during this procedure studies should be presented in a logical sequence (ie. from past to present, from a few to many cases), and aspects of the study contradictory to other studies should be underlined. Results without any supportive evidence or equivocal results should not be written. Besides numerical values presented in the Results section should not be repeated unless required.

Besides, asking the following questions, and searching their answers in the same paragraph will facilitate writing process of the paragraph. [ 1 ] 1) Can the discussed result be false or inadequate? 2) Why is it false? (inadequate blinding, protocol contamination, lost to follow-up, lower statistical power of the study etc.), 3) What meaning does this outcome convey?

3. What are the common mistakes made in writing the Discussion section?:

Probably the most important mistake made while writing the Discussion section is the need for mentioning all literature references. One point to remember is that we are not writing a review article, and only the results related to this paragraph should be discussed. Meanwhile, each word of the paragraphs should be counted, and placed carefully. Each word whose removal will not change the meaning should be taken out from the text.” Writing a saga with “word salads” *** is one of the reasons for prompt rejection. Indeed, if the reviewer thinks that it is difficult to correct the Discussion section, he/she use her/ his vote in the direction of rejection to save time (Uniform requirements for manuscripts: International Comittee of Medical Journal Editors [ http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf ])

The other important mistake is to give too much references, and irrelevancy between the references, and the section with these cited references. [ 3 ] While referring these studies, (excl. introductory sentences linking indisputable sentences or paragraphs) original articles should be cited. Abstracts should not be referred, and review articles should not be cited unless required very much.

4. What points should be paid attention about writing rules, and grammar?

As is the case with the whole article, text of the Discussion section should be written with a simple language, as if we are talking with our colleague. [ 2 ] Each sentence should indicate a single point, and it should not exceed 25–30 words. The priorly mentioned information which linked the previous sentence should be placed at the beginning of the sentence, while the new information should be located at the end of the sentence. During construction of the sentences, avoid unnecessary words, and active voice rather than passive voice should be used.**** Since conventionally passive voice is used in the scientific manuscripts written in the Turkish language, the above statement contradicts our writing habits. However, one should not refrain from beginning the sentences with the word “we”. Indeed, editors of the journal recommend use of active voice so as to increase the intelligibility of the manuscript.

In conclusion, the major point to remember is that the manuscript should be written complying with principles of simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness. In the light of these principles, as is the case in our daily practice, all components of the manuscript (IMRAD) can be written concurrently. In the ‘Discussion’ section ‘divide and conquer’ tactics remarkably facilitates writing process of the discussion. On the other hand, relevant or irrelevant feedbacks received from our colleagues can contribute to the perfection of the manuscript. Do not forget that none of the manuscripts is perfect, and one should not refrain from writing because of language problems, and related lack of experience.

Instead of structured sections of a manuscript (IMRAD): Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, and Discussion

Instead of in the Istanbul University Faculty of Medicine posters to be submitted in congresses are time to time discussed in Wednesday meetings, and opinions of the internal referees are obtained about the weak, and strong points of the study

Instead of a writing style which uses words or sentences with a weak logical meaning that do not lead the reader to any conclusion

Instead of “white color”; “proven”; nstead of “history”; “to”. should be used instead of “white in color”, “definitely proven”, “past history”, and “in order to”, respectively ( ref. 2 )

Instead of “No instances of either postoperative death or major complications occurred during the early post-operative period” use “There were no deaths or major complications occurred during the early post-operative period.

Instead of “Measurements were performed to evaluate the levels of CEA in the serum” use “We measured serum CEA levels”

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

Published on August 25, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 20, 2023.

Your research methodology discusses and explains the data collection and analysis methods you used in your research. A key part of your thesis, dissertation , or research paper , the methodology chapter explains what you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and validity of your research and your dissertation topic .

It should include:

• The type of research you conducted
• How you collected and analyzed your data
• Any tools or materials you used in the research
• How you mitigated or avoided research biases
• Why you chose these methods
• Your methodology section should generally be written in the past tense .
• Academic style guides in your field may provide detailed guidelines on what to include for different types of studies.
• Your citation style might provide guidelines for your methodology section (e.g., an APA Style methods section ).

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

How to write a research methodology, why is a methods section important, step 1: explain your methodological approach, step 2: describe your data collection methods, step 3: describe your analysis method, step 4: evaluate and justify the methodological choices you made, tips for writing a strong methodology chapter, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about methodology.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Your methods section is your opportunity to share how you conducted your research and why you chose the methods you chose. It’s also the place to show that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated .

It gives your research legitimacy and situates it within your field, and also gives your readers a place to refer to if they have any questions or critiques in other sections.

You can start by introducing your overall approach to your research. You have two options here.

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

• Aim to describe the characteristics of something?
• Explore an under-researched topic?
• Establish a causal relationship?

And what type of data did you need to achieve this aim?

• Quantitative data , qualitative data , or a mix of both?
• Primary data collected yourself, or secondary data collected by someone else?
• Experimental data gathered by controlling and manipulating variables, or descriptive data gathered via observations?

Option 2: Start with your “why”

Depending on your discipline, you can also start with a discussion of the rationale and assumptions underpinning your methodology. In other words, why did you choose these methods for your study?

• Why is this the best way to answer your research question?
• Is this a standard methodology in your field, or does it require justification?
• Were there any ethical considerations involved in your choices?
• What are the criteria for validity and reliability in this type of research ? How did you prevent bias from affecting your data?

Once you have introduced your reader to your methodological approach, you should share full details about your data collection methods .

Quantitative methods

In order to be considered generalizable, you should describe quantitative research methods in enough detail for another researcher to replicate your study.

Here, explain how you operationalized your concepts and measured your variables. Discuss your sampling method or inclusion and exclusion criteria , as well as any tools, procedures, and materials you used to gather your data.

Surveys Describe where, when, and how the survey was conducted.

• How did you design the questionnaire?
• What form did your questions take (e.g., multiple choice, Likert scale )?
• Were your surveys conducted in-person or virtually?
• What sampling method did you use to select participants?
• What was your sample size and response rate?

Experiments Share full details of the tools, techniques, and procedures you used to conduct your experiment.

• How did you design the experiment ?
• How did you recruit participants?
• How did you manipulate and measure the variables ?
• What tools did you use?

Existing data Explain how you gathered and selected the material (such as datasets or archival data) that you used in your analysis.

• Where did you source the material?
• How was the data originally produced?
• What criteria did you use to select material (e.g., date range)?

The survey consisted of 5 multiple-choice questions and 10 questions measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

The goal was to collect survey responses from 350 customers visiting the fitness apparel company’s brick-and-mortar location in Boston on July 4–8, 2022, between 11:00 and 15:00.

Here, a customer was defined as a person who had purchased a product from the company on the day they took the survey. Participants were given 5 minutes to fill in the survey anonymously. In total, 408 customers responded, but not all surveys were fully completed. Due to this, 371 survey results were included in the analysis.

• Information bias
• Omitted variable bias
• Regression to the mean
• Survivorship bias
• Undercoverage bias
• Sampling bias

Qualitative methods

In qualitative research , methods are often more flexible and subjective. For this reason, it’s crucial to robustly explain the methodology choices you made.

Be sure to discuss the criteria you used to select your data, the context in which your research was conducted, and the role you played in collecting your data (e.g., were you an active participant, or a passive observer?)

Interviews or focus groups Describe where, when, and how the interviews were conducted.

• How did you find and select participants?
• How many participants took part?
• What form did the interviews take ( structured , semi-structured , or unstructured )?
• How long were the interviews?
• How were they recorded?

Participant observation Describe where, when, and how you conducted the observation or ethnography .

• What group or community did you observe? How long did you spend there?
• How did you gain access to this group? What role did you play in the community?
• How long did you spend conducting the research? Where was it located?
• How did you record your data (e.g., audiovisual recordings, note-taking)?

Existing data Explain how you selected case study materials for your analysis.

• What type of materials did you analyze?
• How did you select them?

In order to gain better insight into possibilities for future improvement of the fitness store’s product range, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 returning customers.

Here, a returning customer was defined as someone who usually bought products at least twice a week from the store.

Surveys were used to select participants. Interviews were conducted in a small office next to the cash register and lasted approximately 20 minutes each. Answers were recorded by note-taking, and seven interviews were also filmed with consent. One interviewee preferred not to be filmed.

• The Hawthorne effect
• Observer bias
• The placebo effect
• Response bias and Nonresponse bias
• The Pygmalion effect
• Recall bias
• Social desirability bias
• Self-selection bias

Mixed methods

Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. If a standalone quantitative or qualitative study is insufficient to answer your research question, mixed methods may be a good fit for you.

Mixed methods are less common than standalone analyses, largely because they require a great deal of effort to pull off successfully. If you choose to pursue mixed methods, it’s especially important to robustly justify your methods.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Next, you should indicate how you processed and analyzed your data. Avoid going into too much detail: you should not start introducing or discussing any of your results at this stage.

In quantitative research , your analysis will be based on numbers. In your methods section, you can include:

• How you prepared the data before analyzing it (e.g., checking for missing data , removing outliers , transforming variables)
• Which software you used (e.g., SPSS, Stata or R)
• Which statistical tests you used (e.g., two-tailed t test , simple linear regression )

In qualitative research, your analysis will be based on language, images, and observations (often involving some form of textual analysis ).

Specific methods might include:

• Content analysis : Categorizing and discussing the meaning of words, phrases and sentences
• Thematic analysis : Coding and closely examining the data to identify broad themes and patterns
• Discourse analysis : Studying communication and meaning in relation to their social context

Mixed methods combine the above two research methods, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches into one coherent analytical process.

Above all, your methodology section should clearly make the case for why you chose the methods you did. This is especially true if you did not take the most standard approach to your topic. In this case, discuss why other methods were not suitable for your objectives, and show how this approach contributes new knowledge or understanding.

In any case, it should be overwhelmingly clear to your reader that you set yourself up for success in terms of your methodology’s design. Show how your methods should lead to results that are valid and reliable, while leaving the analysis of the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results for your discussion section .

• Quantitative: Lab-based experiments cannot always accurately simulate real-life situations and behaviors, but they are effective for testing causal relationships between variables .
• Qualitative: Unstructured interviews usually produce results that cannot be generalized beyond the sample group , but they provide a more in-depth understanding of participants’ perceptions, motivations, and emotions.
• Mixed methods: Despite issues systematically comparing differing types of data, a solely quantitative study would not sufficiently incorporate the lived experience of each participant, while a solely qualitative study would be insufficiently generalizable.

Remember that your aim is not just to describe your methods, but to show how and why you applied them. Again, it’s critical to demonstrate that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated.

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

The methodology section should clearly show why your methods suit your objectives and convince the reader that you chose the best possible approach to answering your problem statement and research questions .

2. Cite relevant sources

Your methodology can be strengthened by referencing existing research in your field. This can help you to:

• Show that you followed established practice for your type of research
• Discuss how you decided on your approach by evaluating existing research
• Present a novel methodological approach to address a gap in the literature

3. Write for your audience

Consider how much information you need to give, and avoid getting too lengthy. If you are using methods that are standard for your discipline, you probably don’t need to give a lot of background or justification.

Regardless, your methodology should be a clear, well-structured text that makes an argument for your approach, not just a list of technical details and procedures.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles

Methodology

• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyze data (for example, experiments, surveys , and statistical tests ).

In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .

In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.

In a scientific paper, the methodology always comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion . The same basic structure also applies to a thesis, dissertation , or research proposal .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something:

• Reliability refers to the  consistency of a measure (whether the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).
• Validity   refers to the  accuracy of a measure (whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure).

If you are doing experimental research, you also have to consider the internal and external validity of your experiment.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 20). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research design | types, guide & examples, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Communicating in STEM Disciplines
• Features of Academic STEM Writing
• STEM Writing Tips
• Academic Integrity in STEM
• Strategies for Writing
• Science Writing Videos – YouTube Channel
• Educator Resources
• Lesson Plans, Activities and Assignments
• Strategies for Teaching Writing
• Grading Techniques

IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion)

Academic research papers in STEM disciplines typically follow a well-defined I-M-R-A-D structure: Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion (Wu, 2011). Although not included in the IMRAD name, these papers often include a Conclusion.

Introduction

The Introduction typically provides everything your reader needs to know in order to understand the scope and purpose of your research. This section should provide:

• Context for your research (for example, the nature and scope of your topic)
• A summary of how relevant scholars have approached your research topic to date, and a description of how your research makes a contribution to the scholarly conversation
• An argument or hypothesis that relates to the scholarly conversation
• A brief explanation of your methodological approach and a justification for this approach (in other words, a brief discussion of how you gather your data and why this is an appropriate choice for your contribution)
• The main conclusions of your paper (or the “so what”)
• A roadmap, or a brief description of how the rest of your paper proceeds

The Methods section describes exactly what you did to gather the data that you use in your paper. This should expand on the brief methodology discussion in the introduction and provide readers with enough detail to, if necessary, reproduce your experiment, design, or method for obtaining data; it should also help readers to anticipate your results. The more specific, the better!  These details might include:

• An overview of the methodology at the beginning of the section
• A chronological description of what you did in the order you did it
• Descriptions of the materials used, the time taken, and the precise step-by-step process you followed
• An explanation of software used for statistical calculations (if necessary)
• Justifications for any choices or decisions made when designing your methods

Because the methods section describes what was done to gather data, there are two things to consider when writing. First, this section is usually written in the past tense (for example, we poured 250ml of distilled water into the 1000ml glass beaker). Second, this section should not be written as a set of instructions or commands but as descriptions of actions taken. This usually involves writing in the active voice (for example, we poured 250ml of distilled water into the 1000ml glass beaker), but some readers prefer the passive voice (for example, 250ml of distilled water was poured into the 1000ml beaker). It’s important to consider the audience when making this choice, so be sure to ask your instructor which they prefer.

The Results section outlines the data gathered through the methods described above and explains what the data show. This usually involves a combination of tables and/or figures and prose. In other words, the results section gives your reader context for interpreting the data. The results section usually includes:

• A presentation of the data obtained through the means described in the methods section in the form of tables and/or figures
• Statements that summarize or explain what the data show
• Highlights of the most important results

Tables should be as succinct as possible, including only vital information (often summarized) and figures should be easy to interpret and be visually engaging. When adding your written explanation to accompany these visual aids, try to refer your readers to these in such a way that they provide an additional descriptive element, rather than simply telling people to look at them. This can be especially helpful for readers who find it hard to see patterns in data.

The Discussion section explains why the results described in the previous section are meaningful in relation to previous scholarly work and the specific research question your paper explores. This section usually includes:

• Engagement with sources that are relevant to your work (you should compare and contrast your results to those of similar researchers)
• An explanation of the results that you found, and why these results are important and/or interesting

Some papers have separate Results and Discussion sections, while others combine them into one section, Results and Discussion. There are benefits to both. By presenting these as separate sections, you’re able to discuss all of your results before moving onto the implications. By presenting these as one section, you’re able to discuss specific results and move onto their significance before introducing another set of results.

The Conclusion section of a paper should include a brief summary of the main ideas or key takeaways of the paper and their implications for future research. This section usually includes:

• A brief overview of the main claims and/or key ideas put forth in the paper
• A brief discussion of potential limitations of the study (if relevant)
• Some suggestions for future research (these should be clearly related to the content of your paper)

Sample Research Article

Resource Download

Wu, Jianguo. “Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond.” Landscape Ecology 26, no. 10 (November 2011): 1345–1349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9674-3.

Further reading:

• Organization of a Research Paper: The IMRAD Format by P. K. Ramachandran Nair and Vimala D. Nair
• George Mason University Writing Centre’s guide on Writing a Scientific Research Report (IMRAD)
• University of Wisconsin Writing Centre’s guide on Formatting Science Reports

• Langson Library
• Science Library
• Grunigen Medical Library
• Law Library
• Connect From Off-Campus
• Accessibility
• Gateway Study Center

Email this link

Writing a scientific paper.

• Writing a lab report
• INTRODUCTION

Writing a "good" methods section

"methods checklist" from: how to write a good scientific paper. chris a. mack. spie. 2018..

• LITERATURE CITED
• Bibliography of guides to scientific writing and presenting
• Peer Review
• Presentations
• Lab Report Writing Guides on the Web

The purpose is to provide enough detail that a competent worker could repeat the experiment. Many of your readers will skip this section because they already know from the Introduction the general methods you used. However careful writing of this section is important because for your results to be of scientific merit they must be reproducible. Otherwise your paper does not represent good science.

• Exact technical specifications and quantities and source or method of preparation
• Describe equipment used and provide illustrations where relevant.
• Chronological presentation (but related methods described together)
• Questions about "how" and "how much" are answered for the reader and not left for them to puzzle over
• Discuss statistical methods only if unusual or advanced
• When a large number of components are used prepare tables for the benefit of the reader
• Do not state the action without stating the agent of the action
• Describe how the results were generated with sufficient detail so that an independent researcher (working in the same field) could reproduce the results sufficiently to allow validation of the conclusions.
• Can the reader assess internal validity (conclusions are supported by the results presented)?
• Can the reader assess external validity (conclusions are properly generalized beyond these specific results)?
• Has the chosen method been justified?
• Are data analysis and statistical approaches justified, with assumptions and biases considered?
• Avoid: including results in the Method section; including extraneous details (unnecessary to enable reproducibility or judge validity); treating the method as a chronological history of events; unneeded references to commercial products; references to “proprietary” products or processes unavailable to the reader. 
• << Previous: INTRODUCTION
• Next: RESULTS >>
• Last Updated: Aug 4, 2023 9:33 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uci.edu/scientificwriting

Off-campus? Please use the Software VPN and choose the group UCIFull to access licensed content. For more information, please Click here

Software VPN is not available for guests, so they may not have access to some content when connecting from off-campus.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Methodology

Definition:

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

Structure of Research Methodology

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

I. Introduction

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

II. Research Design

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

III. Data Collection Methods

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

IV. Data Analysis Methods

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

V. Ethical Considerations

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

VI. Limitations

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

VII. Conclusion

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

Research Methodology Types

Types of Research Methodology are as follows:

Quantitative Research Methodology

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

Qualitative Research Methodology

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

Mixed-Methods Research Methodology

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

Case Study Research Methodology

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

Action Research Methodology

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

Experimental Research Methodology

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

Survey Research Methodology

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

Grounded Theory Research Methodology

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

Research Methodology Example

An Example of Research Methodology could be the following:

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

Introduction:

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

Research Design:

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

Participants:

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

Intervention :

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

Data Collection:

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

Data Analysis:

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

Ethical Considerations:

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

Data Management:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusion:

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

How to Write Research Methodology

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

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

When to Write Research Methodology

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

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

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

Applications of Research Methodology

Here are some of the applications of research methodology:

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

Purpose of Research Methodology

Research methodology serves several important purposes, including:

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

Advantages of Research Methodology

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

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

Research Methodology Vs Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Significance of the Study – Examples and Writing...

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Data Verification – Process, Types and Examples

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and...

APA Research Paper Format – Example, Sample and...

Future Research – Thesis Guide

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 28 August 2024

A new multi-analytical procedure for radiocarbon dating of historical mortars

• Sara Calandra 1 ,
• Emma Cantisani 2 ,
• Claudia Conti 3 ,
• Barbara Salvadori 2 ,
• Serena Barone 4 , 5 ,
• Lucia Liccioli 4 ,
• Mariaelena Fedi 4 ,
• Teresa Salvatici 1 ,
• Andrea Arrighetti 6 ,
• Fabio Fratini 2 &
• Carlo Alberto Garzonio 1  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  19979 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The overarching challenge of this research is setting up a procedure to select the most appropriate fraction from complex, heterogeneous materials such as historic mortars in case of radiocarbon dating. At present, in the international community, there is not a unique and fully accepted way of mortar sample preparation to systematically obtain accurate results. With this contribution, we propose a strategy for selecting suitable mortar samples for radiocarbon dating of anthropogenic calcite in binder or lump. A four-step procedure is proposed: (I) good sampling strategies along with architectural and historical surveys; (II) mineralogical, petrographic, and chemical characterization of mortars to evaluate the feasibility of sample dating; (III) a non-destructive multi-analytical characterization of binder-rich portions to avoid geogenic calcite contamination; (IV) carbonate micro-sample preparation and accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) measurements. The most innovative feature of the overall procedure relies on the fact that, in case of positive validation in step III, exactly the same material is treated and measured in step IV. The paper aims to apply this procedure to the ancient mortar of the Florentine historical building (Trebbio Castle), selecting micro-samples suitable for dating in natural hydraulic mortars. The discussion of the mortar dating results with the historical-archaeological hypotheses provided significant insights into the construction history of the building.

Introduction

Radiocarbon dating is one of the most widely used dating techniques in the field of archaeology and Cultural Heritage 1 . This technique is used to typically date organic finds (such as charcoal, wood, bone, or textiles) but also inorganic materials 2 , such as carbonate compounds, i.e., lead white 3 , 4 . Mortar is an artificial product which has been prepared and used by humans since ancient times, mainly consisting of a binder, some aggregates and possible additives.

In mortar and plaster samples, plant remains, such as charcoal, vegetal, and straw fragments, are the most dated fraction with radiocarbon method ( 14 C), as reported in literature 5 , 6 , 7 . Other approach concerns the dating with Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) of quartz and feldspar aggregates 8 , 9 , 10 .

In addition, among possible applications to inorganic carbon-based materials, the use of 14 C method for dating ancient mortars was proposed as early as in the 1960s, applying the method to the inorganic binder 11 , 12 , 13 . In mortars, the inorganic radiocarbon-datable component is calcite, which is formed by the reaction of calcium hydroxide with atmospheric CO 2 during the setting of the material (the so-called anthropogenic calcite). Air-hardening mortars are the most suitable for dating because they set and harden incorporating atmospheric CO 2 . However, since mortars are heterogeneous materials, other sources of C, which may contaminate the 14 C concentration, can be present in the mortar samples.

Contaminations can be due to the presence of:

unburned carbonate of stone used for the production of lime and carbonate aggregate present in the mixture (geogenic calcite). These two sources make the sample older than expected;

(re)crystallized secondary calcium carbonates and products of delayed hardening (so-called secondary calcite). Secondary calcite forms after the initial hardening of the mortar, thus, causing an apparent rejuvenation of the sample.

Moreover, the type of binder of the mortar sample may not be quite ideal, as there are historical mortars with not totally air lime binder.

Selection of the datable fraction and elimination of potential contamination is a challenge for the international radiocarbon community 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 . Despite numerous efforts as evidenced by the extensive literature in the field carried out by the scientific community, an analytical workflow for characterization and dating of inorganic fraction of mortars has not been established.

This paper aims at discussing our sample selection procedure for radiocarbon dating of historic mortars, from the preliminary comprehensive characterization of the material to the sample preparation for the 14 C-AMS measurement. Archaeological and historical survey coupling with accurate sampling, and then in-depth minero-petrographic and chemical characterization of the mortars are the first two steps (Step I and II), respectively. Separation of binder from the aggregate coupled with characterization of the separated carbonate fractions is mandatory (Step III). Proactive identification of the origin of calcite allows for the reduction of the possible contamination risk, thus obtaining accurate 14 C measurement by AMS (Step IV).

As far as Step II is concerned, a multi-analytical characterization procedure of the mortar fragments, i.e. optical and electron microscopy (OM, SEM–EDS), X-ray diffraction on powders (XRPD), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) was designed.

In Step III, a non-destructive, original approach capable of identifying the origin of calcite (geogenic and anthropogenic calcite) was explored using XRPD, OM-cathodoluminescence (OM-CL), ATR-FTIR, micro-Raman. A new experimental set-up for the collection of CO 2 evolving from the selected calcite was installed, by integrating an acidification reactor into our so-called Lilliput graphitization reactors, which are optimized for microgram-sized samples 18 , 19 . The graphitization line is used to obtain graphite samples whose residual 14 C abundance is measured by AMS.

The procedure was validated in architectural contexts, such as the Tuscany historical building (Trebbio Castle in Florentine surroundings).

Analytical procedure

Step i: sampling and the issue of chronology questions.

Accurate dating of mortar in masonry requires a comprehensive approach involving collaboration between experts in mortar analysis, archaeologists and architects who understand wall stratigraphy 20 , 21 . Precise sampling is crucial and begins with well-defined research questions related to chronology, along with documentation and historical research and analysis of the masonry 22 (Fig.  1 , step I). For example, if the aim is to determine the age of construction, it is important to avoid areas of repair or renovation. However, if the focus is on determining the period in which the building was in use, these repaired or renovated areas may be of greater importance. Mortar between stone blocks is likely to be original if the stone block overlies the mortar; on the other hand, if the mortar protrudes beyond the stone block, this indicates a later intervention. Care should be taken when selecting samples from the ground, i.e. from collapsed ruins, as these may have been transported or weathered, thus being their association with the event to be dated not accurate.

Graphical representation of the new multi-analytical procedure for radiocarbon dating of historical mortars.

Mismatches in the dating results can arise due to different factors, such as mortar constituents (the type of binder and aggregate) or environmental factors (the state of preservation, which may be due to e.g. recrystallization and delayed hardening).

For instance, bedding mortars or core mortars are generally less altered over time than plaster and are less exposed to the external environmental parameters 23 .

To minimize secondary carbon sources, sampling sites should be carefully selected, favoring areas that are less exposed to weathering over exterior surfaces 20 , 21 . Analyzing samples from greater depths and intermediate heights helps to mitigate the influence of ambient water, which can introduce younger samples through rainfall or surface water or obvious aging effects from dissolved geological carbonates in groundwater and soil moisture.

As the slaked lime (Ca(OH) 2 ) absorbs CO 2 from the atmosphere, the setting and hardening process starts from the surface and progresses inwards. Delayed hardening in the inner parts of thick walls can lead to inaccuracies in dating results 24 . Optimal samples should be taken at a depth close to the wall surface, deep enough to avoid problems with the surface, but not too deep to have problems with delayed hardening. If carbonate aggregates are present, careful sampling is essential to limit dispersion.

In summary, careful sampling and consideration of various factors are crucial for successful 14 C dating results in mortar. These considerations and methods contribute to the robustness and reliability of mortar dating in archaeological investigations.

The evaluation of the degree of carbonation of the mortar with the phenolphthalein test is the first mandatory characterization step. Phenolphthalein indicates the presence of calcium hydroxide in the mortar. A sample that is not fully carbonated must be excluded for 14 C dating. The test can be carried out in situ on the masonry or in the laboratory on a sample.

Step II: analytical procedure to characterize mortars for dating

To characterize mortars and select those materials that can be suitable for dating purposes, it is essential to determine the composition of all the constituents of the mixture, their relative amounts (binder/aggregate ratio—B/A), the nature of binder and aggregates, the constituents within the binder, as well as the degree of carbonation. In fact, the information we can get from different analytical techniques can give us hints about the manufacturing process of the materials. In particular, it can suggest us whether the basic conditions for applying radiocarbon dating are respected and can support us to choose the best approach to select the most appropriate fraction to be dated. For example, the aforementioned B/A ratio allows us to understand how much material we have to sample to get enough mass at the end of the selection procedure.

For a comprehensive characterization, several investigations must be performed, each useful in reconstructing the overall picture and providing key information to select or exclude material for dating (Fig.  1 , step II). The complementarity of multiple investigations is crucial for an accurate and full understanding of the material. Indeed, the investigations make it possible to determine the relative chronology of different construction phases within a building or site 25 , 26 . Here following the summarized description of the analytical techniques proposed for characterization.

Thin-section observation of mortar under an OM in transmitted light provides essential insights into the nature of binder, aggregate and lumps 19 , 27 .

For the binder, OM provides information on the texture (micritic, microsparitic, sparitic), the mineralogical composition, the birefringence colors, the structure and the interactions with the aggregate. Moreover, OM allows us to classify the binder as: air lime, natural hydraulic lime, air lime with addition of pozzolanic materials (i.e. cocciopesto , volcanic ash and clay minerals) and modern hydraulic binder 28 , 29 .

The description of the aggregate is crucial for the evaluation of contamination sources, taking into account mineralogical composition, particle size distribution, amount of binder with respect to aggregate (B/A) ratio, macroporosity and alteration products.

Petrography is also beneficial for the identification of lumps and organic fragments in the mortar. OM observation make it possible to recognize the type of lumps and distinguish between residues of stones used to make binders and binder residues.

The observation of lumps with OM allows us to recognize their types and origins, achieving information on the rock used to produce lime as well as suggestions on production technologies 27 .

Petrographic observation contributes to assess the uniformity of the binder and to identify zones of different crystallinity due to partial recrystallization by circulating water. Sources of contamination, such as recrystallization of calcite and carbonate aggregates, can lead to exclude samples from 14 C dating 21 .

Modern binders should be eliminated from dating, since the dating principle is not applicable to these types of binders. Particular attention should be paid to magnesium binders 30 . The 14 C dating outcomes may be affected by the presence of much younger 14 C, due to the properties of minerals produced upon carbonation (such as magnesite and nesquehonite).

XRPD analysis of bulk samples includes the mineralogical composition of both the binder and the aggregate, which can be integrated with the identified phases in thin sections. Single lumps and binder-rich portions can be also analyzed. All these data yield crucial information, revealing whether the mortar is non-carbonated (portlandite), if the sample contains magnesium lime (brucite, hydromagnesite, magnesite), or if the binder exhibits hydraulic properties 31 (tobermorite, hydrogarnet), or if secondary reactions occurred which lead to the formation of new phases (gypsum, hydrotalcite, hydrocalumite). The presence of these latter two phases in mortar binders strongly influences the radiocarbon dating of lime mortars, because of their high (CO 3 ) 2– anion capture capability 32 , 33 . The presence of gypsum indicates that the binder has altered, suggesting an open system and therefore a context subject to contamination from the external environment 34 .

Observations under the optical microscope can be further enhanced and supplemented by SEM–EDS which combines microscopy and X-ray spectroscopy to obtain detailed information on the morphology and elemental composition of mortar constituents. Semi-quantitative elemental analysis is useful for: (1) estimating the provenance of raw material through the analysis of residues of stones used for lime production; (2) obtaining information on the hydraulic index (HI) 35 and the overall composition of the binder, including the possible presence of Ca and Mg based binder, and of silico-aluminates ferriferous phases; (3) evaluating changes in elemental composition within reaction rims areas; (4) characterizing lumps, especially if they have a heterogeneous texture; (5) achieving micro-chemical information about the aggregate and providing hypothesis on its provenance.

TGA is used in the analysis of historical mortars for evaluating hydraulic behavior; it involves subjecting a sample to controlled temperature changes while measuring its mass as a function of temperature. TGA serves for characterization of binder materials (air binder, hydraulic binder, gypsum, etc.) 36 , 37 . Moreover, the TGA results can be integrated with the HI value calculated from punctual micro-chemical analyses carried out with SEM-EDS 38 .

Step III: Selection and characterization of the powder for the screening of CaCO 3 origin

Upon assessing that the sample exhibits datable characteristics, as a consequence of all the analyses performed in Step II, the following process involves the selection and further characterization of the carbonate fraction. The binder calcite has the same chemical composition as burned carbonate rocks or carbonate aggregates, but different textural, isotopic signatures and mechanical properties.

A mechanical separation of binder-rich bulk and lump was performed, starting from a selection under stereomicroscope. For bulk samples, a portion enriched with binder and lumps is separated, then sieved to 63 µm and lightly crushed.

Our approach aims at finding non-destructive techniques able to determine the origin of the calcite in the powder samples selected for dating (Fig.  1 , step III). Non-destructive techniques allow the preservation of the sample mass so that the same sample can be subjected to several analytical procedures and treated for 14 C analysis (Fig.  1 , step IV).

The different origin of carbonates (geogenic and anthropogenic) can be detected by the different distortions in the lattice structure within small crystallites. In principle, different types of calcite interact with electromagnetic radiation in a way that depends on the atomic arrangement. FTIR and Raman spectroscopies can be used to identify short-range order at the molecular level. In addition, CL analysis, which is conventionally used to assess the origin of calcite, in our approach is combined with ATR-FTIR and micro-Raman.

The most important advantage in this non-destructive approach is that the exactly same powder is analyzed in OM-CL, ATR-FTIR and micro-Raman; and if the sample is mainly constituted by anthropogenic calcite, it is used for step IV.

CL is a petrographic technique which represents an additional way of examining thin sections or powder samples of carbonate specimens 39 . The phenomenon of CL of mortars has been discussed since 1997 and has been used in numerous studies to evaluate the origin of carbonates 13 , 40 , 41 . Different densities and distribution of atomic defects in the calcite crystal structure serve as markers to identify the origin of calcite. Considering this principle, geogenic calcite and anthropogenic calcite may have different luminescence intensities due to the different formation process.

The phenomenon can be easily observed with petrographic microscopes equipped for CL analysis (OM-CL), this instrumentation is relatively inexpensive and easy to use. For the non-destructive analysis of powders, we used OM-CL. The disadvantage of this technique lies in the resulting color hues, especially when multiple emissions of the same powder result in a composite hue. Typically, a qualitative analysis was performed, just attributing “hues” to the different observed colors (see for example tile red, dull purple, brown, dark brown, grey, dull grey and black). In such a framework, interpretation of data could be influenced by the operator him/herself 20 , 42 , 43 . This problem can be solved by combining several analytical techniques to obtain a validated and unambiguous result.

In the context of mortar dating, spectroscopy has already been used to distinguish the origins of calcite. As demonstrated in previous studies 44 , 45 , 46 conventional Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy in transmission mode with KBr pellets can be employed for rapid sample analysis, using the heights of v 2 and v 4 bands.

In order to use non-destructive analysis and preserve the sample for further analysis and dating, ATR-FTIR was tested on samples with known composition and origin to establish whether this mode could lead to the same results as the FTIR technique with KBr pellet 47 .

Since it has been shown that differences in grinding degree affect peak widths and relative heights of carbonate archaeological materials 34 , 48 , samples with same preparation procedures were analyzed to replicate the typical pre-treatment that might be carried out on unknown samples for dating purposes.

The distinct trend lines highlight the systematic differences in v 2 versus v 4 peak heights in ATR-FTIR mode for calcites formed through various processes. Two trend lines were created (geogenic and anthropogenic calcites), which can help to determine the origins of unknown samples, offering preliminary insights into their formation. The ability to discern calcite origins through the ATR technique is particularly advantageous in the field of mortar dating, as powdered samples can be collected and reused for dating if they contain anthropogenic calcite.

• Micro-Raman

Micro-Raman spectroscopy is a valuable tool for the characterization of mortars, enabling high lateral resolution analysis of the mineral phases of aggregates and binder components 49 , 50 . So far, some studies have demonstrated that micro-Raman spectroscopy can be successfully used to estimate the content of cations (Mg 2+ , Fe 2+ and Mn 2+ ) in carbonates, as the vibrational frequencies of the translational (T) and librational (L) modes of carbonates are significantly related to their cation composition 51 , 52 . Raman spectroscopy has been used to investigate variations in atomic bonding in biogenic calcite crystals and to distinguish the degree of crystallinity of calcium carbonate in biological materials by assessing the frequencies and width of the v 1 and v 4 bands 53 . Raman analysis of CaCO 3 polymorphs in 54 found that the amorphous calcium carbonate exhibits a broad peak in the lattice mode region (below 400 cm −1 ) and that the most prominent band associated with the carbonate ion at around 1085 cm −1 , which appears as broader and significantly less intense than usual, slightly shifts towards lower wavenumbers.

We carried out a study to determine the origin of calcite using micro-Raman spectroscopy. The potential to distinguish between geogenic and anthropogenic calcite using micro-Raman spectroscopy was established for the first time by the authors 55 .

Raman spectroscopy and statistical methods have shown that the anthropogenic calcite samples exhibit a broadening of the L, v 1 and v 4 bands (calculated from FWHMs) compared to geogenic calcite samples.

Structural disorder within the calcite crystals or the presence of low crystalline order is reflected in relatively broad FWHM values and wavenumber shifts. The wider and shifted toward lower wavenumber is the spectral band, the lower the crystallinity within the mineral.

The influencing parameters (including band position, band intensity, the area covered by the bands and the FWHM values of L, v 4 and v 1 ) for distinguishing the origins of calcite were successfully identified and they can be used to determine the origin of calcite in unknown samples intended for dating.

The potential of micro-Raman on distinguishing different calcite domains was also confirmed by Toffolo et al. 56 . In this paper, the micro-Raman analyses were performed on petrographic thin sections in archaeological lime samples.

Step IV: carbonate micro-sample preparation and AMS measurements

The limited sample material due to the high possible level of heterogeneity of the mortars, the sample loss during the characterization step and the highly selective pre-treatment process, motivates us to use the micro-sample 14 C preparation.

In this framework, the so-called Lilliput graphitization line at the LABEC laboratory in Florence, one of the laboratories of CHNet, the INFN network for Cultural Heritage, was integrated with a reaction chamber designed for the extraction of CO 2 from carbonates (Fig.  1 , step IV). The Lilliput line is particularly useful in the case of mortar treatment, because it allows managing samples as small as only 50 µg of carbon, well below the limit of the “traditional” larger samples of about 700 µg 18 , 57 . Such small processed masses provided the possibility to investigate the feasibility of dating even individual lumps of binder in mortar samples.

Typical processing masses for mortar samples are:—approx. 2.5 mg in the case of lump; —approx. 5 mg in the case of bulk mortar.

Acid dissolution and Lilliput graphitization reactors

The extraction of C from the selected inorganic fraction of the mortar is carried out by acid dissolution. The carbonate sample, mechanically separated and previously characterized with non-destructive techniques, is treated with H 3 PO 4 in the acidification line.

For bulk samples, 2 evolving CO 2 fractions are usually collected per sample: the first in a few seconds (0–10/30 s) and the second thereafter (10/30–60 s). The selected shortened reaction time is intended to avoid the risk of geological contamination, at least in the first fraction, as contaminants may still be present despite mechanical separation. In the case of lump samples, a fraction from the first few seconds of the reaction is collected without the risk of contaminants reacting with the acid.

The CO 2 extracted from the acidification line is then cryogenically transferred into the graphitization chamber using liquid nitrogen. The amount of CO 2 collected is monitored by pressure measurements. Typically, about 100 mbar of CO 2 is collected for each sample; this pressure basically corresponds to about 50 µg of graphite at the end of the reaction given the inner volume of the Lilliput reaction chambers. The graphitization reaction occurs on small copper inserts previously prepared with Fe catalyser pressed on them and is triggered at 600 °C in presence of H 2 excess; the reaction produces water, which is trapped within the cold finger. After the graphitization process, the copper inserts with the graphite deposited on them are mounted in specially modified aluminum holders that fit into the ion source of the accelerator to measure the radiocarbon concentration.

Results and discussion

Application of the procedure on historical building: trebbio castle.

The analytical procedure for dating was applied to mortar samples from the walls of the tower of the Trebbio Castle, one of the most important and significant examples of aristocratic villas owned by the Medici in the area around Florence (Mugello) 58 (Fig.  2 ).

Trebbio Castle: building ( a ); sampling on the North side, perspective drawing (by Teresa Salvatici and Sara Calandra) ( b ), and masonry ( c ).

The building was investigated through the building archaeological approach, which identifies the stratigraphic units of the building, and then associated with written or other sources, allowing the formulation of hypotheses about the construction phases of the masonry 59 .

Based on this methodology, four main construction phases from the thirteenth century to the first decades of the seventeenth century, were identified:

Phase 1 (before 14th cent.): the presence of a square tower is documented. The tower was partially rebuilt and its original structure is only visible in the lower part.

Phase 2 (14th cent.): addition of storeys to the pre-existing tower with improved masonry and crenellated walls, characterized by different building construction techniques than the previous phase.

Phase 3 (1420–1433): addition of new storeys to the tower and complete renovation of the upper structure, including corbels and wider walkways, attributed to Michelozzo (as reported written source in 60 ).

Phase 4 (post 1433): modern and contemporary restorations, including mortar sealing, reconstruction and rectification of structural problems to restore a late medieval appearance. Some restoration works were performed following the numerous historical earthquakes that affected the Mugello area 58 .

The chronology of the building phases is the result of a combination of stratigraphic studies, written sources and the chronotypological abacus of Mugello masonries 58 .

The archaeological reading of the masonry and the resulting hypotheses about the construction phases formed the basis for the selection of the mortar sampling points. A total of 27 bedding mortar and plaster samples were collected using a hammer and chisel ( Supplementary Table 1 ).

The comprehensive minero-petrographic characterization was performed on all mortar samples ( Supplementary Table 2 ).

Mineralogical composition analysis of bulk mortars by XRPD revealed the presence of calcite, quartz, feldspar (plagioclase and k-feldspar), lizardite and micas. Calcite can be referred to the binder, lime lumps or fragments of aggregate; quartz, feldspars, lizardite and micas can be related to the aggregate. Gypsum was recorded only in TC19 and 24, probably due to the sulphation phenomena of the binder 34 , Supplementary Fig. 1 .

From the petrographic observation, these mortars are made of natural hydraulic binder, obtained by firing of marly limestone (Alberese limestone, Monte Morello Formation), diffusely employed in Florentine area 61 . The aggregate exhibits a heterogeneous composition, utilizing sandy sediments from local watercourses. Finer sands (< 400 µm) predominantly consist of single crystals of quartz, feldspars, spathic calcite, while coarser fractions contain fragments of arenaceous rocks, serpentinites, and Alberese limestone. Rare fragments of cocciopesto were also found.

Since the raw materials used are the same and the production technologies are similar, no minero-petrographic criteria were identified to differentiate samples belonging to different construction stages. Within the same construction stages, different characteristics are found in the mix-design (i.e., B/A, grain size distribution).

For radiocarbon application we focused on the binder aspect, aggregate composition and the presence of lump. So, the binder in the plaster samples (TC1-11, Supplementary Fig. 2a, b ) has undergone some chemical alteration due to the dissolution and slow recrystallization of calcite by the circulating moisture in the masonry. This process can develop in specific areas of the samples, e.g. in pores and along fractures (referred to as secondary calcite) or change the entire texture of the binder (referred to as partially binder recrystallization). This prevented us from selecting these samples for dating, causing an apparent rejuvenation of the sample 62 .

As for the bedding mortars, the binder is better preserved. Care in the preparation of the mixtures is evident, considering careful selection of aggregates and a consistently high binder content. However, even these samples exhibit characteristics that allow the selection of only certain samples for dating: samples superficially collected, those with non-homogeneous carbonation processes (heterogeneous texture ranges from microsparitic to sparitic in TC12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 24, 25, Supplementary Fig. 2c, d ), or binder recrystallization (as in TC12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25), those showing gypsum in XRPD (as in TC19, 24), and those with almost exclusively carbonate aggregate (TC20, 23; Supplementary Fig. 2e ) have been excluded. Heterogeneous texture can be due to delayed carbonation processes or binder dissolution-recrystallization 63 , in fact, in most samples the two features are combined.

Within bedding mortars, we focused on two samples that could provide key insights into the historical attribution of construction phases and with mineralogical-petrographic characteristics which are more suitable for dating. These samples come from the crenellated masonry, TC26, and the infill masonry, TC27 (see in Fig.  2 c). The samples show complete carbonation through phenolphthalein test. On initial macroscopic examination, sample TC26 appears to have a compact mortar with few fractures and a hazel coloration. Millimetre-sized lumps of varying coloration, from white to yellowish, are visible. The mortar sample TC27 is compact and has a hazel color. Millimetre-sized lumps of yellowish to white hues can also be observed.

The main mineralogical and petrographic characteristics of these two samples are listed in Table 1 .

Petrographic observations of TC26 and TC27 reveal the presence of a binder with homogeneous structure and micritic texture with small dark inclusions. Lumps are present, referring to both unmixed binder and unburned limestone.

The aggregate exhibits a heterogeneous composition and bimodal grain size distribution, consisting of abundant carbonate rock fragments (limestone and calcarenites), sandstone, serpentinite and crystal of quartz, feldspars, and calcite ( Supplementary Fig. 3 ). TC26 and TC27 differ in: the B/A, 1/3 and 1/2, respectively, and for the coarser aggregate grain size in sample TC27 (0.7–1 mm).

SEM–EDS analyses on the binder showed significant variability in SiO 2 and CaO content, along with the presence of different types of lumps, confirming the use of Alberese limestone. A comprehensive study of lumps, combining OM, OM-CL, and SEM–EDS analyses in the same area, revealed that also the texture of lumps is heterogeneous (Fig.  3 ). They exhibit a similar texture to the binder in OM, appearing brick-red in CL, and SEM analysis indicates a CaO and SiO 2  + Al 2 O 3  + Fe 2 O 3 composition comparable to that of the binder. SEM–EDS analysis of the thin sections indicates that only small amounts of Mg are present (less than 1.8%). To gain further insight into the binder composition, SEM–EDS microanalyses were carried out on polished thin sections of both binder and lime lumps. The micro-chemical composition of lime lumps and binder is reported in Table 3 . In addition, the hydraulicity index (HI) was calculated using Boynton's formula 35 (Table 2 ). TC26 exhibits an HI of 0.16 ± 0.05, TC27 shows an HI of 0.20 ± 0.08, classifying as weakly hydraulic.

OM ( a ), OM-CL ( b ), SEM–EDS ( c , d ) analyses on lime lump. In ( c ), BS image of a detail of the lump. In ( d ), SEM–EDS map layered on the previous area.

HI results are compared with TGA analyses performed on 3 portions of binder-rich mortar per sample.

The hydraulic water (%) originating from the hydraulic components varies between 7.02% and 8.89%, while the CO 2 decomposition from air lime binder is between 27.0% and 31.9%. The results of SEM–EDS are in agreement with those of TGA and show that the mortars have slightly hydraulic behavior ( Supplementary Fig. 4 ).

Being carbonate aggregates abundant, to avoid possible contamination, we decided to focus on lumps for dating. Four lumps were selected for TC26 samples (labelled as TC26L1, L2, L3, and L4), and four for samples TC27 (labelled as TC27L1, L2, L3 and L4) (Fig.  4 a).

Results of non-destructive techniques on powders ( b - d ) and lump selection points ( a ). Plot of ν 2 and ν 4 with typical trend lines of geogenic and anthropogenic calcites obtained by ATR-FTIR and TC lump samples ( b ); OM-CL photomicrographs of lump powders: an anthropogenic sample (TC26L1) and a geogenic sample (TC26L3) ( c ); comparison among individual Raman spectra of carbonate samples: geogenic calcite (in blue, a reference sample) and anthropogenic calcite of TC samples (1: TC26L1; 2: TC26L2; 3: TC26L4; 4: TC27L1) ( d ).

XRPD analyses were conducted on the powdered lump samples after sieving to determine mineralogical composition (Table 3 ); OM-CL, ATR-FTIR and micro-Raman analyses (Fig.  4 b–d) were performed to assess the origin of the calcite.

XRPD analysis on lumps showed that the primary component is calcite, as expected.

TC26L1, TC26L2, TC26L4, TC27L1 and TC27L4 exhibit red-brown luminescence, which is consistent with their position on the anthropogenic calcite trend in ATR-FTIR, classifying them as pyrogenic carbonate. However, TC26L3, TC27L2, and TC27L3 exhibit orange CL and geogenic trends in ATR-FTIR, confirming that these lumps consist of geogenic calcite. ATR-FTIR detected a broad band centered at 1080 cm –1 , attributable to ν as (Si–O–Si) and ascribed to amorphous silicates 64 , likely originating from the calcination of stone rich in silicate components (e.g., clay minerals) ( Supplementary Fig. 4 ).

Micro-Raman analyses, conducted on TC26L1, TC26L2, TC26L4, TC27L1, TC27L4, show a Raman shift of L and v 1 bands toward lower wavenumber, along with their higher FWHM values, which is also observed for the v 4 band (Table 3 ). The micro-Raman results definitively confirm the data collected by other techniques. The observed values are typical of anthropogenic calcite.

Based on the result of the characterization process discussed in the previous sections, lumps TC26L1, TC26L2, TC26L4 and TC27L1 were chosen to be suitable for dating. The reaction times, along with the masses of the graphitized samples, are listed in Table 4 . The reaction time of 30 s was chosen since, having assessed the anthropogenic origin of the calcite, the risk of contaminants reacting with the acid and the sample mass were low. The AMS results are reported in Table 4 .

When samples belonging to the same fragment or construction phase have consistent radiocarbon concentration between each other, a weighted average can be calculated to obtain a more precise result. Indeed, the lumps TC26L1, TC26L2, and TC26L4 from the same mortar portion exhibit consistent radiocarbon concentrations. The results of the weighted average of the three radiocarbon concentrations and the corresponding conventional radiocarbon age are also reported in Table 4 .

The calibrated age for samples TC26L1 + TC26L2 + TC26L4 results from the measured conventional radiocarbon age (Fig.  5 ).

Calibrated age of the TC samples: TC26L1 + TC26L2 + TC26L4 ( a ); TC27L1 ( b ).

Although the calibrated age of the TC26 lump samples spans two of the phases identified in the archaeological analysis of the tower (phases 2 and 3), the characteristics of the masonry where the sample was taken suggest an interpretation of the 14 C results as more likely within the middle of the fourteenth century (phase 2).

The dating results for sample TC27L1 are presented in Table 4 . Given the conventional radiocarbon age measured (Fig.  5 ), sample TC27L1 is considered modern. A discrepancy can be observed between the assumed chronology and the measurement of the radiocarbon concentration. Based on the historical-archaeological hypothesis, it is assumed that the masonry dates from the middle of the fifteenth century (phase 3).

However, this discrepancy could be related to the extensive joint sealing of the upper part of the tower. The combination of the calibrated age and the historical information; allow us to formulate a specific interpretative hypothesis and attribute this operation to the restoration season following the seismic events that affected the Mugello area between the mid-15th and mid-seventeenth centuries 58 . After this intense and destructive earthquake period, intensive restoration and reconstruction activities were carried out on all the Medici properties in the area (e.g. Cafaggiolo, the Fortezza di San Martino, the town of Scarperia). Sample TC27, being associable to the modern phase, could have intercepted one of these activities.

The comparison between the radiocarbon dating and the archaeological results offered two new interpretations. On the one hand, the 14 C dating for sample TC26 yielded a range of dates that included the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, while the chronotypology of the masonry of Mugello allows us to shift the focus to the first one. TC27, on the other hand, it was the 14 C dating that provided new interpretative approaches to the historical-archaeological data and made it possible to identify specific restoration interventions carried out in the modern period on a masonry that in the written source dates to the early fifteenth century 60 .

The proposed multistep procedure is demonstrated to be a successful approach for selecting a suitable mortar sample for radiocarbon dating. Multi-analytical approach (OM, SEM–EDS, XRPD, TGA) has been proven to permit the selection of the most suitable mortar to be dated. Non-destructive analyses (XRPD, OM-CL, ATR-FTIR and Micro-Raman) of selected specific mortar portions, such as binder-rich or lump samples (mechanical separation), enable the characterization of the calcite origin (differentiation between anthropogenic and geogenic calcite) with the perspective of reusing the samples for following analyses and dating.

The acidification line to extract CO 2 was coupled to the so-called Lilliput graphitization line, for dealing with small carbonate samples (2.5 mg lump and 5.0 mg bulk).

Our procedure has been successfully applied to single lumps collected from Florentine natural hydraulic mortars to date Trebbio Castle construction phases.

The new proposed multi-analytical procedure allowed us to discard most of the samples, identifying problems that could affect their correct dating (step II, III). Consequently, the preparation and the following AMS measurements (step IV) focused on just those micro-samples that had been found suitable as the result of characterization in step III, exploiting the same material. The results obtained from the comparison of the mortars with the historical-archaeological hypothesis provided relevant insights into the construction history of the building.

This paper aims at emphasizing that it is only through a well-structured analytical procedure that it is possible to select suitable samples and approach for the dating of traditional historical mortars.

Carbonation test

The phenolphthalein test (standardized by UNI EN 14630, 2007) is carried out using a 1% solution of phenolphthalein in ethyl alcohol. Applied to the surface of the freshly cut sample.

Optical microscope

The Axioscope A.1 Zeiss transmitted light polarizing optical microscope, connected to a digital video camera, allowed for the acquisition of sample images in thin sections, which were processed using AxioVision software. The acquired images were further analyzed to obtain information on the morphological and morphometric characteristics of the samples using the ImageJ program.

X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD)

The mineralogical composition was analyzed using a Philips X’Pert PRO X-ray powder diffractometer (XRPD) with a Cu anticathode (wavelength λ = 1.54 Å). The instrument operated at a current intensity of 30 mA and a voltage of 40 kV. The 2θ range explored was between 3 and 70° with a step size of 0.02° and a total time per pattern of 16 min 27 s. XRPD analyses were conducted on both powder bulk samples and specific lumps.

Scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM–EDS)

The ZEISS EVO MA 15 SEM–EDS with a tungsten filament and an energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analytical system, Oxford Ultimax 40 (with a resolution of 127 eV @5.9 keV and an area of 40 mm 2 ), was utilized for semi-quantitative microchemical and morphological analyses. These analyses were conducted on thin sections (prepared after carbon-metallized pretreatment) taken from both the binder and lumps areas, as well as from powder samples. The operational settings were as follows: an acceleration potential of 15 kV, a beam current of 500 pA, a working distance of 9–8.5 mm, a live time of 20 s to achieve an acquisition rate of at least 600,000 counts using Co standard, a process time of 4 for point analyses, and a pixel dwell time of 500 µs for map acquisition with a resolution of 1024 × 768 pixels. The microanalysis employed the Aztec 5.0 SP1 software, implementing the XPP matrix correction scheme. This process utilized purchased standard elements for calculations, enabling “standard-less” quantitative analysis. Constant analytical conditions, such as filament emission, were monitored through numerous analyses of a Co metallic standard.

Thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA)

Thermogravimetric analyses (TGA) were carried out on historical mortar samples using a Perkin Elmer Pyris 6 system and Netzsch TG 209 F3 Tarsus. Fragments from each sample were mechanically broken down using a porcelain pestle, and the portion passing through a sieve with 63 µm openings (ISO R 565 Series) was selected as a binder-rich specimen. About 5 mg of the sample was used for TGA, and the analysis was conducted within the temperature range of 110–1000 °C. The samples were dried using silica gel as a desiccant at room temperature for a minimum of one week. The TGA experiments were performed in open alumina crucibles, with a heating rate of 10 °C min −1 , and a nitrogen gas flow of 30 mL min −1 .

Cathodoluminescence (OM-CL)

Optical microscope cathodoluminescence (OM-CL) analysis was conducted using the CL8100 MK5 model by Cambridge Image Technology Ltd., coupled with a Leica DM2700P polarization optical microscope. The microscope is equipped with a high-sensitivity 12 MP Leica Flexcam C1 camera and dedicated LAS X software, enabling the acquisition of digital images in various formats.

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR)

FTIR spectra were collected with a portable Bruker Optics ALPHA FT-IR Spectrometer equipped with SiC Globar source and a DTGS detector. The powdered samples were analyzed using a Platinum ATR single reflection diamond module collecting 24 scans, in the 4000–400 cm −1 spectral range, with a resolution of 4 cm −1 . The spectra were processed using OPUS 7.2 software (Bruker Optics GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany) and Spectragryph 1.2.15. Instrument was used in the laboratory of ISPC-CNR (Institute of Heritage Science in Sesto Fiorentino), Italy.

Micro-Raman spectroscopy

A Renishaw InVia Raman spectrometer, characterized by high resolution, was utilized in combination with a Leica DMLM microscope. The experiments involved employing a 785 nm excitation line, a 50 × long working distance objective (NA 0.5), a spectral resolution better than 1 cm −1 , and a theoretical laser spot diameter of 1.9 μm. The laser operated at a power of 80 mW, and each spectrum was acquired over a period of 5 s. Our focus was primarily on the low-to-medium region of the spectral range, specifically collecting data within the range of 100–1400 cm −1 .

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files ].

Hajdas, I. et al. Radiocarbon dating. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 1 (1), 62. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-021-00058-7 (2021).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Urbanová, P., Boaretto, E. & Artioli, G. The state-of-the-art of dating techniques applied to ancient mortars and binders: A review. Radiocarbon 62 (3), 503–525. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.43 (2020).

Hendriks, L. et al. Selective dating of paint components: Radiocarbon dating of lead white pigment. Radiocarbon 61 (2), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.101 (2019).

Strunk, A., Olsen, J., Sanei, H., Rudra, A. & Larsen, N. K. Improving the reliability of bulk sediment radiocarbon dating. Quat. Sci. Rev. 242 , 106442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106442 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Calandra, S. et al. Radiocarbon dating of straw fragments in the plasters of ST. Philip Church in archaeological site hierapolis of Phrygia (denizli, Turkey). Radiocarbon 65 (2), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2023.20 (2023).

Vasco, G. et al. Mortar characterization and radiocarbon dating as support for the restoration work of the Abbey of Santa Maria di Cerrate (Lecce, South Italy). Heritage 5 (4), 4161–4173. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5040215 (2022).

Al-Bashaireh, K. Plaster and mortar radiocarbon dating of Nabatean and Islamic structures, South Jordan. Archaeometry 55 (2), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2012.00677.x (2013).

Goedicke, C. Dating mortar by optically stimulated luminescence: A feasibility study. Geochronometria 38 (1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13386-011-0002-0 (2011).

Panzeri, L., Maspero, F., Galli, A., Sibilia, E. & Martini, M. Luminescence and radiocarbon dating of mortars at Milano-Bicocca laboratories. Radiocarbon 62 (3), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.6 (2020).

Urbanová, P. et al. The Late Antique suburban complex of Santa Giustina in Padua (North Italy): New datings and new interpretations of some architectural elements. Hortus Artium Medieval. 28 , 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.HAM.5.134911 (2022).

Folk, R. & Valastro, S. Successful technique for dating of lime mortar by carbon-14. J. Field Archaeol. 3 , 2 (1976).

Google Scholar  

Van Strydonck, M., Dupas, M. & Dauchot-Dehon, M. Radiocarbon dating of old mortars. PACT J. 8 , 337–343 (1983).

Heinemeier, J. et al. AMS 14C dating of lime mortar. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. B Beam Interact. Mater. 123 (1–4), 487–495 (1997).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Michalska, D., Czernik, J. & Goslar, T. Methodological aspects of mortars dating (Poznań, Poland, MODIS). Radiocarbon 59 (6), 1891–1906. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2017.128 (2017).

Hajdas, I. et al. Preparation and dating of mortar samples—Mortar Dating Intercomparison Study (MODIS). Radiocarbon 59 (6), 1845–1858. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2017.112 (2017).

Artioli, G. et al. Characterization and selection of mortar samples for radiocarbon dating in the framework of the MODIS2 intercomparison: Two compared procedures. Radiocarbon 1–14 , 2024. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2024.3 (2024).

Lichtenberger, A., Lindroos, A., Raja, R. & Heinemeier, J. Radiocarbon analysis of mortar from Roman and Byzantine water management installations in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash, Jordan. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2 , 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.01.001 (2015).

Fedi, M. et al. Towards micro-samples radiocarbon dating at INFN-LABEC, Florence. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B Beams Interact. Mater. At. 465 , 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2019.12.020 (2020).

Cantisani, E. et al. The mortars of Giotto’s Bell Tower (Florence, Italy): Raw materials and technologies. Constr. Build. Mater. 267 , 120801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120801 (2021).

Heinemeier, J., Ringbom, Å., Lindroos, A. & Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Á. E. Successful AMS 14C dating of non-hydraulic lime mortars from the medieval churches of the Åland Islands, Finland. Radiocarbon 52 (1), 171–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200045124 (2010).

Ringbom, Å., Lindroos, A., Heinemeier, J. & Sonck-Koota, P. 19 years of mortar dating: Learning from experience. Radiocarbon 56 (2), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.2458/56.17469 (2014).

Gliozzo, E., Pizzo, A. & La Russa, M. F. Mortars, plasters and pigments—research questions and sampling criteria. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 13 (11), 193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01393-2 (2021).

Boaretto, E. Dating materials in good archaeological contexts: The next challenge for radiocarbon analysis. Radiocarbon 51 (1), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033804 (2009).

Pesce, G. L., Ball, R. J., Quarta, G. & Calcagnile, L. Identification, extraction, and preparation of reliable lime samples for 14C dating of plasters and mortars with the “pure lime lumps” technique. Radiocarbon 54 (3–4), 933–942. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200047573 (2012).

Dilaria, S. et al. Phasing the history of ancient buildings through PCA on Mortars’ Mineralogical Profiles: The example of the Sarno Baths (Pompeii). Archaeometry 1–17 , 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12746 (2020).

Miriello, D. et al. Characterisation of archaeological mortars from Pompeii (Campania, Italy) and identification of construction phases by compositional data analysis. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37 (9), 2207–2223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.03.019 (2010).

Cantisani, E., Fratini, F. & Pecchioni, E. Optical and electronic microscope for minero-petrographic and microchemical studies of lime binders of ancient mortars. Minerals 12 (1), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12010041 (2021).

Artioli, G., Secco, M., & Addis, A. The Vitruvian legacy: Mortars and binders before and after the Roman world. The Contribution of Mineralogy to Cultural Heritage, Gilberto Artioli, Roberta Oberti. https://doi.org/10.1180/EMU-notes.20.4 (2019).

Arizzi, A. & Cultrone, G. Mortars and plasters—how to characterise hydraulic mortars. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 13 (9), 144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01404-2 (2021).

Pesce, G. The need for a new approach to the radiocarbon dating of historic mortars. Radiocarbon 65 (5), 1017–1021. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2023.92 (2023).

Calandra, S., Salvatici, T., Centauro, I., Cantisani, E. & Garzonio, C. A. The mortars of florence riverbanks: Raw materials and technologies of lungarni historical masonry. Appl. Sci. 12 (10), 5200. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12105200 (2022).

Miyata, S. Anion-exchange properties of hydrotalcite-like compounds. Clays Clay Miner. 31 , 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.1983.0310409 (1983).

Ponce-Antón, G., Ortega, L. A., Zuluaga, M. C., Alonso-Olazabal, A. & Solaun, J. L. Hydrotalcite and hydrocalumite in mortar binders from the medieval castle of portilla (Álava, north Spain): Accurate mineralogical control to achieve more reliable chronological ages. Minerals 8 (8), 326. https://doi.org/10.3390/min8080326 (2018).

Sabbioni, C. et al. Atmospheric deterioration of ancient and modern hydraulic mortars. Atmos. Environ. 35 (3), 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00310-1 (2001).

Boynton, R. S. Chemistry and Technology of Lime and Limestone 2nd edn. (Wiley, 1980).

Bakolas, A. et al. Thermoanalytical research on traditional mortars in Venice. Thermochim. Acta 269 , 817–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-6031(95)02574-X (1995).

Moropoulou, A., Bakolas, A. & Bisbikou, K. Characterization of ancient, Byzantine and later historic mortars by thermal and X-ray diffraction techniques. Thermochim. Acta 269 , 779–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-6031(95)02571-5 (1995).

Riccardi, M. P., Lezzerini, M., Car, F., Franzini, M. & Messiga, B. Microtextural and microchemical studies of hydraulic ancient mortars: Two analytical approaches to understand pre-industrial technology processes. J. Cult. Herit. 8 , 350–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2007.04.005 (2007).

Marshall, J. D. Cathodoluminescence of geological materials by DJ Marshall, Unwin Hyman, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.3350260409 (1991).

Ricci, G. et al. Integrated multi-analytical screening approach for reliable radiocarbon dating of ancient mortars. Sci. Rep. 12 (1), 3339. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07406-x (2022).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Toffolo, M. B., Ricci, G., Chapoulie, R., Caneve, L. & Kaplan-Ashiri, I. Cathodoluminescence and laser-induced fluorescence of calcium carbonate: A review of screening methods for radiocarbon dating of ancient lime mortars. Radiocarbon 62 (3), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.21 (2020).

Lindroos, A., Heinemeier, J., Ringbom, Å., Braskén, M. & Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Á. Mortar dating using AMS 14C and sequential dissolution: Examples from medieval, non-hydraulic lime mortars from the Åland Islands, SW Finland. Radiocarbon 49 (1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200041898 (2007).

Murakami, T., Hodgins, G. & Simon, A. W. Characterization of lime carbonates in plasters from Teotihuacan, Mexico: Preliminary results of cathodoluminescence and carbon isotope analyses. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40 (2), 960–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.08.045 (2013).

Chu, V., Regev, L., Weiner, S. & Boaretto, E. Differentiating between anthropogenic calcite in plaster, ash and natural calcite using infrared spectroscopy: Implications in archaeology. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35 (4), 905–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.06.024 (2008).

Regev, L., Poduska, K. M., Addadi, L., Weiner, S. & Boaretto, E. Distinguishing between calcites formed by different mechanisms using infrared 236 spectrometry: Archaeological applications. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37 (12), 3022–3029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.06.027 (2010).

Toffolo, M. B., Regev, L., Dubernet, S., Lefrais, Y. & Boaretto, E. FTIR-based crystallinity assessment of aragonite–calcite mixtures in archaeological lime binders altered by diagenesis. Minerals 9 (2), 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/min9020121 (2019).

Calandra, S. et al. Evaluation of ATR-FTIR spectroscopy for distinguishing anthropogenic and geogenic calcite. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2204 (1), 012048. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2204/1/012048 (2022).

Surovell, T. A. & Stiner, M. C. Standardizing infrared measures of bone mineral crystallinity: An experimental approach. J. Archaeol. Sci. 28 (6), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2000.0633 (2001).

Seymour, L. M., Keenan-Jones, D., Zanzi, G. L., Weaver, J. C. & Masic, A. Reactive ceramic aggregates in mortars from ancient water infrastructure serving Rome and Pompeii. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 3 , 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2022.101024 (2022).

Seymour, L. M. et al. Hot mixing: Mechanistic insights into the durability of ancient Roman concrete. Sci. Adv. 9 (1), eadd1602. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.add1602 (2023).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bischoff, W. D., Sharma, S. K. & MacKenzie, F. T. Carbonate ion disorder in synthetic and biogenic magnesian calcites: A Raman spectral study. Am. Min. 70 (5–6), 581–589 (1985).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Borromeo, L. et al. Raman spectroscopy as a tool for magnesium estimation in Mg- calcite. J. Raman Spectrosc. 48 (7), 983–992. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrs.5156 (2017).

Zolotoyabko, E. et al. Differences between bond lengths in biogenic and geological calcite. Cryst. Growth Des. 10 (3), 1207–1214. https://doi.org/10.1021/cg901195t (2010).

Wehrmeister, U. et al. Amorphous, nanocrystalline and crystalline calcium carbonates in biological materials. J. Raman Spectrosc. 42 (5), 926–935. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrs.2835 (2011).

Calandra, S., Conti, C., Centauro, I. & Cantisani, E. Non-destructive distinction between geogenic and anthropogenic calcite by Raman spectroscopy combined with machine learning workflow. Analyst https://doi.org/10.1039/D3AN00441D (2023).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Toffolo, M. B. et al. Crystallinity assessment of anthropogenic calcites using Raman micro-spectroscopy. Sci. Rep. 13 , 12971. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39842-8 (2023).

Fedi, M. E., Cartocci, A., Manetti, M., Taccetti, F. & Mandò, P. A. The 14C AMS facility at LABEC. Florence. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B Beam Interact. Mater. At. 259 (1), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2007.01.140 (2007).

Arrighetti, A. Materials and building techniques in Mugello from the Late Middle Ages to the Early Modern Age; Materiali e tecniche costruttive del Mugello tra basso Medioevo e prima Età Moderna . https://doi.org/10.3989/arq.arqt.2016.001 (2017).

Brogiolo G. P. & Cagnana A. Archeologia dell’architettura. Metodi e interpretazioni (ed. All’insegna del Giglio) (2012).

Vasari, G. Le vite de' più eccellenti architetti, pittori, et scultori italiani, da Cimabue insino a' tempi nostri. Nell'edizione per i tipi di Lorenzo Torrentino, Firenze 1550 (ed. Einaudi) (2015).

Fratini, F., Cantisani, E., Pecchioni, E., Pandeli, E. & Vettori, S. Pietra Alberese: Building material and stone for lime in the Florentine Territory (Tuscany, Italy). Heritage 3 (4), 1520–1538. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage3040084 (2020).

Pavía, S. Repair mortars for masonry bridges. In Bridge and Infrastructure in Ireland, Proc. 3rdSymp, Dublin (2006).

Pecchioni, E., Fratini, F. & Cantisani, E. Atlas of the Ancient Mortars in Thin Section under Optical Microscop 2nd edn. (Nardini, 2020).

Ellerbrock, R., Stein, M. & Schaller, J. Comparing amorphous silica, short-range-ordered silicates and silicic acid species by FTIR. Sci. Rep. 12 , 11708. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15882-4 (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Arch. Lucrezia Cuniglio, for the support and the collaboration for the collection of samples. Additionally, appreciation is extended to Laura Chiarantini and Tiziano Catalani for their technical assistance in the SEM-EDS analysis, as well as to Silvia Danise and Elena Pecchioni for facilitating access to OM-CL instrumentation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Florence, 50121, Florence, Italy

Sara Calandra, Teresa Salvatici & Carlo Alberto Garzonio

Institute of Heritage Science, National Research Council of Italy, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino (Florence), Italy

Emma Cantisani, Barbara Salvadori & Fabio Fratini

Institute of Heritage Science, National Research Council of Italy, 20125, Milan, Italy

Claudia Conti

National Institute for Nuclear Physics, Unit of Florence, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino (Florence), Italy

Serena Barone, Lucia Liccioli & Mariaelena Fedi

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Florence, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino (Florence), Italy

Serena Barone

Department of Historical Science and Cultural Heritage, University of Siena, 53100, Siena, Italy

Andrea Arrighetti

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

S.C., E.C., C.C., M.F. designed the research; E.C., M.F., C.A.G. supervised the research project; F.F., A.A., T.S. archaeological and architectural research; F.F, E.C. collected and prepared the samples; S.C., E.C. OM, XRPD, SEM–EDS characterizations; S.C., C.C. Micro-Raman measurements; S.C., B.S. FTIR measurements; S.B., L.L., S.C. micro-sample preparation; M.F., S.B., L.L. AMS measurements and data analysis; S.C., E.C., M.F., S.B., L.L., A.A., F.F. archaeometric interpretation of results. All authors collaborated to the writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Calandra .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information 1., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Calandra, S., Cantisani, E., Conti, C. et al. A new multi-analytical procedure for radiocarbon dating of historical mortars. Sci Rep 14 , 19979 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70763-2

Download citation

Received : 18 March 2024

Accepted : 21 August 2024

Published : 28 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70763-2

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Historical mortars
• Radiocarbon dating
• Geogenic and anthropogenic calcites
• Microsample preparation

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

Quick links

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

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

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Experimental comparison of two 6d pose estimation algorithms in robotic fruit-picking tasks  †.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. densefusion, 2.2. dope + pose refinement, 2.3. robotic fruit picking, 2.4. grasp control, 2.5. motion planning, 2.6. grasping strategy, 3.1. dataset generation and training of the models, 3.2. comparison of the two methods, 4. discussion.

• DenseFusion is a modular architecture, which rigidly separates the segmentation pipeline from the pose estimation one. Hence, if on one hand, this enhances the scalability and the interpretability of the entire model, on the other hand, this also implies that two different (and usually large) networks must be trained, one that provides the segmentation masks and one that implements the pose estimation. This could significantly increase the training time if the two networks cannot be trained in parallel and makes the joint optimization of the whole method more difficult.
• Since the refiner is a deep network too, it must be trained as well as the main pipeline, with the further condition that its training cannot start until the main network has converged, as otherwise it will not learn useful information, i.e., the refiner and the main network cannot be trained in parallel. This increases the total training time.
• It usually has an initial normalization and resizing stage that makes all objects look identical, independent of the camera used;
• The network outputs keypoints in the rectified space only;
• Some kind of algorithm is used to transform these keypoints in 3D and obtain the final pose.

5. Conclusions

Supplementary materials, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest, abbreviations.

• Wang, Z.; Hirai, S.; Kawamura, S. Challenges and Opportunities in Robotic Food Handling: A Review. Front. Robot. AI 2022 , 8 , 789107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Costanzo, M. Control of robotic object pivoting based on tactile sensing. Mechatronics 2021 , 76 , 102545. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Costanzo, M.; De Maria, G.; Natale, C.; Pirozzi, S. Design and Calibration of a Force/Tactile Sensor for Dexterous Manipulation. Sensors 2019 , 19 , 966. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Do, T.T.; Cai, M.; Pham, T.; Reid, I. Deep-6DPose: Recovering 6D Object Pose from a Single RGB Image. arXiv 2018 , arXiv:1802.10367v1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu, Y.; Lin, K.Y.; Zhang, G.; Wang, X.; Li, H. RNNPose: Recurrent 6-DoF Object Pose Refinement with Robust Correspondence Field Estimation and Pose Optimization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, New Orleans, LO, USA, 19–24 June 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin, Y.; Tremblay, J.; Tyree, S.; Vela, P.A.; Birchfield, S. Single-stage Keypoint-based Category-level Object Pose Estimation from an RGB Image. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 23–27 June 2021; abs/2109.06161. Available online: http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.06161 (accessed on 4 July 2024).
• Manhardt, F.; Nickel, M.; Meier, S.; Minciullo, L.; Navab, N. CPS: Class-level 6D Pose and Shape Estimation From Monocular Images. arXiv 2020 , arXiv:2003.05848. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, K.; Li, T.; Yan, T.; Xie, F.; Feng, Q.; Zhu, Q.; Zhao, C. A Soft Gripper Design for Apple Harvesting with Force Feedback and Fruit Slip Detection. Agriculture 2022 , 12 , 1802. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dischinger, L.M.; Cravetz, M.; Dawes, J.; Votzke, C.; VanAtter, C.; Johnston, M.L.; Grimm, C.M.; Davidson, J.R. Towards Intelligent Fruit Picking with In-hand Sensing. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Prague, Czech Republic, 27 September–1 October 2021; pp. 3285–3291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tremblay, J.; To, T.; Sundaralingam, B.; Xiang, Y.; Fox, D.; Birchfield, S. Deep Object Pose Estimation for Semantic Robotic Grasping of Household Objects. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Robot Learning, Zürich, Switzerland, 29–31 October 2018; Billard, A., Dragan, A., Peters, J., Morimoto, J., Eds.; Volume 87, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. pp. 306–316. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xiang, Y.; Schmidt, T.; Narayanan, V.; Fox, D. PoseCNN: A Convolutional Neural Network for 6D Object Pose Estimation in Cluttered Scenes. In Proceedings of the Robotics: Science and Systems XIV, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 26 June 2018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, C.; Xu, D.; Zhu, Y.; Martín-Martín, R.; Lu, C.; Fei-Fei, L.; Savarese, S. DenseFusion: 6D Object Pose Estimation by Iterative Dense Fusion. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Long Beach, CA, USA, 16–20 June 2019; pp. 3338–3347. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kendall, A.; Grimes, M.; Cipolla, R. PoseNet: A Convolutional Network for Real-Time 6-DOF Camera Relocalization. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Santiago, Chile, 7–18 December 2015; pp. 2938–2946. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, K.; Gkioxari, G.; Dollár, P.; Girshick, R. Mask R-CNN. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Venice, Italy, 22–29 October 2017; pp. 2980–2988. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, D.; Anguelov, D.; Jain, A. PointFusion: Deep Sensor Fusion for 3D Bounding Box Estimation. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 18–22 June 2018; pp. 244–253. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Y.; Jiang, X.; Fujita, H.; Fang, Z.; Qiu, X.; Chen, J. EFN6D: An efficient RGB-D fusion network for 6D pose estimation. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2022 , 15 , 75–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jang, J.h.; Lee, J.; Kim, S.h. Two-Phase Approach for Monocular Object Detection and 6-DoF Pose Estimation. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 2023 , 19 , 1817–1825. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lepetit, V.; Moreno-Noguer, F.; Fua, P. EPnP: An accurate O ( n ) solution to the PnP problem. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2009 , 81 , 155–166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, J.; Chen, K.; Xu, L.; Dou, Q.; Qin, J. Deep Fusion Transformer Network with Weighted Vector-Wise Keypoints Voting for Robust 6D Object Pose Estimation. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Paris, France, 2–6 October 2023; pp. 13921–13931. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, Y.; Huang, H.; Fan, H.; Chen, Q.; Sun, J. FFB6D: A Full Flow Bidirectional Fusion Network for 6D Pose Estimation. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Virtual, 19–25 June 2021; pp. 3002–3012. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arun, K.S.; Huang, T.S.; Blostein, S.D. Least-Squares Fitting of Two 3-D Point Sets. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1987 , PAMI-9 , 698–700. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Besl, P.J.; McKay, N.D. A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1992 , 14 , 239–256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Costanzo, M.; De Simone, M.; Federico, S.; Natale, C.; Pirozzi, S. Enhanced 6D Pose Estimation for Robotic Fruit Picking. In Proceedings of the 2023 9th International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT), Rome, Italy, 3–6 July 2023; pp. 901–906. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Costanzo, M.; De Simone, M.; Federico, S.; Natale, C. Non-Prehensile Manipulation Actions and Visual 6D Pose Estimation for Fruit Grasping Based on Tactile Sensing. Robotics 2023 , 12 , 92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kehl, W.; Manhardt, F.; Tombari, F.; Ilic, S.; Navab, N. SSD-6D: Making RGB-Based 3D Detection and 6D Pose Estimation Great Again. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Venice, Italy, 22–29 October 2017; pp. 1530–1538. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Y.; Wang, G.; Ji, X.; Xiang, Y.; Fox, D. DeepIM: Deep Iterative Matching for 6D Pose Estimation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), Munich, Germany, 8–14 September 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinterstoißer, S.; Holzer, S.; Cagniart, C.; Ilic, S.; Konolige, K.; Navab, N.; Lepetit, V. Multimodal templates for real-time detection of texture-less objects in heavily cluttered scenes. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision, Barcelona, Spain, 6–13 November 2011; pp. 858–865. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howe, R.D.; Cutkosky, M.R. Practical Force-Motion Models for Sliding Manipulation. Int. J. Robot. Res. 1996 , 15 , 557–572. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Richardson, R.S.H.; Nolle, H. Surface friction under timedependent loads. Wear 1976 , 37 , 87–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cavallo, A.; Costanzo, M.; De Maria, G.; Natale, C. Modeling and slipping control of a planar slider. Automatica 2020 , 115 , 108875. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sucan, I.A.; Moll, M.; Kavraki, L.E. The Open Motion Planning Library. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2012 , 19 , 72–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Görner, M.; Haschke, R.; Ritter, H.; Zhang, J. MoveIt! Task Constructor for Task-Level Motion Planning. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Montreal, QC, Canada, 20–24 May 2019; pp. 190–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hornung, A.; Wurm, K.M.; Bennewitz, M.; Stachniss, C.; Burgard, W. OctoMap: An Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees. Auton. Robot. 2013 , 34 , 189–206. Available online: https://octomap.github.io (accessed on 31 July 2024). [ CrossRef ]
• Sadeghi, F.; Levine, S. CAD2RL: Real Single-Image Flight without a Single Real Image. In Proceedings of the Robotics: Science and Systems(RSS), Cambridge, MA, USA, 12–16 July 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobin, J.; Fong, R.; Ray, A.; Schneider, J.; Zaremba, W.; Abbeel, P. Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 24–28 September 2017; pp. 23–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tremblay, J.; Prakash, A.; Acuna, D.; Brophy, M.; Jampani, V.; Anil, C.; To, T.; Cameracci, E.; Boochoon, S.; Birchfield, S. Training Deep Networks with Synthetic Data: Bridging the Reality Gap by Domain Randomization. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 18–22 June 2018; pp. 1082–10828. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morrical, N.; Tremblay, J.; Lin, Y.; Tyree, S.; Birchfield, S.; Pascucci, V.; Wald, I. NViSII: A Scriptable Tool for Photorealistic Image Generation. In Proceedings of the ICLR Workshop on Synthetic Data Generation, Virtual, 7 May 2021. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Alterani, A.B.; Costanzo, M.; De Simone, M.; Federico, S.; Natale, C. Experimental Comparison of Two 6D Pose Estimation Algorithms in Robotic Fruit-Picking Tasks. Robotics 2024 , 13 , 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics13090127

Alterani AB, Costanzo M, De Simone M, Federico S, Natale C. Experimental Comparison of Two 6D Pose Estimation Algorithms in Robotic Fruit-Picking Tasks. Robotics . 2024; 13(9):127. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics13090127

Alterani, Alessio Benito, Marco Costanzo, Marco De Simone, Sara Federico, and Ciro Natale. 2024. "Experimental Comparison of Two 6D Pose Estimation Algorithms in Robotic Fruit-Picking Tasks" Robotics 13, no. 9: 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics13090127

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 41236 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Nonlinearities in the Intellectual Property-Manufacturing Growth Nexus in the Post-TRIPS Era: Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Analysis

• Open access
• Published: 27 August 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Vincent Jerald R. Ramos   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9709-4183 1 , 3 &
• Sarah Lynne S. Daway-Ducanes 2  

Explore all metrics

Discussions around the importance of intellectual property (IP) intensified at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic as countries raced to secure IP-protected goods (e.g., vaccines and medical equipment) necessary to respond quickly and adequately to the threat of the virus’ spread. Building on the growing strand of the literature that reexamines IP’s effect on an array of social and economic outcomes, this paper examines the relationship between quantitative (patents and trademarks) and qualitative (IP protection) measures of IP, on the one hand, and manufacturing growth, on the other hand, accounting for the presence of nonlinearities. Using a two-step system generalized method of moments (SGMM) approach on a panel dataset of 81 countries spanning the post-1995 TRIPS Agreement period, our estimates show that these alternative measures of IP have differential and nonlinear effects on manufacturing growth. In particular, patents have a positive significant marginal effect on manufacturing growth past a minimum scale, whereas trademarks do not have a significant effect. In contrast, stronger IPR protection has a positive effect only up to a critical level of IPR protection, implying that “too much” IPR protection can stifle growth-inducing competing innovation. The paper concludes with a brief discussion on the mechanisms through which IP may contribute to manufacturing growth, and on some policies, which may help realize this potential. Broadly, this paper speaks to academic and policy discussions surrounding optimal IP enforcement and the benefits and consequences of IP.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

In light of anticipated bottlenecks in vaccine manufacturing and rollout, India and South Africa filed a joint submission in October 2020 before the World Trade Organization (WTO) to seek time-bound and limited exemptions from select provisions of the 1995 TRIPS Agreement for intellectual property (IP) used in COVID-19 responses. Two decades after developing countries in Africa criticized the role of intellectual property rights (IPR) in preventing the speedy manufacturing and rollout of patented drugs to curb the HIV/AIDS epidemic, IPR was once again in the spotlight of multilateral discussions as COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing know-how and IPR remains concentrated in a handful of firms. Opposing figures argue the importance of maintaining a stringent protection of patent rights so as not to discourage future corporate R&D investments in the pharmaceutical industry. In contrast, supporters of this proposal, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the African bloc at the WTO, argue that the limited manufacturing capacities of patented firms are among the root causes of global supply bottlenecks—a problem that disproportionately affects poorer countries and one that may be prevented if large vaccine manufacturing hubs in countries such as India are tapped.

The political debates at the multilateral stage reflect the ambiguous relationship between IP and economic growth and development in the empirical literature. Insights from standard models point to the role of stronger IP protection in inducing innovation and growth (Aghion et al., 2001 ). Economists and policymakers alike have been thus interested in studying the channels through which IPR affects firms’ decisions and outcomes, and the economy as a whole. This is especially relevant at this time when a fine line has to be trodden in allowing first-mover pharmaceuticals involved in the costly research and development (R&D) of COVID-19 vaccines to recoup their investments in the form of patents and trademarks, and at the same time, enabling later entrants to benefit from existing know-how and technology to facilitate better the faster and wider production and dissemination of vaccines.

While proponents of a strong and robust IPR regime point to its ability to incentivize investors to spend on R&D, there is a strand in the literature arguing that IP protection may adversely affect growth by creating a barrier to competition, fostering a “chilling effect” and effectively reducing the number of competitive sectors that, in turn, hamper development, especially in less developed economies (Gathii, 2016 ; Heller, 2010 ; Horii & Iwaisako, 2007 ; Neves et al., 2021 ; Ostergard Jr., 2014 ) . “Too much” protection in an economy may have adverse consequences in terms of crowding out and discouraging potential investors and innovators.

The manufacturing sector is relatively understudied particularly with regard to its relationship with IP. This sector is generally more capital-intensive and, in many instances, riddled with higher barriers to entry due to the “lumpy” or indivisible and more sizable scale of investments required (Boeing et al., 2022 ; Daway-Ducanes & Gochoco-Bautista, 2019 ; Nilsen et al., 2009 ). The presence of IP systems may facilitate process innovations that speed up and optimize production while allowing for the innovative firm to exclusively benefit from them. This potentially explains why in the USA, all patent-intensive industries and a large majority of trademark-intensive industries, or those whose R&D spending per employee is higher than the average, are in the manufacturing sector (USPTO, 2012 ). In the EU, 17 of the top 20 patent-intensive industries are in manufacturing (European Patent Office & European Union Intellectual Property Office, 2019 ). This is likewise true in Southeast Asia where trademark-intensive industries account for over 80 percent of the manufacturing sector GDP (Frontier Economics, 2017 ).

In light of this seemingly strong relationship between IP and manufacturing growth, and the recent academic and policy debates surrounding this topic, we address the question, “ What is the association between IPR protection quality and IPR quantity (patents and trademarks) on the one hand, and manufacturing growth on the other? ” Our particular interest is in empirically demonstrating the distinct roles of different IPR measures of quality and quantity on manufacturing growth and the nonlinear patterns that characterize this relationship.

Using Blundell and Bond’s ( 1998 ) and Windmeijer’s ( 2005 ) two-step system generalized method of moments (SGMM) on a panel dataset of 81 countries from 1995 to 2018, our results demonstrate that IPR robustly affects manufacturing sector growth in a nonlinear way. Footnote 1 Our model also accounts for the endogeneity problem arising from reverse causality as growth also tends to affect IPR protection positively (Gold et al., 2019 ; Le et al., 2022 ).

On IPR Protection Quality

Our  estimates suggest that for at least half of the countries in the sample, the total marginal effect of stronger IPR protection on manufacturing growth is positive, in line with the literature on the growth-inducing effects of stronger IPR protection (Adams, 2010 ; Horii & Iwaisako, 2007 ; Kanwar & Evenson, 2003 ; Kim et al., 2012 ). However, this positive marginal effect tapers off and becomes negative after a critical level of IPR protection, also in line with the literature that asserts that “too much” IP protection may stifle growth-enhancing competition (Dosi et al., 2006 ; Dosi & Stiglitz, 2013 ).

On IPR Quantity Measures

For at least half of the countries in the sample, we find that trademarks do not significantly affect manufacturing growth; while patents only start having a positive effect on manufacturing growth after a minimum scale of patents is reached. This is in accordance with the literature, which observes that high-level, cutting-edge technologies used in high-value manufacturing industries often require lumpy investments, which innovating firms try to protect and recover through multiple product and process patents and trademarks (Hall, 2013 ; Hu & Png, 2013 ).

Our contribution to the literature is two-fold. First, we focus on the differential effects of IPR protection quality (proxied by an IPR index) and IP quantity (patents and trademarks per 1000 capita) on a sector-specific outcome, departing from studies that analyze the effects of IPR on overall economic growth. Second, the paper also explores possible nonlinearities, which are especially relevant for countries with relatively weaker IPR regimes by building on prior work demonstrating the nonlinear effects of IP on growth (Das & Mukherjee, 2019 ; Mohtadi & Ruediger, 2014 ; Papageorgiadis & Sharma, 2016 ).

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The “Theoretical Background” section presents relevant growth theories, while the “Empirical Literature Review and Hypotheses Development” section delves into the seminal and recent empirical literature and presents testable hypotheses. The “ Methodology ” section discusses the data and estimation strategy. The “ Results ” section presents our findings, while the “ Discussion ” section contextualizes and discusses their implications. Finally, the “ Conclusion ” section summarizes the findings and proffers avenues for future research.

Theoretical Background

Defining intellectual property.

Intellectual property (IP) refers to intangible products and creations or outcomes of human thought, and can be thought of us “intellectual capital.” IP is a considered a valuable resource for ensuring the competitive advantage of firms (Kato et al., 2022 ).

In this paper, we focus on two major types of IPR: patents and trademarks. It is important to distinguish between patents and trademarks and their broader effects because they induce different incentives and potentially target different entities (Hall, 2013 ). While patents may be considered as a means to encourage the generation and transfer of new technology (“entry”), trademarks allow existing goods and services to develop a brand following and realize their potential market value (“expansion”).

A patent guarantees its holder the right to exclude other entities from manufacturing, using, or selling an invention (USPTO, 2012 ). In the USA, the two main requirements for patentability are that it: (1) should be a subject and not just an idea—that is, a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter; and (2) should be useful, novel, and non-obvious (USPTO, 2012 ). The interpretation of whether an invention satisfies these requirements is a subject of policy and legal debate and is guided by an understanding of case law. Patents are granted for a limited period, usually 20 years as a result of the TRIPS agreement, after which it enters the public domain.

A trademark prevents other businesses from naming or branding their goods or services in a “confusingly similar manner” to an existing trademark (Lanham Act of 1946). The distinctiveness of a trademark affects the strength of protection being granted—with arbitrary and fanciful marks being given the strongest protection and generic marks being given no protection (Abercrombie & Fitch v. Huntingworld, 1976). Arbitrary and fanciful marks are usually inherently distinctive and are usually words with had no or a different existing meaning like Airbus and Netflix (INTA, 2023 ).

Meanwhile, IP rights (IPR) are a set of legal and enforceable rights that protect the use and sale of these creations. As IP rights are guaranteed rights allocated to a specific individual or firm, they serve as policy instruments that influence the generation and use of new technology (Dosi & Stiglitz, 2013 ).

The Theoretical IP-Growth Nexus

The theoretical literature on the relationship between IP and economic growth underscores the importance of IPR per se, as intellectual capital (input in production) and its appropriate protection as a catalyst for innovation, productivity enhancement, and economic dynamism. Schumpeterian growth theory posits innovation as the primary driver of long-term economic growth as it fosters a dynamic process of creative destruction through technological progress and innovation (Schumpeter, 1934 ). Robust IPR protection incentivizes inventors or innovators by enabling them to appropriate the returns on risky and costly investments (Aghion et al., 2001 ; Besen & Raskind, 1991 ; Gallini, 2002 ). As such, IPR protection is seen as a critical mechanism not only for promoting innovation-led growth, but also for enhancing the competitiveness of economies in the global marketplace.

Endogenous growth models integrate IPR protection as an endogenous determinant of economic growth (Romer, 1990 ), emphasizing the feedback loop between innovation, technological change, and economic performance. In such models, stronger IPR protection encourages higher levels of knowledge creation, which, in turn, drive productivity gains, income growth, and overall economic development (Grossman & Helpman, 1991 ). Additionally, endogenous growth models highlight the role of human capital accumulation, technology diffusion, and spillover effects in amplifying the positive impact of IPR protection on economic growth (Acemoglu & Linn, 2004 ). By fostering a conducive environment for innovation and knowledge creation, robust IPR protection contributes to sustained increases in living standards and welfare.

Azevedo et al. ( 2014 ) develop a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium framework that integrates endogenous growth theory with the dynamics of IPR protection between the “developed, innovating North” and the “developing, imitating South.” Technological progress arises endogenously through the firms’ innovation efforts, which in turn depend on the strength of IPR protection. Their key results are as follows: (i) stronger IPR protection leads to higher levels of innovation and technological progress, and thus, economic growth in both North and South; (ii) as technological knowledge spills over from North to South (either in terms of foreign direct investments, trade or licensing), the South gradually catches up with the North; and (iii) while stronger IPR protection fosters innovation and economic growth in the North, it may also hinder technology diffusion and economic development in the South by increasing the cost of accessing patented technologies. The third result implies the existence of a non-linear relationship between stronger IPR protection and growth.

IP and Manufacturing Growth

In this paper, we focus specifically on the growth of the manufacturing sector, which has had a critical historical role in effecting overall long-term growth and development. Historically, patent systems have enabled growth-inducing investments in manufacturing. Mokyr ( 2009 ) argues that the patent system provided a “system of incentives” that have facilitated high levels of inventive activity, particularly during the Industrial Revolution, when rapid manufacturing growth propelled unprecedented overall growth in economic output, and standards of living in countries like the USA and Great Britain.

In the case of middle-income countries, Su and Yao ( 2016 ) underscore the importance of the manufacturing sector in three ways. First, manufacturing growth pulls along with it services growth in ways more complementary than otherwise. Second, since manufacturing tends to be more capital- and technology-intensive than other sectors, manufacturing growth promotes greater innovation investments, thereby accelerating the pace of technological accumulation, and improving the utilization of human capital in production. Over time, the production of capital goods yields both incremental technical changes and technological capabilities (Bell & Pavitt, 1993 ).

That the manufacturing sector tends to be more capital- and technology-intensive also makes it inherently more IP-intensive. A 2012 US Patent Office report notes that all patent-intensive industries, such as pharmaceutical drugs, computing, industrial and special-purpose machinery, among others, are in the manufacturing sector. Trademark-intensive industries may also be critical to the manufacturing sector. In Southeast Asia, trademark-intensive industries account for over 80 percent of manufacturing value added (Frontier Economics, 2017 ).

The Dark Side of IPR

While property rights are effective in stimulating creative activity, Arrow ( 1962 ) argues that they are inferior to direct government investments in the “right” R&D activities due to the problems of uncertainty, indivisibility and scale (lumpiness), and appropriability. Risk-averse behavior brought about by the uncertainty of future outcomes and risk exposure tend to result in under-investments in R&D. Moreover, the lumpy costs of R&D activities and the associated IPR that has to be acquired to appropriate the resulting benefits pose as a deterrent, particularly for small, financially constrained firms (Brown et al., 2012 ). This is cited as an argument for large infusions of government financing or support for innovation activities (Boeing et al., 2022 ).

That new knowledge is by nature indivisible and costly to generate or acquire constitute one of the top reasons that firms opt to “invent around” a patent rather than apply for one (Cohen et al., 2000 ). While patents are considered important by pharmaceutical and special-purpose-machinery firms, firms in other sectors prefer using secrecy and lead times or complementary sales to maintain their lead over their competitors (Cohen et al., 2000 ; and Lopez, 2009 ). Indeed, Dosi et al., ( 2006 ); Dosi & Stiglitz, ( 2013 ) argue that, in general, IPR protection is not the most important instrument for firms to “profit from innovation” and as such, should have no substantial impact on the underlying rates of innovation and thus, growth.

In the context of an endogenous growth model, Aghion et al. ( 2001 ) show that a “little imitation,” facilitated by strong antitrust and a reasonably flexible IPR regime, may stimulate growth-enhancing competition and innovation. However, “too much” imitation, engendered by weak IPR enforcement, may lead to growth-hampering effects.

These theoretical results suggest that there are thresholds for IPR enforcement that, when exceeded, may reverse the direction of the effects of IPR. This paper thus explores the nonlinearities in the relationship between IPR and manufacturing growth.

Empirical Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

In this section, we categorize and review the empirical literature on (1) the role of IP in an array of social and economic outcomes, and (2) the relevance of both IP and the manufacturing sector in broader discussions of growth and development.

The Promises and Perils of Intellectual Property

As a form of intellectual capital, IPs such as patents and trademarks are instrumental in building firm-level innovation capabilities and financial performance. Generally, improvements in firm-level intellectual capital efficiency are positively associated with firm performance and increased shareholder value (Habib & Dalwai, 2023 ; Hayaeian & Hesarzadeh, 2023 ).

However, the empirical relationship between IPR protection and economic growth is ambiguous. One strand of the literature finds a positive relationship between IPR on the one hand, and a wide range of outcomes on the other hand, including innovation (Daley, 2014 ; Papageorgiadis & Sharma, 2016 ), foreign direct investments (FDIs) (Adams, 2010 ; Ramos, 2017 ), total factor productivity (Habib et al., 2019 ), and growth and development (Andersen, 2004 ; Branstetter et al., 2011 ; Maskus, 2000 ). However, Das and Mukherjee ( 2019 ) show that this positive association between R&D expenditure (and the accompanying IP spending) and growth only holds true for high and upper-middle income economies. Similarly, Ramos ( 2017 ) qualifies that the positive effect of IPR on FDIs only materializes past a minimum scale of FDI inflows, supporting the idea that there are socioeconomic preconditions for realizing the benefits of greater R&D and IPR.

The nonlinear and countervailing effects of IPR are also observed using other outcomes such as human capital and innovation (Daley, 2014 ; Grossman & Lai, 2004 ; Mohtadi & Ruediger, 2014 ). For countries below a “human capital threshold,” typically measured in terms of average years of schooling, tighter IPR protection has a negative effect on growth (Mohtadi & Ruediger, 2014 ). Further, Daley ( 2014 ) shows that IPR protection has a nonlinear relationship with innovation: a certain scale of IP must first be reached before it can positively affect innovation. Meanwhile, Grossman and Lai ( 2004 ) argue that the deadweight losses from IPR protection are greater if the innovative capacity of a country is too weak to compensate, as is the case for developing countries with smaller domestic markets. Hence, the negative effects of stronger IPR protection may be overcome in countries with larger markets and stronger innovative capacities and activities.

A contrasting literature strand argues against stronger IPR protection especially in the developing country context (Neves et al., 2021 ; Ostergard Jr., 2014 ). Using a comparative analytical framework, Gathii ( 2016 ) finds that strong IPR protection by itself is unlikely to induce higher growth-enhancing FDI inflows in less developed economies. Further, using firm-level information, Takechi ( 2012 ) shows that while IPR protection induces market entry, direct supply of a new product, service, or process is negatively affected in favor of licensing out of fear of infringement risks. The effect of patent quantity on income growth is also found to be weak due to the increased social costs associated with reduced competition (Das & Mukherjee, 2019 ).

While the overarching aim of IPR protection is to encourage costly, lumpy R&D investments, some public interests limit or condition its beneficial effects. Indeed, the papers cited earlier highlight the social costs of “too much” IPR protection. Thus, in many IPR regimes, eminent domain circumscribes the right of exclusivity (Sherwood, 1990 ). Eminent domain enables the public use of a privately funded invention “for the greater good.” Recognizing the societal importance of some forms of innovation, alternative policy mechanisms such as compulsory licensing are put in place to promote public access, while maintaining most of the exclusivity benefits that IPR holders expect to receive.

We contribute to this strand of the literature in two ways. First, we utilize both IP quantity and IPR protection quality measures as alternative determinants of manufacturing growth. Second, we explore the nonlinearities in the IP-manufacturing growth relationship, enabling us to unpack both positive and negative effects of IP and estimate the thresholds that mark the switches in the direction of the relationship.

Table 1 summarizes the literature cited above, separating the papers into those that study the effect of IP on “macro-level outcomes” and those on “micro-level outcomes.”

Intellectual Property-Manufacturing Growth Nexus: Hypotheses Development

On ipr protection.

Prior evidence suggests that the growth-inducing effects of IPR protection on manufacturing mainly occur through the signaling channel. Countries that produce more IPs and protect them through well-crafted and enforced IPR encourage consumer and business confidence, and thus, costly investments in innovation activities. Using firm-level evidence and a commonly used index for patent protection, Smarzynska Javorick ( 2004 ) finds evidence for this “signaling mechanism”: stronger IPR protection positively affects the probability of investment in sectors in the manufacturing sector.

In contrast, the distortionary effects of strengthening IP regimes could not be discounted. IPR protection measures, after all, government-imposed and tend to create market distortions that allow time-bound monopolies to exist. Chu ( 2009 ) finds that stronger IPR protection increases returns on R&D spending and wages of R&D workers, who are mostly skilled, thereby widening the wage inequality between skilled and unskilled labor. Moreover, improvements in IPR protection through stronger enforcement may cause a “chilling effect”: other firms may be discouraged from innovating or improving on the patented technology during the period of validity of the patent out of fear of litigation (Leila, 2014 ). In biomedical research, extensive patenting practices were found to cause an “anticommons” problem, wherein agents underuse scarce resources (i.e., patents) because of overlapping and fragmented IPR regimes that create legal uncertainties (Heller, 2010 ; Heller & Eisenberg, 1998 ).

Accounting for both the theoretical and empirical literature cited above, we test the following hypotheses on the role of IPR protection and its nonlinear relationship with manufacturing growth:

H1a: IPR protection is positively associated with manufacturing growth; and

H1b: There is an inverted U-shaped relationship between IPR protection and manufacturing growth.

H1b takes off from the preceding papers suggesting that IPR protection may positively affect growth, but “too much” of it may stifle growth.

On IP Quantities

As mentioned earlier, patents and trademarks are inherently different forms of IPR and arguably tends to spur different market activities. Whereas patent activity might initiate market entry or a creation of a new product market, trademark activity likely facilitates market expansion through brand recognition. This difference warrants separate analyses of patents and trademarks, although prior findings suggest a non-negative relationship with manufacturing growth.

The existence of scale economies in manufacturing comes from the “lumpy” nature of investments typical in the sector. The need for scale may be explained by the following reasons. First, higher manufacturing growth is often driven by high-level technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence (AI), computer numerical control (CNC) machining, 3D printing, robotics and automation, industrial internet of things (IIoT), augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR)), which require multiple product and process patents and trademarks to enable innovating firms to recover lumpy R&D investments (Dittmar, 2011 ). As such, it is reasonable to expect that a certain scale of accompanying patents and trademarks must be achieved for these technologies to start positively affecting manufacturing growth (Boeing et al., 2022 ). Second, more patents tend to raise the likelihood that there will be more highly valuable IP-protected technologies in the pool that would positively affect manufacturing growth. Footnote 2

Thus so, we hypothesize that:

H2a: Either patent quantity or trademark quantity is positively associated with manufacturing growth; and

H2b: There is a U-shaped relationship between either patent or trademark quantities, on the one hand, and manufacturing growth on the other hand.

H2b takes off from the literature that there are scale economies arising from costly and lumpy R&D investments that firms have to make before they can start reaping the positive effects of IP, embodied in patents and trademarks, on manufacturing growth. Recognizing the different incentive structures and objectives of patents and trademarks, these are separated in the analysis.

Methodology

Model and estimation.

To account for the dynamic nature of manufacturing growth, the paper employs Blundell and Bond’s ( 1998 ) and Windmeijer’s ( 2005 ) two-step system generalized method of moments (SGMM). Building on Arellano and Bond’s ( 1991 ) difference GMM, the system of regressors in differences and levels allows for the correction of endogeneity in dynamic panel estimation procedures (Roodman, 2009 ). In SGMM models, lagged levels of explanatory variables are used as instruments for regressions in differences while the lagged differences of explanatory variables are used as instruments for regressions in levels. Further, two-step system GMM is more suitable in the following cases (Roodman, 2009 ): (i) dealing with independent variables, which are not strictly exogenous; (ii) treating Nickell bias, which is inherent in “small T, large N” datasets; and (iii) using variables that exhibit “random walk,” which is largely the case when dealing with macroeconomic datasets. Moreover, the two-step correction procedure introduced by Windmeijer ( 2005 ) generates more consistent and efficient estimates than one-step estimation procedures.

The paper estimates two models, parsimoniously specified below, to analyze the effect of IPR quality and quantity measures on manufacturing growth on a panel of up to 81 countries, respectively, from 1995 to 2018. A similar approach has been used in prior analysis of the determinants of IPR (Tag, 2021 ). The paper likewise tests for nonlinearities by including the squared terms of the main variables of interest in the model. The estimation equation is patterned from models of growth and is specified as follows:

\({MG}_{i,t}\) is the growth rate of the manufacturing sector in country i in period t . Manufacturing sector growth refers to the year-on-year percentage growth of the value added of industries belonging to the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) divisions 15–37;

\({MG}_{i, t-1}\) is the lagged value of the growth rate of the manufacturing sector of country i . The second lag of manufacturing growth may be included if necessary to correct for second-order serial correlation;

\({IP}_{i, t}\) is alternatively defined as either (i) the IP rights protection (IPR) index in country i in period t as a measure of IP quality; or (ii) either patents per 1000 capita or trademarks per 1000 capita (IPPC) as quantity measures of IP;

\({IP}_{i,t}^{2}\) is the squared value of the relevant IP measure;

\({X}_{i, t}\) is a vector of control variables (defined in more detail below) including a developing country dummy, fixed capital formation (as % of GDP), net foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows (as % of GDP), trade openness, real effective exchange rate, average manufacturing tariff, inflation, and natural logarithm of global manufacturing output;

\({Z}_{i,t}\) is a vector of strictly exogenous regressors, including period dummies and regional dummies Footnote 3 ; and

\({\epsilon }_{i,t}\) is a composite error term, which consists of time-invariant unobservable country-specific effects and observation-specific effects.

To demonstrate robustness, we include additional interaction models in a staggered fashion. In particular, we include interaction terms for regional and developing country indicators to understand the moderating effect of these variables.

The critical mean value of the relevant IP variable is given by:

which is obtained by taking the partial derivative of Eq. ( 1 ) with respect to the relevant measure of IP, and setting this equal to zero. The total marginal effect of IP on manufacturing, which shows how incremental changes in the IP variables affect manufacturing growth, is given by:

where we let \(\widetilde{IP}\) be equal either to the sample mean or sample median of the relevant measure. When \(\widetilde{IP}\) equals the median, a positive marginal effect implies that for at least half of the countries in the sample, an increase in IP (either in terms of protection quality or quantity) has a positive effect on manufacturing growth.

Alternatively, nonlinearities and heterogeneities in the relationship between our measures of IP quantity and quality on the one hand and manufacturing growth on the hand are introduced through interactions between the IP measure and development indicators and regional dummies.

Analytical Sample

For the IPR index (IPR protection measure) model, a balanced panel of 81 countries across all regions and income groups, defined over eight (8) three-year-period averages from 1995–2018, is used. For the IPR per capita (patents and trademarks quantity) model, a similarly balanced panel of 71 countries is used over the same period. The discrepancy in sample size is due to data limitations on the quantity of patents and trademarks. The years covered are purposefully limited to those after the signing of the 1995 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which sets the minimum standards for governments concerning the regulation and protection of IP. The data come from two main sources—the World Development Indicators (WDI) of the World Bank and the Index for Economic Freedom (IEF) developed by the Heritage Foundation. Footnote 4

For measures of IP quantity, the total number of patents and trademarks are from the WDI. Both are transformed to per 1000 capita terms to control for country size. For a measure of IPR protection, the IPR protection index (IPRI) comes from the similarly named IEF component, which relies on a combination of survey data and independent evaluations to provide a quantifiable measure of how strongly a country’s laws protect property rights and the extent to which these are enforced and respected (Miller et al., 2020 ). A higher score (up to a maximum of 100) implies a better quality of IPR protection. We model the effects of IP protection quality, patent quantity, and trademark quantity on manufacturing growth separately to present a more nuanced analysis, recognizing that all these measures may affect growth differently.

All the control variables come from the WDI. The control variables in the vector \(X\) are as follows:

Trade openness is proxied by the value of total trade (sum of exports and imports value added) as a percent of GDP. This is included to control for the impact of trade exposure on the closure of companies in the manufacturing sector in select countries such as Germany (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016 ).

Inflation is computed using the GDP deflator, and is used as an indicator of price and macroeconomic stability.

Net FDI inflows (% of GDP) control for the role of FDI inflows as an additional source of capital for productive activities in the domestic economy (Daway-Ducanes & Gochoco-Bautista, 2019 ).

The real effective exchange rates (REER) account for the effect of movements in the real exchange rate on the cost and revenue performance of firms in the manufacturing sector (Dhasmana, 2013 ; Nucci & Pozzolo, 2001 ). An increase in the REER signifies a real local currency appreciation.

Average manufacturing tariff accounts for the extent to which the domestic manufacturing sector is liberalized.

Global manufacturing output (in natural logarithm) captures the size of the country’s sector relative to global production and supply conditions.

Fixed capital formation (% of GDP) is indicative of overall infrastructure development and access to technology, and is included in the model because infrastructure stimulates capital productivity, especially in industrial and manufacturing sectors (Bergman & Sun, 1996 ).

Developing economy dummy takes on the value 1 if country \(i\) in period \(t\) has real GDP per capita of not more than 10,000 USD in 1995.

Tables 2 and 3 present the descriptive statistics of the variables used in the IPR index model and IPPC models, respectively.

Trends in Intellectual Property and Growth

Before reporting our model estimates, we present a global re-appraisal of the trends in intellectual property and manufacturing growth. First, total patent and trademark filings are concentrated and more prevalent in select regional groups. Figure 1 shows that East Asia and the Pacific outperforms the rest of the world significantly in terms of total filings. These countries include “East Asian miracles” like China, Japan, and South Korea and their massive investments in R&D across sectors show in the quantity of IP being generated. Fink et al. ( 2016 ) find that while the surge in patent filings from 1995 to 2008 is generally attributable to subsequent filings, or additional filings of the same invention, the patent surge in East Asian countries like China, Japan, and South Korea are mostly due to new inventions. Indeed, this reflects the pace of technological innovation that helped spur economic growth in these countries, otherwise known as the “East Asian Miracle.” North America comes second in terms of patents filed, driven by patent-intensive industries in the USA such as computer and peripheral equipment and communications equipment (USPTO, 2016 ). Meanwhile, Europe and Central Asia comes as second in terms of trademarks.

Total patents and trademarks by region, 1995–2018

In Fig.  2 , these estimates are adjusted for population size. For the most part, trademarks and patents per capita are stagnant, with the exception of East Asia and the Pacific where per capital patents follow business cycle patterns and per capita trademarks have been increasing over time. Similarly, North American per capita patents show sensitivity to business cycles as evident during the peak of the Global Financial Crisis.

Patents and trademarks per capita, by region

Figure  3 meanwhile presents both IPR index and manufacturing growth in one plot, to see whether changes in IPR governance are associated with changes in manufacturing growth rate. Manufacturing growth tracks business cycles. All regions experienced zero to negative manufacturing growth rates during and shortly after the 2008–2009 Global Financial Crisis; and Southeast Asia saw a significant drop in manufacturing growth during the 1997–1998 Asian Financial Crisis. In more recent years, mean manufacturing growth rates have ranged from 0 to 10 percent, with fast-growing emerging economies in Southeast Asia and South Asia on the upper end of the spectrum and East Asia and the Pacific (without Southeast Asia) and the Middle East and North Africa on the lower end. In terms of the IPR index, Europe and Central Asia appear to have stronger IPR protection regimes, on average, than other regional groups. This is driven by strong inter-country coordination of IP regulation in the European Union. Across all regional groups, there was an improvement in the IP protection index from 2016–onwards (see Fig.  3 ). Among other possible (data-related) determinants, this could have been driven by the expiry of all transitory periods under the TRIPS agreement, meaning that all sectors in all signatory countries now must fully comply with and implement its provisions. Region-wide improvements in the index may also be due to region-wide reforms and agreements. For instance, Southeast Asia had the largest gain in this period, which may be largely explained by ASEAN’s adoption of the IPR Action Plan 2016–2025 composed of actionable comprehensive and strategic objectives (ASEAN, 2016 ). Provisions under this plan are meant to achieve a regional consensus towards improving national IP regimes and increase coordination between ASEAN countries.

Manufacturing growth and IPR index, by region

Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Manufacturing Growth

Finding 1a: for at least half of the countries in the sample, we find a positive marginal effect of stronger ipr protection on manufacturing growth..

The estimation results presented in Table  4 suggest a positive effect of stronger IPR protection, even after controlling for standard time-varying country-specific characteristics. Evaluated at the mean and median levels, the total marginal effects of the IPR protection are robustly positive, as shown in Table  5 . A one-unit increase in the median IPR index increases manufacturing growth by 0.13 percentage point, ceteris paribus .

Finding 1b: There is an inverted-U-shaped relationship between IPR protection and manufacturing growth

The results further suggest that “too much” IPR protection dampens the positive effects of IPR on manufacturing growth. Using the same estimates to calculate marginal effects, the inflection point of the IPR index is at 82.5, after which stronger IPR protection negatively affects manufacturing growth. Note that countries in the top quartile of the sample in terms of income have IPR indices that are above the critical value (Fig.  4 ).

Nonlinear relationship between IPR index and manufacturing growth

Findings 1a and 1b are robust across alternative model specifications that include interaction terms with a developing country dummy and a regional dummy (ASEAN) (see Table  4 ) and alternative temporal measurements (see ESM Appendix Table  4 ). The results hold even after the exclusion of period 8 from the analysis due to potential data-related discrepancies of the IEF survey.

Intellectual Property Per 1000 Capita and Manufacturing Growth

Finding 2a: for at least half of the countries in the sample, we find a robustly negative marginal effect of patent quantity on manufacturing growth, whereas trademarks do not have a statistically significant effect..

Table 6 shows an interesting difference between patents and trademarks: whereas patents have a robustly negative effect on manufacturing growth for at least half of the economies in the sample, trademarks have a consistently statistically insignificant effect. Evaluated at the median level of patents per 1000 capita, a unit increase in patents per 1000 capita is associated with a 4.01-percentage-point reduction in manufacturing growth.

Finding 2b: There is a U-shaped relationship between patents and manufacturing growth, suggesting the existence of scale economies that have to be attained before patents can positively affect manufacturing growth. There is no robust relationship between trademarks and manufacturing growth.

While Table  6 shows that patent quantity per se has a robustly negative effect on manufacturing growth, its squared term has a robustly positive coefficient, suggesting that there is a U-shaped relationship between patent quantity and manufacturing growth. This further implies the existence of a minimum scale of patents that must be reached before it may positively affect manufacturing growth. Using the results from column 2 as parameters for Eq. 4, the minimum scale is 2.03 patents per 1000 capita (see Table  7 , Fig.  5 ).

Nonlinear relationship between patent quantity and manufacturing growth

Findings 2a and 2b support Hypothesis 2 (in terms of patents) and are robust across alternative model specifications (see Table  6 ) that include interaction terms with a developing country dummy (columns 3 to 5), the ASEAN regional dummy (column 5). These additional estimates show that even when including potentially moderating variables, the implications from our main findings hold.

We further note that all regression equations (in Tables 6 and 7 ) pass the necessary diagnostic tests, i.e., (i) the Arellano-Bond test of AR(2) in first differences; (ii) the Hansen J-tests of overidentifying restrictions; (iii) that the number of instruments is not greater than the number of countries in the sample.

As is consistent with Neves et al.’s ( 2021 ) recent meta-analysis of existing empirical studies on the IPR-growth link, we find that stronger IPR protection has manufacturing growth-inducing effects not only on average, but also for at least half of the economies in our sample. This adds manufacturing growth to the list of other macro-level outcomes that are positively affected by stronger IPR protection (Zhang et al. 2015 ; Adams, 2010 ; Chu, 2009 , 2010 ; Falvey et al., 2006 ; Park, 2005 ).

As mentioned in the previous section, there are multiple non-mutually exclusive mechanisms through which stronger IPR protection induces manufacturing growth. The most prominent mechanism cited in the literature is the “signaling mechanism”: stronger IP protection regimes signal to investors and the general public that there exist executive and judicial institutions that guarantee the proper enforcement of property rights (Andersen, 2004 ; Falvey et al., 2006 ; Smarzynska Javorcik, 2004 ). Sending a signal that the government can adequately protect IP minimizes the uncertainty problem espoused by Arrow ( 1962 ).

Second, IP-intensive industries are closely interlinked with the manufacturing sector. In Southeast Asia, for instance, these industries account for over 80 percent of manufacturing GDP (Frontier Economics, 2017 ). The typically export-oriented nature of these industries also means that regulatory improvements, such as improved IPR protection, work hand-in-hand with trade liberalization policies to contribute to sector-wide growth. The large concentration of IP-intensity in manufacturing may help explain this robustly positive relationship. This is likewise consistent with Hu and Png ( 2013 ), who demonstrate that patent rights promote growth through factor accumulation and increased productivity in the manufacturing sector.

Third, stronger IPR protection increases IP value. Stronger IPR protection allows the IPR holder to maximize and capitalize on the IP value over time (Castaldi, 2020 ; Heger & Zaby, 2018 ). More broadly, when enforcement mechanisms against copying and infringement are in place, trademarked-goods can gain popularity and brand recognition over time, thereby positively affecting the whole sector in the long-run. A concrete example would be the trademarks for auto brands (i.e., BMW, Volkswagen) which are strongly protected by the German Patent and Trademark Office. Trademarks establish brand loyalty and global popularity, which helped boost firm-level financial performance in Germany up to 11 years post-filing (Crass et al., 2019 ). Castaldi ( 2020 ) also argues that smaller and younger firms make use of more trademarks than patents, given that hardly any part of their innovations meet the patentability criteria.

However, consistent with existing literature, our results further show that “too much” IPR protection may dampen its positive effects, as this contributes to raising costs across the innovation continuum (i.e., from R&D to the widespread adoption of the new product, services or process), discouraging growth-inducing innovation investments (see, for instance, Neves et al., 2021 ; Gathii, 2016 ; and Ostergard Jr., 2014 ).

The growth-stifling effects of stringent IP regimes reflect the downside of “ market power effects ” of IP regimes. Firms may be deterred from entering a new market or investing in further R&D of an already patented technology for fear of litigation from the IP holder (Galetovic et al., 2015 ; Leila, 2014 ; and Heller & Eisenberg, 1998 ). In effect, “too much” IPR protection to maintain the exclusionary benefits for the holder may have a “ chilling effect ” on what would otherwise have been growth-enhancing competition.

This negative effect of “too much” IPR protection on manufacturing growth may also reflect the underlying appropriability problems discussed earlier. Simply put, firms in specific sectors may not consider IPR as a viable means to protect and profit from their innovation, resulting in sectoral differences as to how stronger IP protection are treated as a “signal” by firms (Cohen et al., 2000 ; Dosi et al., 2006 ). Further, the presence of licensing as an alternative way of exploiting existing patented inventions may also weaken the incentive to innovate when the IPR protection regime is “too strong” (Dey, 2015 ).

As it relates to ongoing policy discussions on the design and enforcement of IPR regulations, our results speak against an unconditional tightening of IPR laws, as this might have growth-hampering implications. Moreover, while alternative policy instruments, such as licensing, may weaken the positive effect of IPR on manufacturing growth, these may minimize the “market power” and “chilling” effects of “too much” IPR protection; and as such, are worth further exploration.

That patents may have a significant effect on manufacturing growth, while trademarks do not (see Table 6 ) may be due to the greater relevance of patents for manufacturing sector growth as opposed to trademarks, which might be more relevant for services sector growth, particularly, the creative sectors, and other branding-dependent sectors. As mentioned previously, manufacturing sector growth tends to depend on costly high-level, cutting-edge technologies; and the patenting of these technologies enable firms to gain or maintain competitive advantage (Kato et al., 2022 ).

The U-shaped relationship between patents and manufacturing growth echoes the nonlinear effects of IP quantity on other aggregates, such as FDI inflows and economic growth, found in the literature—wherein the positive effects of IPR regimes on macro-level outputs only occur past a certain IP threshold (Falvey et al., 2006 ; Hu & Png, 2013 ; Mohtadi & Ruediger, 2014 ; Ramos, 2017 ). Thus, the negative marginal effect of patent quantity on manufacturing growth may be indicative of a lack of scale of patents. Indeed, Lucking et al. ( 2019 ) observe that patents per inventor have in general declined in the last four decades in spite of their positive spillover effects and high social returns.

As mentioned in the previous section, the need for scale may be explained by the large, lumpy investments across the innovation continuum—beginning from costly R&D activities, to product, service or process development and manufacturing, to marketing or sales, and ultimately to the widespread adoption of the new product, service, or process. Indeed, Boeing et al. ( 2022 ) find that while government-financed innovation investments may partially crowd out private sector investments in innovation in China, economy-wide innovation investments still increased. This is because the substantial amount of fixed investments required to finance high-tech equipment and high-skilled inputs are a deterrent for private firms, which are typically financially constrained, resulting in underinvestment in innovation activities.

Past the minimum IP threshold, patented technologies are likely to improve productivity and lower production costs and therefore, effect sector-wide growth (Maradana et al., 2017 ; Tirelli & Spinesi, 2021 ), and generate positive spillover effects that contribute to overall economic growth and well-being.

This paper offers evidence that alternative measures of IP have differential and nonlinear effects on manufacturing growth. For at least half of the countries in the sample, the total marginal effect of IPR protection on manufacturing growth is positive only up to a critical level of IPR protection, implying that more stringent IP regimes can stifle growth-inducing competing innovations. In contrast, patent quantity only starts having a positive marginal effect past a minimum scale, while trademarks have a statistically insignificant effect.

There are two main contributions of this paper on the IP-growth nexus literature. First, whereas previous papers have focused extensively on IPR protection quality, we distinguish between IPR enforcement quality and IP quantity and separately analyze their effects. Further, prior literature has focused on broader macro-level outcomes such as output growth, innovation, and FDI inflows, whereas this paper examines the manufacturing sector in detail, given its proximity and relevance to IP activity. Our second contribution is the estimation and analysis of nonlinearities in this nexus, which are especially relevant for developing countries with weaker IPR regimes. Our results lend evidence to the strand of the literature that has established nonlinear effects of IP on overall economic growth (Das & Mukherjee, 2019 ; Mohtadi & Ruediger, 2014 ; Papageorgiadis & Sharma, 2016 ).

Policy Implications

As was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, IP policy discussions ought to revolve around the optimal design and enforcement of IP rights. Our results suggest, assuming IP is productive, that there are potential gains from increasing, or at least encouraging an increase in, patenting activity. However, the same cannot be said about IPR protection—extreme stringency in design and enforcement spurs competition-restricting effects with little gains in terms of innovation, while weak enforcement invites infringement and discourages innovation, consistent with earlier arguments made by Dosi et al., ( 2006 ); Dosi & Stiglitz, ( 2013 ). This speaks to the delicate balancing required between IP policy on one hand and antitrust policy on the other (Aghion et al.  2001 ; Heller, 2010 ).

Our results also lend support to the idea of how “too much protection” that concentrates the benefits of IP to the private sector in lieu of an equitable “rewards-sharing” between the public and private sectors (Laplane & Mazzucato, 2020 ; Mazzucato, 2016 ) is ultimately harmful for growth. Specifically, the countervailing effects of IP protection as have been documented in the literature are captured in this paper.

Moving forward, tangential policy designs ought to be considered. The effect of IPR protection on manufacturing may be confounded by the quality of regulatory and judicial institutions. Any improvement in the policy design of IPs is unlikely to affect economic outcomes unless accompanied by improvements in enforcement and the judicial system-at-large since it is the avenue through which these rights are ultimately realized. This is in line with the argument made by Gold et al. ( 2019 ) that IP in and of itself has limited direct effects on growth and any findings that point to such strong causality are out of a belief in other benefits of enforcement rather than actual IP deployment.

Finally, to limit the potential abuse of the “chilling effect” from IP, national competition laws especially those provisions concerning IP ought to be implemented properly. The parameters of the exclusionary benefits of IP should be closely observed and any breaches of it should be subject to antitrust scrutiny.

Limitations and Avenues for Future Research

To the extent that this paper is focused on macro patterns and relationships, discussions of micro-level and firm-specific behavior are therefore limited. Further, the manufacturing sector is far from unidimensional—e.g., automotive industries and pharmaceutical industries likely respond to IP developments differently. Thus, future research may deal with the effects of sector-specific IP on certain economic outcomes. For instance, the kinds of patents and trademarks that are important for manufacturing may not be the same kind of patents and trademarks that are important for the services sector. As was pioneered in recent work, firm-level analysis of the effects of intellectual capital efficiency (Habib & Mourad, 2023 ) seems to be a promising way forward (Habib & Dalwai, 2023 ; Hayaeian & Hesarzadeh, 2023 ). Our results infuse some insights into these papers by urging a closer look into firms that file patents and trademarks and how the intensity of IP activity might have an effect on their growth.

More broadly, in light of our results and in the context of current debates on the role of IPR, we find it worthwhile for countries to evaluate comprehensively the domestic effects of accession to the TRIPS agreement. In doing so, policymakers must recognize the mixed results from the literature and the nonlinearities presented in this paper and in earlier work (Das & Mukherjee, 2019 ; Mohtadi & Ruediger, 2014 ; Papageorgiadis & Sharma, 2016 ) and ask: (1) how critical has the protective power of IPR been in terms of encouraging innovation and development in general; and (2) do current provisions under the TRIPS agreement create a barrier or a technology gap between developed and developing countries? While governments have an array of policy options to promote manufacturing growth, we argue that inducing more IPR should not be absent from the policy mix, while retaining some flexibility in the enforcement regime.

Data Availability

All data used for this analysis are publicly available via the World Bank’s World Development Indicators Open Access Database.

This period covers the years succeeding the signing of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement in 1995. While there are differences in the actual ratification and adoption of TRIPS by national legislatures, we take the signing of the TRIPS agreement as a starting point in this paper as it is the culmination of various multilateral negotiations that seek to establish and harmonize minimum standards for IP regulation.

This is akin to Kremer’s ( 1998 ) argument that a higher population growth rate raises the probability that a given society will produce more inventors, who would contribute to technological progress, and thus overall economic growth and development.

Period and regional dummies are based on the observation’s year and country location (e.g., a 2008 observation from Germany takes a “1” for the 2007–2009 period dummy and the Europe and Central Asia region dummy).

The IEF is an annual output of the Heritage Foundation, a research and educational institution monitoring the protection of property rights around the world in its annual index. This dataset was used by papers analyzing IP protection by Asongu ( 2015 ) and Asongu and Kodila-Tedika ( 2018 ). Other thinktanks produce a similar index with a property rights protection component (e.g., Fraser Foundation as was used by Le et al. ( 2022 ) with annual data since 2000). However, this dataset contains annual information beginning 1996, the year after the TRIPS agreement was passed. Other indices such as those by Park ( 2005 ) and the WGI likewise do not satisfy our preferred period coverage. Note that the use of this dataset is primarily out of a methodological fit between this paper’s research question and what their instrument captures and should not be taken as an endorsement, support, or belief in any way of the campaigns, positions, and political orientation of the foundation. Operationally, the index ranges from 0 to 100 and was developed based on survey data and independent assessments of the domestic laws and enforcement records.

Acemoglu, D., & Linn, J. (2004). Market size in innovation: Theory and evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119 (3), 1049–1090.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams, S. (2010). Intellectual property rights, investment climate and FDI in developing countries. International Business Research, 3 (3), 201. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v3n3p201

Aghion, P., Harris, C., Howitt, P., & Vickers, J. (2001). Competition, imitation and growth with step-by-step innovation. Review of Economic Studies, 68 (3), 467–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00177

Andersen, B. (2004). If ‘intellectual property rights’ is the answer, what is the question? Revisiting the patent controversies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13 (5), 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/1043859042000188692

Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies,  58 (2), 277–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968

Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and drection of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–626). https://doi.org/10.1521/ijgp.2006.56.2.191

ASEAN. (2016). The ASEAN Intellectual Property Rights Action Plan 2016–2025 . Association of Southeast Asian Nations. https://www.aseanip.org/resources/asean-ipr-action-plan-2016-2025

Asongu, S. A. (2015). Fighting software piracy in Africa: How do legal origins and IPR protection channels matter? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6 (4), 682–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0137-0

Asongu, S. A., & Kodila-Tedika, O. (2018). Determinants of property rights protection in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9 (4), 1291–1308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0419-z

Azevedo, M. L., Afonso, Ó., & Silva, S. T. (2014). Endogenous growth and intellectual property rights: A north–south modeling proposal. Economic Modelling, 38 , 112–120.

Bell, M., & Pavitt, K. (1993). Accumulating technology captivity in developing countries. Industrial and Cooperative Change., 2 (2), 35–44.

Google Scholar  

Bergman, E. M., & Sun, D. (1996). Infrastructure and manufacturing productivity: Regional accessibility and development level effects. Infrastructure and the Complexity of Economic Development , 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-80266-9_2

Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2016). Effects of international trade for the manufacturing sector .

Besen, S. M., & Raskind, L. J. (1991). An introduction to the law and economics of intellectual property. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), 3–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942699 .

Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics . https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8

Boeing, P., Eberle, J., & Howell, A. (2022). The impact of China’s R&D subsidies on R&D investment, technological upgrading and economic growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174 , 1–10.

Branstetter, L., Fisman, R., Foley, C. F., & Saggi, K. (2011). Does intellectual property rights reform spur industrial development? Journal of International Economics, 83 (1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2010.09.001

Brown, J., Martinsson, G., & Petersen, B. (2012). Do financing constraints matter for R&D? European Economic Review, 56 , 1512–1529.

Castaldi, C. (2020). All the great things you can do with trademark data: Taking stock and looking ahead. Strategic Organization, 18 (3), 472–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127019847835

Chu, A. C. (2009). Macroeconomic effects of intellectual property rights: A survey (No. 17342) . University Library of Munich, Germany. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17342/1/MPRA_paper_17342.pdf

Chu, A. C. (2010). Effects of patent length on R&D: A quantitative DGE analysis. Journal of Economics, 99 (2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-010-0110-y

Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper No. 7552 . https://doi.org/10.3386/w7552

Crass, D., Czarnitzki, D., & Toole, A. A. (2019). The dynamic relationship between investments in brand equity and firm profitability: Evidence using trademark registrations. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 26 (1), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/13571516.2019.1553292

Daley, B. W. (2014). In search of optimality: Innovation, economic development, and intellectual property rights. GSDR Prototype Briefs . https://sdgs.un.org/documents/brief-gsdr-2014-search-optimality-inn-20552

Das, R. C., & Mukherjee, S. (2019). Do spending on R&D influence income? An enquiry on the world’s leading economies and groups. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11 (4), 1295–1315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-019-00609-0

Daway-Ducanes, S. L. S., & Gochoco-Bautista, M. S. (2019). Manufacturing and services growth in developing economies: ‘Too little’ finance? Progress in Development Studies, 19 (1), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464993418807585

Dey, S. (2015). Does a strong patent regime discourage innovation? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 25 (5), 485–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2015.1074350

Dhasmana, A. (2013). Real effective exchange rate and manufacturing sector performance: Evidence from Indian firms. In MPRA Working Paper 47479 . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2284077

Dittmar, J. E. (2011). Information technology and economic change: The impact of the printing press. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126 (3), 1133–1172. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr035

Dosi, G., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2013). The role of intellectual property rights in the development process, with some lessons from developed countries: An introduction. In Intellectual Property Rights: Legal and Economic Challenges for Development . https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849801935

Dosi, G., Marengo, L., & Pasquali, C. (2006). How much should society fuel the greed of innovators? On the relations between appropriability, opportunities and rates of innovation. Research Policy, 35 (8), 1110–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.003

European Patent Office, & European Union Intellectual Property Office. (2019). IPR-intensive industries and economic performance in the European Union. In Industry-Level Analysis Report (Issue September).

Falvey, R., Foster, N., & Greenaway, D. (2006). Intellectual property rights and economic growth. Review of Development Economics, 10 (4), 700–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2006.00343.x

Fink, C., Khan, M., & Zhou, H. (2016). Exploring the worldwide patent surge. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 25 (2), 114–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2015.1055088

Frontier Economics. (2017). The economic contribution of trademark- Intensive industries in ASEAN countries . https://www.inta.org/wp-content/uploads/public-files/perspectives/industry-research/INTA_ASEAN_Economic_Impact_Study_082717.pdf

Galetovic, A., Haber, S., & Levine, R. (2015). An empirical examination of patent hold-up. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 11 (3), 549–578.

Gallini, N. T. (2002). The economics of patents: Lessons from recent U.S. patent reform. The Journal of Economic Perspectives , 16 , 131–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696500

Gathii, J. T. (2016). Strength in intellectual property protection and foreign direct investment flows in least developed countries. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law , 44 (499). https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/gjicl/vol44/iss3/3

Gold, E. R., Morin, J. F., & Shadeed, E. (2019). Does intellectual property lead to economic growth? Insights from a novel IP dataset. Regulation and Governance, 13 (1), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12165

Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Trade, knowledge spillovers, and growth. European Economic Review, 35 (2–3), 517–526.

Grossman, G. M., & Lai, E. L. C. (2004). International protection of intellectual property. American Economic Review, 94 (5), 1635–1653. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828043052312

Habib, A. M., & Dalwai, T. (2023). Does the efficiency of a firm’s intellectual capital and working capital management affect its performance? In Journal of the Knowledge Economy . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01138-7

Habib, A. M., & Mourad, N. (2023). Analyzing the efficiency of intellectual capital: A new approach based on DEA-MPI technology. Benchmarking: An International Journal . https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-06-2022-0384

Habib, M., Abbas, J., & Noman, R. (2019). Are human capital, intellectual property rights, and research and development expenditures really important for total factor productivity? An empirical analysis. International Journal of Social Economics, 46 (6), 756–774. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-09-2018-0472

Hall, B. H. (2013). Is intellectual property important for future manufacturing activities? Future of Manufacturing Project: Evidence Paper 12 , Evidence Project . https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-manufacturing-importance-of-intellectual-property

Hayaeian, S., & Hesarzadeh, R. (2023). Knowledge management strategies, intellectual capital, and ambidextrous innovation capability in SMEs: Are they relevant? Journal of the Knowledge Economy , 0123456789 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01172-5

Heger, D., & Zaby, A. K. (2018). Patent breadth as effective barrier to market entry. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 27 (2), 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2017.1322720

Heller, M. A. (2010). Gridlock economy: How too much ownership wrecks markets, stops innovation, and costs lives . https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2522

Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science, 280 (5364), 698–701. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315194356-28

Horii, R., & Iwaisako, T. (2007). Economic growth with imperfect protection of intellectual property rights. Journal of Economics, 90 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-006-0222-6

Hu, A. G. Z., & Png, I. P. L. (2013). Patent rights and economic growth: Evidence from cross-country panels of manufacturing industries. Oxford Economic Papers, 65 (3), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpt011

INTA (International Trademark Association). (2023). Trademark strength. International Trademark Association . https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/trademark-strength/

Kanwar, S., & Evenson, R. (2003). Does intellectual property protection spur technological change? Oxford Economic Papers, 55 (2), 235–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/55.2.235

Kato, M., Onishi, K., & Honjo, Y. (2022). Does patenting always help new firm survival? Understanding heterogeneity among exit routes. Small Business Economics, 59 , 449–475.

Kim, Y., Lee, K., & Park, W. G. (2012). Appropriate intellectual property protection and economic growth in countries at different levels of development. Research Policy, 41 (2), 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.005

Kremer, M. (1998). Population growth and technological change: One million B.C. to 1990. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108 (3), 681–716.

Laplane, A., & Mazzucato, M. (2020). Socializing the risks and rewards of public investments: Economic, policy, and legal issues. Research Policy, 49 , 100008. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.REPOLX.2020.100008

Le, H. T. T., Luong, T. T. D., Nguyen, T. T. T., & Van Nguyen, D. (2022). Determinants of intellectual property rights protection in Asian developing countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy , 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-01051-5

Leila, K. (2014). The chilling effect: Stifling innovation through patent wars and the need for a globally harmonized patent litigation system . Ajou University.

Lopez, A. (2009). Innovation and appropriability, empirical evidence and research agenda. The Economics of Intellectual Property , 1–40. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1012-intro1.pdf

Lucking, B., Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2019). Have R&D spillovers declined in the 21st century? Fiscal Studies, 40 (4), 561–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12195

Maradana, R. P., Pradhan, R. P., Dash, S., Gaurav, K., Jayakumar, M., & Chatterjee, D. (2017). Does innovation promote economic growth? Evidence from European countries. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 6 (1), 0–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-016-0061-9

Maskus, K. (2000). Intellectual property rights and economic development. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 32 (3), 471–506.

Mazzucato, M. (2016). From market fixing to market-creating: A new framework for innovation policy. Industry and Innovation, 23 (2), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1146124

Miller, T., Kim, A., & Roberts, J. (2020). 2020 Index of Economic Freedom . https://www.heritage.org/press/2020-index-economic-freedom-global-economic-freedom-hits-all-time-high

Mohtadi, H., & Ruediger, S. (2014). Intellectual property rights and growth: Is there a threshold effect? International Economic Journal, 28 (1), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10168737.2012.759987

Mokyr, J. (2009). Intellectual property rights, the industrial revolution, and the beginnings of modern economic growth. American Economic Review, 99 (2), 349–355.

Neves, P. C., Afonso, O., Silva, D., & Sochirca, E. (2021). The link between intellectual property rights, innovation, and growth: A meta-analysis. Economic Modelling, 97 (January), 196–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2021.01.019

Nilsen, Ø. A., Raknerud, A., Rybalka, M., & Skjerpen, T. (2009). Lumpy investments, factor adjustments, and labour productivity. Oxford Economic Papers, 61 (1), 104–127.

Nucci, F., & Pozzolo, A. F. (2001). Investment and the exchange rate: An analysis with firm-level panel data. European Economic Review, 45 (2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(00)00050-7

Ostergard Jr., R. (2014). Economic growth and intellectual property rights protection. In Intellectual Property, Trade and Development (pp. 3–40). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof

Papageorgiadis, N., & Sharma, A. (2016). Intellectual property rights and innovation: A panel analysis. Economics Letters, 141 , 70–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.01.003

Park, W. G. (2005). Do intellectual property rights stimulate R&D and productivity growth? Evidence from cross-national and manufacturing industries data . http://auapps.american.edu/wgp/www/IndusCan%20Park05.pdf

Ramos, V. (2017). On the effects of intellectual property rights on foreign direct investments in developing economies : A system GMM approach. Columbia Economics Review , Spring (pp. 24–37). https://issuu.com/columbiaeconreview/docs/cer_spring_2017

Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5), S71–S102. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2937632

Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. Stata Journal . https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x0900900106

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credits, interest, and the business cycle . Transaction Publishers.

Shahwan, T. M., & Habib, A. M. (2020). Does the efficiency of corporate governance and intellectual capital affect a firm’s financial distress? Evidence from Egypt. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21 (3), 403–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-06-2019-0143

Sherwood, R. M. (1990). Intellectual property and economic development . Routledge.

Smarzynska Javorcik, B. (2004). The composition of foreign direct investment and protection of intellectual property rights: Evidence from transition economies. European Economic Review, 48 (1), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(02)00257-X

Su, D., & Yao, Y. (2016). Manufacturing as the key engine of economic growth for middle-income economies. In ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 573 . https://www.adb.org/publications/manufacturing-key-engine-economic-growth-middle-income-economies

Tag, M. N. (2021). Judicial institutions of property rights protection and foreign direct investment inflows. International Review of Law and Economics, 65 , 105975. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IRLE.2020.105975

Takechi, K. (2012). Negative effects of intellectual property protection on trade: The unusual suspects. RIETI Discussion Paper Series , 12 - E - 057 . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3962883

Tirelli, M., & Spinesi, L. (2021). R&D financing and growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 30 (1), 24–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2019.1666505

USPTO. (2012). Intellectual property and the U.S. economy: Industries in focus , pp. 1–69. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/news/publications/IP_Report_March_2012.pdf

USPTO. (2016). Intellectual property and the US economy. United States Patent and Trademark Office Industries in Focus . https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843142768-9

Windmeijer, F. (2005). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.02.005

Zhang, J., Du, D., & Park, W. G. (2015). How private property protection influences the impact of intellectual property rights on economic growth?. Global Economic Review, 44 (1), 1–30.

Download references

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper has benefitted from comments from Gyula Seres in a graduate class on Law and Economics of Innovation. The authors are grateful for the valuable comments and suggestions from participants of the Third Law and Macroeconomics Conference hosted by Yale Law School; the Finance, Law and Economics Working Group of the Institute of New Economic Thinking-Young Scholars Initiative (INET-YSI) Plenary 2020; and the Panel Session on Enduring Issues in Finance, Innovation, and Employment at the 58th Philippine Economics Society Annual Meeting and Conference. We also thank the referees for their inputs. All remaining errors are the authors’ alone.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The corresponding author benefitted funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG), grant number 390285477/GRK2458. No other funding was received for this project.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hertie School Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany

Vincent Jerald R. Ramos

University of the Philippines School of Economics, 1101, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

Sarah Lynne S. Daway-Ducanes

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent Jerald R. Ramos .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 27.3 KB)

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ramos, V.J.R., Daway-Ducanes, S.L.S. Nonlinearities in the Intellectual Property-Manufacturing Growth Nexus in the Post-TRIPS Era: Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Analysis. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02235-x

Download citation

Received : 05 April 2022

Accepted : 22 July 2024

Published : 27 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02235-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Manufacturing
• Intellectual property rights

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research