Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41243091›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2025

Research methodology education in Europe: a multi-country, cross-disciplinary survey of current practices and perspectives.

Silke Kniffert, Ivan Buljan, Flavio Azevedo, Peter Babinčák, Lucija Batinović, Thomas Rhys Evans, Sara Garofalo, Christopher Graham, Lucianne Groenink, Malika Ihle and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Silke KniffertBerlin Institute of Health at Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. silke.kniffert@bih-charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5084-3960
Ivan BuljanDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, Poljička cesta 35, Split, Croatia.
Flavio AzevedoDepartment of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Peter BabinčákInstitute of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, University of Presov, Presov, Slovakia.
Lucija BatinovićDepartment of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University Sweden, Linköping, Sweden.
Thomas Rhys EvansSchool of Human Sciences and Institute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.
Sara GarofaloDepartment of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Christopher GrahamRoyal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Lucianne GroeninkDivision of Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Malika IhleLMU Open Science Center, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Miloslav KlugarCochrane Czech Republic, Czech Republic: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Czech GRADE Network, Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic.
Lucia KočišováFaculty of Education, University of Trnava, Trnava, Slovakia.
Michal KohútFaculty of Philosophy and Arts, Trnava University, Trnava, Slovakia.
Nikolaos KostomitsopoulosBiomedical Research Foundation Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Seán LaceyMunster Technological University, Cork, Ireland.
Anita LunićFaculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
Ana MarušićCenter for Evidence-based Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Thomas NordströmDepartment of Psychology, Linnaeus University, Vaxjo, Sweden.
Charlotte R PenningtonAston University, Birmingham, UK.
Daniel PizzolatoEuropean Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC), Bonn, Germany.
Ulf ToelchBerlin Institute of Health at Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Marta ToporDepartment of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University Sweden, Linköping, Sweden.
Miro VukovićUniversity of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Michiel R de BoerDepartment of Primary and Long-term Care, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Funding

Adris FoundationEuropean Union's NextGenerationEU and the Italian Ministry of Research (MUR) National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP-PNRR) Progetti di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale (PRIN) 2022 grant ES PNRR - M4C2 - I1.3 - Prot. P2022KAZ45_001 - CUP J53D23017240001Slovak Research and Development Agency APVV-23-0647Stiftung für Innovation in der Hochschullehre FRFMM-287/2022 FR2022-EA-512
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch methodology education aims to equip students with the foundational knowledge of robust scientific practices, emphasizing deep understanding of scientific inquiry, integrity, and critical thinking in research practice. A literature review reveals that the observed diversity in research methods course design and instruction stems from a lack of consensus about the essential foundations required to critically engage with, design, and execute research in education. This is further compounded by a limited pedagogical innovation. However, no study has yet investigated how research methodology is taught and perceived across European universities. The objective of this study is to examine practices and attitudes regarding teaching research methodology in different European countries, across different disciplines and different training stages to identify commonalities and discrepancies.

methodsA cross-sectional survey was designed based on the Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy and further developed in several rounds of expert input and feedback, ensuring comprehensive inclusion of diverse teaching formats and assessment types. The survey was distributed to research methodology and non-research methodology higher education teachers across Europe through stratified and snowball sampling methods.

resultsThe survey was completed by 559 respondents across 24 countries and seven disciplinary categories. The findings identified a predominant reliance on traditional passive teaching formats, such as face-to-face or online lectures. Active methods such as flipped classroom (8.4% Bachelor, 4.8% Master, 2.3% PhD) and protocol writing (8.2% Bachelor, 6.6% Master, 3.9% PhD) were less frequently used. Written exams dominated assessment strategies at all levels. Across our stratification levels, all topics were rated very important, with hypothesis formulation, research integrity, and study design as the most necessary topics, while pre-registration, peer review, and data management plan were prioritized slightly less.

conclusionsThese findings reveal relative homogeneity in research methodology teaching across academic levels and disciplines in Europe. The persistence of passive teaching formats and the limited adoption of active methodologies reflects an untapped opportunity to improve the effectiveness of research methodology education in fostering critical thinking and ethical practices. Higher education institutions need to reevaluate research methodology curricula to better align with contemporary research demands.

Indexed as

Higher educationResearch methodsResearch qualityTeaching assessmentsTeaching formatsTeaching research methods

Identifiers

PMID41243091
PMCPMC12621402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.