What Is Empirical Research? Definition, Types & Samples for 2027
Co-Founder and Chief Data Scientist
Empirical research is the approach researchers use when they need answers grounded in observation, measurement, or real-world evidence rather than opinion, tradition, or pure theory. If you are writing a paper, designing a study, evaluating an article, or deciding which research method fits your question, understanding empirical research helps you separate claims that are supported by evidence from claims that are only argued or assumed.
This guide explains what empirical research means, how it differs from other forms of inquiry, when to use qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods, and how to conduct and evaluate an empirical study. It also shows why recognizing levels of evidence in research matters when you are judging the strength of a conclusion.
The practical goal is simple: by the end, you should be able to identify empirical studies, choose an appropriate method for a research question, avoid common design errors, and understand how empirical evidence supports decisions in science, education, healthcare, business, public policy, and technology.
Quick Answer: What Is Empirical Research?
Empirical research is research that draws conclusions from observable and verifiable evidence. That evidence may come from experiments, surveys, interviews, observations, documents, measurements, case studies, or other systematic data collection methods. A study is empirical when it asks a question about what is happening, why it happens, how often it happens, or how variables are related, then uses evidence to support or reject a claim.
In simple terms, empirical research tests ideas against evidence. It does not rely only on logic, personal belief, authority, or speculation. It uses a planned research methodology so that other researchers can examine, question, replicate, or build on the findings.
| Question | Direct answer |
| What makes research empirical? | It uses observed, measured, or systematically collected evidence. |
| Can empirical research be qualitative? | Yes. Interviews, observations, focus groups, case studies, and textual analysis can all be empirical when they use systematic evidence. |
| Can empirical research be quantitative? | Yes. Experiments, surveys, statistical models, and longitudinal studies are common quantitative empirical methods. |
| Does empirical research prove truth? | Usually no. It supports, weakens, or refines claims based on evidence, but conclusions depend on design quality, data quality, and limitations. |
| Who uses empirical research? | Students, scientists, educators, clinicians, policymakers, software researchers, business analysts, and professionals who need evidence-based decisions. |
What Counts as Empirical Evidence?
Empirical evidence is information gathered through experience, observation, or measurement. It can be direct, such as recording a patient’s blood pressure, observing classroom behavior, or measuring product usage. It can also be indirect, such as analyzing survey responses, interview transcripts, archival records, or sensor data. Library guides from Murray State University and Columbia Southern University describe empirical research as inquiry that uses observation or experience to generate conclusions about real phenomena.
For example, a researcher studying whether remote work affects job stress might compare employees working from home with employees working in an office, collect stress-related measures, and analyze the results. The evidence would not automatically prove that remote work reduces stress, but it could support, challenge, or qualify that claim. The same evidence-based logic can appear outside academia as well, such as when entrepreneurs compare naming options from a business name generator against customer reactions rather than relying only on personal preference.
| Type of claim | Empirical or not? | Why it matters |
| “Students in this course scored higher after using a new tutoring tool.” | Empirical if based on collected performance data. | The claim can be examined using measurements. |
| “This teaching strategy feels more inspiring.” | Not empirical unless supported by evidence. | Personal impressions may be useful, but they are not enough for research conclusions. |
| “A theory predicts that variable X should influence variable Y.” | Theoretical until tested with evidence. | A theory can guide a study, but evidence is needed to evaluate it. |
| “Several prior studies found similar results.” | Evidence-based if the cited studies are empirical. | Secondary analysis can rely on empirical work, but the source quality must be checked. |
Origins of Empirical Research
The word empirical comes from the Greek empeirikos, meaning “experienced.” Ancient Greek medical practitioners used the term when they emphasized observation and practical experience instead of unquestioned doctrine. Over time, empiricism became a major idea in philosophy: knowledge should be grounded in experience and evidence, especially what can be observed through the senses or measured with reliable tools.
Modern empirical research extends that idea into a structured process. Researchers define a question, choose a method, gather evidence, analyze data, report limitations, and invite scrutiny. This is why peer-reviewed empirical articles in high-impact journals are often influential: their claims are expected to be traceable to methods and evidence, not just expert assertion.
Empirical Research vs. Other Research Approaches
Not every academic source is empirical. Some works develop theory, review existing literature, comment on policy, or interpret concepts without collecting new data. These can still be valuable, but they answer different questions. Knowing the difference helps students choose the right sources and helps professionals avoid overstating what evidence can show.
| Approach | Main purpose | Typical evidence | Best used when |
| Empirical research | Study real-world phenomena using evidence. | Measurements, observations, interviews, surveys, experiments, records, or texts. | You need to test, describe, compare, or explain something observable. |
| Theoretical research | Develop or refine concepts, models, or arguments. | Logic, prior theories, conceptual analysis. | You need a framework before testing or applying an idea. |
| Literature review | Summarize and synthesize existing research. | Published studies and scholarly sources. | You need to understand what is already known. |
| Anecdotal evidence | Share individual experience or example. | Personal stories or informal observations. | You need context, but not a basis for broad conclusions. |
| Secondary research | Analyze or synthesize existing data or studies. | Published datasets, reports, studies, or archives. | You cannot collect new data or want to compare existing evidence. |
Empirical studies usually fall into qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods designs. The right choice depends on the research question, the kind of evidence available, the level of control needed, ethical limits, and the conclusion the researcher wants to support. Some projects also combine primary and secondary research when new data alone is not enough.
| Research type | What it studies | Common methods | Best for | Main limitation |
| Qualitative empirical research | Meanings, experiences, processes, culture, language, and context. | Interviews, observations, case studies, focus groups, textual analysis. | Understanding how or why people think, act, or interpret situations. | Findings may not generalize broadly because samples are often small and context-specific. |
| Quantitative empirical research | Numerical patterns, relationships, frequencies, differences, and effects. | Experiments, surveys, cohort studies, correlational analysis, cross-sectional studies. | Measuring variables, testing hypotheses, estimating relationships, or comparing groups. | Numbers can hide context, and poor measures can produce misleading precision. |
| Mixed-methods empirical research | Questions requiring both measurable trends and deeper explanation. | Surveys plus interviews, experiments plus observations, statistical analysis plus case studies. | Explaining not only whether something happens, but also why or how it happens. | Requires more planning, time, and methodological skill. |
A strong empirical project starts with a precise question. If you are still forming one, reviewing research question examples can help you narrow your topic, while a clear scope of work can prevent the study from becoming too broad to complete.
Qualitative empirical research is useful when the researcher needs depth, interpretation, and context. It does not mean “less rigorous” than quantitative work. It means the evidence is usually non-numerical and analyzed through systematic interpretation. University of Southern California Libraries and Harvard Library both describe qualitative research as a way to study observable experiences, meanings, and social phenomena through organized methods.
Observational research
Observation involves watching, recording, and analyzing behavior, events, interactions, or conditions as they occur. It is common in ethnography, education, psychology, public health, and workplace studies. Observation may be qualitative when the researcher records field notes and patterns, or quantitative when the researcher counts measurable events such as frequency, duration, age, weight, or scale values.
A well-known empirical example is the work of Abbott et al. (2025) and the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory team, which reported the first direct observation of gravitational waves. The study illustrates how observation, instrumentation, and evidence can support claims about phenomena that cannot be examined through ordinary human senses.
Interviews
Interviews collect detailed responses from participants through structured, semi-structured, or open-ended questions. They are widely used in social science, humanities, education, health, business, and policy research. University of Michigan Library and Cornell University Library emphasize that the value of interviews depends heavily on focused questions, ethical recruitment, and careful analysis.
Interviews are especially useful when researchers need to understand lived experience, decision-making, motivations, or interpretations that would not be visible in a dataset alone. A weak interview study, however, can easily become a collection of anecdotes if sampling, questioning, coding, and analysis are not systematic.
Case studies
A case study examines one case or a small number of cases in depth. The case might be a company, classroom, hospital unit, community, policy, individual, event, or geographic area. Case studies work well when the researcher needs to understand complexity, context, and multiple sources of evidence.
The main risk is overgeneralization. A case study can reveal mechanisms, patterns, or explanations, but researchers must be careful when applying findings to settings that differ from the original case.
Textual analysis
Textual analysis examines written, visual, digital, or media content to interpret meaning, themes, patterns, and social context. Scribbr describes textual analysis as a method for describing and interpreting content in relation to artistic, cultural, political, or social settings.
This method is common in communication, marketing, media studies, literary research, political analysis, and social media research. It can help researchers understand how messages frame issues, how audiences are targeted, or how discourse changes over time.
Focus groups
A focus group brings a small group of participants together for a guided discussion. Simply Psychology (2023) explains that focus groups are designed to capture perceptions, opinions, attitudes, and group interaction around a specific topic.
Focus groups are useful for “how,” “what,” and “why” questions, especially in consumer research, education, public health, and community studies. Their strength is interaction: participants may challenge, build on, or clarify one another’s views. Their weakness is that dominant participants, group pressure, or poor moderation can distort the evidence.
| Qualitative method | Use it when you need to... | Watch out for... |
| Observation | See behavior or events in context. | Observer bias, inconsistent field notes, and unclear categories. |
| Interview | Understand personal experience or expert knowledge. | Leading questions, small unbalanced samples, and weak coding. |
| Case study | Analyze a complex case in depth. | Treating one case as if it represents every case. |
| Textual analysis | Interpret language, media, documents, or digital content. | Cherry-picking passages that fit the researcher’s preferred conclusion. |
| Focus group | Explore group views and interaction. | Groupthink, moderator influence, and confidentiality limits. |
Quantitative empirical research uses numerical data to test hypotheses, estimate relationships, compare groups, or identify patterns. It can be powerful when variables are clearly defined and measured consistently. It can also mislead when researchers confuse correlation with causation, use poor samples, ignore confounding variables, or treat statistical significance as practical importance.
Experiments
Experiments test a hypothesis by manipulating one or more variables and observing the effect under controlled conditions. They are widely used in physical sciences, life sciences, psychology, medicine, and increasingly in the social sciences. Laboratory experiments can strengthen causal claims because the researcher can control variables more tightly than in many real-world settings.
The trade-off is realism. A highly controlled experiment may not fully reflect how people, systems, or organizations behave outside the study setting.
Surveys
Surveys collect standardized responses from a defined population or sample. They can be one-time studies or repeated over time. Governments, universities, organizations, and researchers use surveys for population studies, labor force analysis, customer research, student feedback, and public opinion research.
Digital tools such as email forms, online panels, and social media distribution have made surveys easier to administer, but easier does not always mean better. Poor sampling, biased wording, low response rates, and unclear scales can weaken survey results.
Causal-comparative research
Causal-comparative research compares existing groups to explore possible cause-and-effect relationships. For instance, a researcher might compare productivity in an organization that permits remote work with productivity in another organization that does not. Because groups are not randomly assigned, researchers must be cautious: other differences between groups may explain the outcome.
Cross-sectional research
Cross-sectional research studies a population or sample at one point in time. It is useful for estimating prevalence, describing current conditions, or comparing groups. It is common in health research, market research, social science, retail analysis, and education studies.
The main limitation is time. Because cross-sectional studies do not observe change continuously, they usually cannot establish cause and effect by themselves. Longitudinal research may be needed to examine sequence and change.
Longitudinal studies
Longitudinal research follows the same subjects, cases, or units across time. It can reveal patterns of development, change, persistence, or delayed effects. The data may be qualitative, quantitative, or both. Longitudinal work is often valuable but can be expensive, slow, and vulnerable to participant dropout.
Correlational research
Correlational research examines whether variables move together. Regression and related statistical methods are often used to estimate the direction and strength of relationships. Results may show a positive, negative, or neutral association.
For example, a study may examine whether higher levels of education are associated with higher-paying jobs. Even if the relationship appears positive, the study must still consider other factors such as industry, location, experience, occupation, and selection effects before making strong claims.
| Quantitative method | Best question type | Can it support causation? | Key caution |
| Experiment | What happens when a variable is changed? | Often, if well controlled and ethically designed. | Artificial settings may limit real-world application. |
| Survey | How common is a belief, behavior, or condition? | Usually no, unless paired with stronger design features. | Sampling and question wording can distort results. |
| Causal-comparative study | How do existing groups differ? | Limited, because groups are not randomly assigned. | Confounding variables may explain the difference. |
| Cross-sectional study | What is true at this point in time? | Usually no. | Timing prevents strong claims about sequence. |
| Longitudinal study | How do variables change over time? | Stronger than cross-sectional designs, but not automatically causal. | Attrition and long timelines can weaken findings. |
| Correlational study | Are variables associated? | No by itself. | Correlation does not prove causation. |
Empirical research requires more than collecting data. The strongest studies connect the research question, literature review, design, measures, sampling plan, analysis, ethics, and reporting into one coherent process. The research design should be chosen because it fits the question, not because it is familiar or easy.
| Step | What to do | Decision to make |
| 1. Define the research objective | State the problem, purpose, and expected contribution. | Is the question specific, researchable, and worth the required time and resources? |
| 2. Review literature and theory | Identify prior studies, models, disagreements, and gaps. | What does existing evidence already show, and what remains uncertain? |
| 3. Form a hypothesis or guiding question | Name the variables, concepts, context, and expected relationship when appropriate. | Does the project need a testable hypothesis, an exploratory question, or both? |
| 4. Choose the design and data collection method | Select experimental, nonexperimental, qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. | Which method best answers the question while respecting ethics and feasibility? |
| 5. Collect and analyze data | Use systematic procedures, document decisions, and apply appropriate analysis. | Do the methods match the data type and assumptions? |
| 6. Report conclusions and limitations | Explain findings, evidence, uncertainty, and recommendations. | What can be concluded, what cannot be concluded, and what should future studies examine? |
A researcher should also plan for originality and academic integrity during the writing stage. Tools such as a free plagiarism checker for teachers can help educators and students detect unattributed text, but they do not replace careful citation, transparent reporting, and honest interpretation.
| Mistake | Why it weakens the study | Better approach |
| Starting with a vague topic | The method, sample, and analysis become unfocused. | Turn the topic into a specific research question. |
| Choosing a method before defining the question | The design may not fit the evidence needed. | Let the question determine the method. |
| Using convenience data without acknowledging limits | The findings may not apply beyond the sample. | Describe the sample honestly and avoid broad claims. |
| Treating correlation as causation | A relationship between variables may have other explanations. | Use stronger designs or carefully discuss confounders. |
| Ignoring ethics review or informed consent | Participants may be harmed or misled, and the study may be invalid. | Plan consent, privacy, risk reduction, and withdrawal rights early. |
| Reporting only favorable results | Readers cannot judge the full evidence. | Report limitations, unexpected findings, and uncertainty. |
| Relying only on rankings, tools, or templates | Research quality depends on fit, rigor, and transparency. | Use guides and examples, but justify every design choice. |
The empirical research cycle is commonly described as a sequence of observation, induction, deduction, testing, and evaluation. It captures the logic of moving from evidence to tentative explanation, then back to evidence to evaluate that explanation.
The cycle is not always perfectly linear. Researchers may revise their question after reviewing literature, adjust measures after pilot testing, or refine a theory after results contradict expectations. Still, the cycle helps keep inquiry disciplined.
| Cycle phase | What happens | Example |
| Observation | A pattern or problem is noticed. | Shoppers often check smartphones before buying in a physical store. |
| Induction | The researcher develops a tentative general explanation. | The behavior may indicate that shoppers want more product information before deciding. |
| Deduction | The researcher derives a testable expectation. | If shoppers need more information, those who consult smartphones should report using them for product comparison or reviews. |
| Testing | Data are collected and analyzed. | An online survey asks a defined sample about in-store buying habits. |
| Evaluation | Findings, limits, and next steps are reported. | The researcher explains whether the evidence supports the hypothesis and what future research should test. |
Example observation: Consumers often look at their smartphones before making an in-store purchase.
Example induction: If many shoppers use smartphones before buying, they may be seeking information that helps them make purchase decisions.
Example deduction: If a shopper checks a smartphone before purchasing, the shopper may be using it to compare prices, read reviews, or verify product details.
Empirical research is valuable because it anchors conclusions in evidence. It also has limits. Data can be incomplete, measurements can be flawed, participants can behave differently under observation, and researchers can misinterpret results. Strong empirical work is not defined by certainty; it is defined by disciplined evidence, transparent methods, and appropriate caution.
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
| Tests claims against observable evidence rather than assumption. | Collecting reliable data can be difficult, expensive, or slow. |
| Can validate, challenge, or refine previous findings and frameworks. | Longitudinal studies may require substantial time and resources. |
| Can improve internal validity when variables and procedures are well controlled. | Human-subjects research may require permissions, consent, and ethics review. |
| Allows researchers to track change and adjust theories as new evidence appears. | Multi-site research can be costly and logistically complex. |
| Supports evidence-based decisions in professional and academic settings. | Statistical significance and practical importance are often confused. |
Ethics are central to empirical research because evidence is often gathered from people, communities, organizations, patients, students, consumers, or sensitive records. A technically impressive study can still be unacceptable if it harms participants, violates privacy, hides conflicts of interest, or reports findings dishonestly.
- Informed consent: Participants should understand the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and voluntary nature before agreeing to take part.
- Confidentiality and privacy: Researchers should protect identifying information, anonymize data when appropriate, and explain how records will be stored and used.
- Risk reduction: Study designs should minimize physical, emotional, psychological, social, or financial harm.
- Transparency: Researchers should report methods honestly, avoid fabricating or manipulating data, and disclose conflicts of interest.
- Right to withdraw: Participants should be able to leave a study without penalty when withdrawal is ethically and practically possible.
Reading an empirical article requires more than checking whether it has data. A study can be empirical and still be weak. Before accepting a conclusion, examine the research question, design, sample, measurement quality, analysis, limitations, and whether the evidence actually supports the claims.
| Evaluation question | Why it matters |
| Is the research question clear? | Unclear questions lead to unclear evidence. |
| Does the method fit the question? | A survey, interview, experiment, or case study each answers different kinds of questions. |
| Who or what was studied? | Sample quality affects generalizability and bias. |
| How were key variables or themes measured? | Weak measurement undermines even large datasets. |
| Were alternative explanations considered? | Confounders can make conclusions appear stronger than they are. |
| Are the findings reproducible or transparent? | Documentation, data availability, and methodological detail allow scrutiny. |
| Do the conclusions overreach? | A cautious conclusion is often more trustworthy than a sweeping one. |
Empirical findings become more trustworthy when other researchers can understand how the study was conducted and, when appropriate, reproduce or replicate the work. Reproducibility can be strengthened through pre-registration, detailed protocols, standardized measures, transparent data practices, methodological appendices, replication attempts, and independent verification.
Reliability does not mean every study must produce identical findings in every context. It means procedures are clear enough and measures are consistent enough that results can be assessed fairly. When findings change across settings, that difference may itself become an important empirical question.
Empirical research is used wherever decisions need evidence. It informs product design, public health interventions, classroom practice, environmental planning, economic policy, software development, and organizational strategy. It also appears in applied projects, including community service research projects that measure local needs, outcomes, or participation.
| Field | How empirical research is used |
| Artificial intelligence and machine learning | Researchers test models on data, compare performance, validate predictions, and examine failure cases. |
| Climate change | Scientists analyze emissions, temperature patterns, biodiversity changes, ice melt, and environmental risk models. |
| Global health | Empirical studies evaluate treatments, public health interventions, disease spread, patient outcomes, and healthcare delivery. |
| Economics and policy | Researchers analyze market behavior, unemployment, inflation, inequality, program effects, and policy trade-offs. |
| Education | Studies examine teaching methods, learning outcomes, remote learning, student engagement, and institutional reforms. |
| Sustainable development | Researchers measure energy use, resource impact, environmental practices, and social outcomes. |
Several trends are changing how empirical research is designed and evaluated. Larger datasets, digital traces, machine learning tools, remote data collection, open science practices, interdisciplinary teams, and stronger expectations for transparency have expanded what researchers can study. At the same time, these trends create new risks, including privacy concerns, algorithmic bias, low-quality automated analysis, and overconfidence in large but messy datasets.
Artificial intelligence can help researchers code text, detect patterns, simulate models, and manage complex data. It does not remove the need for research judgment. Researchers still need valid questions, sound sampling, ethical safeguards, human interpretation, and transparent reporting.
Empirical research skills are useful in many career paths because organizations increasingly expect professionals to interpret data, evaluate evidence, and make defensible decisions. These skills support roles in healthcare, education, public policy, business analytics, technology, finance, social services, and academic research.
Students and professionals can build these skills through statistics, research methods, data analysis, ethics, writing, and field-specific training. Some learners explore short or career-focused credentials, including certificate programs linked to higher-paying career paths or six-month certificate options, but the best choice depends on career goals, program quality, accreditation, cost, and whether the credential teaches practical research competencies.
Degree pathways can also support research development. For example, learners comparing flexible options may review a six-month online associate degree, online degree programs, or an accelerated online bachelor's degree. Advanced professionals interested in education research or policy may compare affordable online EdD programs or low-cost online doctoral programs. Career-focused readers may also consider how research training fits with degree programs associated with 100k salary careers, while remembering that no credential guarantees a specific salary.
Online learning can make research training more accessible for working adults, educators, and professionals who need flexible schedules. A strong online program should still teach the fundamentals: research design, statistics or qualitative analysis, ethics, data interpretation, academic writing, and discipline-specific methods.
Before enrolling, students should ask whether the program includes applied projects, faculty feedback, research software exposure, library access, and opportunities to practice analyzing real evidence. Flexibility is valuable, but research competence depends on practice and feedback, not format alone.
- What exact question am I trying to answer, and is it observable or measurable?
- Is my project exploratory, descriptive, comparative, causal, or evaluative?
- What evidence would count as support for my claim, and what evidence would challenge it?
- Do I need qualitative data, quantitative data, or both?
- Who or what should be included in the sample, and what are the limits of that sample?
- What ethical approvals, consent procedures, or privacy protections are required?
- How will I analyze the data, and do I have the skills or tools to do it correctly?
- How will I report limitations so readers do not overinterpret the findings?
Empirical studies can appear as journal articles, theses, dissertations, lab reports, field studies, program evaluations, and applied research reports. The following examples show the range of topics that can be studied empirically.
Professional research examples
- Empirical research on information technology
- Empirical research on infectious diseases
- Empirical research on occupational health psychology
- Empirical research on infection control
- Empirical research on cancer
- Empirical research on mathematical science
- Empirical research on environmental science
- Empirical research on genetics
- Empirical research on climate change
- Empirical research on economics
Student research examples
- Undergraduate thesis in Computer Science & Engineering
- Undergraduate thesis in Geography
- Undergraduate thesis in Architecture
- Master’s thesis in Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
- Master’s thesis in Artificial Intelligence
- Master’s thesis in Food Science and Nutrition
- Doctoral dissertation in Marketing
- Doctoral dissertation in Social Work
- Doctoral dissertation in Urban Planning
Empirical research remains one of the most important ways people test ideas, improve practice, and make decisions under uncertainty. Its strength is not that it produces perfect answers. Its strength is that it ties conclusions to evidence that can be examined, questioned, replicated, improved, or rejected.
Whether you are writing a student paper, evaluating a journal article, designing a survey, conducting interviews, or interpreting data for work, the same standard applies: the claim should match the evidence. That standard is central to the qualities of good academic research and to responsible evidence-based decision-making.
- Empirical research is evidence-based: It uses observation, measurement, experience, or systematic data collection to support conclusions.
- Method choice should follow the question: Use qualitative methods for meaning and context, quantitative methods for measurement and patterns, and mixed methods when both are needed.
- Evidence is not the same as proof: Empirical findings support, weaken, or refine claims, but conclusions must account for design quality and limitations.
- The research cycle is iterative: Observation, induction, deduction, testing, and evaluation help researchers move between ideas and evidence.
- Ethics are part of rigor: Informed consent, privacy, risk reduction, honesty, and the right to withdraw protect participants and strengthen trust.
- Critical evaluation is essential: Before accepting a study’s findings, examine the sample, methods, measurements, analysis, transparency, and possible bias.
- Modern empirical research is changing: AI, large datasets, digital tools, open science, and interdisciplinary work create new opportunities and new responsibilities.
- Good research makes careful claims: The best empirical studies explain what the evidence shows, what it does not show, and what should be studied next.
- Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., Abernathy, M., & Acernese, F. (n.d.). Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Physical Review Letters, 116 (6), 061102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102
- Akpinar, E. (n.d.). Consumer Information Sharing: Understanding Psychological Drivers of Social Transmission. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
- Amrhein, V., Greenland, S., & McShane, B. (n.d.). Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature, 567, 305-307. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9
- Arute, F., Arya, K., Babbush, R. et al. (n.d.). Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574, 505510. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5
- Bhattacharya, H. (n.d.). Empirical Research. In L. M. Given (ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 254-255. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n133
- Cohn, A., Maréchal, M., Tannenbaum, D., & Zund, C. (n.d.). Civic honesty around the globe. Science, 365 (6448), 70-73. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau8712
- Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (n.d.). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 978-1-4129-9746-1
- Dashti, H., Jones, S., Wood, A., Lane, J., & van Hees, V., et al. (n.d.). Genome-wide association study identifies genetic loci for self-reported habitual sleep duration supported by accelerometer-derived estimates. Nature Communications, 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08917-4
- de Groot, A.D. (n.d.). Methodology: foundations of inference and research in the behavioral sciences. In Psychological Studies, 6. The Hague & Paris: Mouton & Co. Google Books
- Doll, R., Peto, R., Boreham, J., & Isabelle Sutherland, I. (n.d.). Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years’ observations on male British doctors. BMJ, 328 (7455), 1519-33. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AE
- Fairclough, N. (n.d.). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. Google Books
- Falk, A., & Heckman, J. (n.d.). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326 (5952), pp. 535-538. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1168244
- Fowler, F.J. (n.d.). Survey Research Methods, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. WorldCat
- Gallus, S., Bosetti, C., Negri, E., Talamini, R., Montella, M., et al. (n.d.). Does pizza protect against cancer? International Journal of Cancer, 107 (2), pp. 283-284. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.11382
- Ganna, A., Verweij, K., Nivard, M., Maier, R., & Wedow, R. (n.d.). Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior. Science, 365 (6456). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7693
- Gedik, H., Voss, T., & Voss, A. (n.d.). Money and Transmission of Bacteria. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, 2 (2). https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2994-2-22
- Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., Kernan, M. C., Becker, T. E., & Eisenberger, R. (n.d.). Defeating abusive supervision: Training supervisors to support subordinates. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23 (2), 151-162. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000061
- Greenberg, D., Warrier, V., Allison, C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (n.d.). Testing the Empathizing-Systemising theory of sex differences and the Extreme Male Brain theory of autism in half a million people. PNAS, 115 (48), 12152-12157. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811032115
- Grullon, D. (n.d.). Disentangling time constant and time-dependent hidden state in time series with variational Bayesian inference. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/124572
- He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (n.d.). Deep residual learning for image recognition. The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 770-778. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90
- Hviid, A., Hansen, J., Frisch, M., & Melbye, M. (n.d.). Measles, mumps, rubella vaccination, and autism: A nationwide cohort study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 170 (8), 513-520. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-2101
- Jamshed, S. (n.d.). Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy, 5 (4), 87-88. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-0105.141942
- Jamshidnejad, A. (n.d.). Efficient Predictive Model-Based and Fuzzy Control for Green Urban Mobility. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands. DUT
- Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (n.d.). Focus groups: Contingent articulations of pedagogy, politics, and inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 545-562). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 978-1-4129-7417-2
- Knowles-Smith, A. (n.d.). Refugees and theatre: an exploration of the basis of self-representation. (Unpublished undergraduate thesis). University College London, London, UK. UCL
- Kulp, S.A., & Strauss, B.H. (n.d.). New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding. Nature Communications, 10 (4844), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12808-z
- LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. (n.d.). Deep learning. Nature, 521, 436444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539
- Martindell, N. (n.d.). DCDN: Distributed content delivery for the modern web. (Unpublished undergraduate thesis). University of Washington, Seattle, WA. CSE-UW
- Powner, L. (n.d.). Empirical Research and Writing: A Political Science Student’s Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1-19. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483395906
- Ripple, W., Wolf, C., Newsome, T., Barnard, P., & Moomaw, W. (n.d.). World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. BioScience, 70 (1), 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
- Schenker, J., & Rumrill, P. (n.d.). Causal-comparative research designs. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 21 (3), 117-121.
- Sipola, C. (n.d.). Summarizing electricity usage with a neural network. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. Project-Archive
- Taylor, S. (n.d.). Effacing and Obscuring Autonomy: the Effects of Structural Violence on the Transition to Adulthood of Street Involved Youth. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. UOttawa
- Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (n.d.). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359 (6380), 1146-1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
- Murray State University LibGuides. (2025). Empirical research: Definition and examples. Retrieved from https://lib.murraystate.edu/psychology/articles/empirical
- Columbia Southern University Library Guides. (2025). Empirical research explained. Retrieved from https://libguides.columbiasouthern.edu/empiricalresearch
- University of Southern California Libraries. (2025). Qualitative research methods: An overview. https://libguides.usc.edu/qualitative-research
- Harvard Library. (2025). Empirical foundations in qualitative research. https://guides.library.harvard.edu/qualitative-research
- University of Michigan Library. (2025). Qualitative research methods overview. https://guides.lib.umich.edu/qualitative-research
- Cornell University Library. (2025). Effective qualitative research: Strategies and best practices. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/qualitative-research
- Scribbr. (2025). Textual analysis: Definition, approaches, and examples. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/textual-analysis/
Other Things You Should Know About Empirical Research
The primary goal of empirical research is to generate knowledge about how the world works by relying on verifiable evidence obtained through observation and experimentation.
Empirical research is based on observable and measurable evidence, while theoretical research involves abstract ideas and concepts without necessarily relying on real-world data.
The main types of empirical research methods are qualitative (e.g., interviews, case studies, focus groups) and quantitative (e.g., surveys, experiments, cross-sectional studies).
The steps involved in conducting empirical research include establishing the research objective, reviewing relevant literature, framing hypotheses, defining research design and methodology, collecting data, analyzing data, and making conclusions.
The advantages of empirical research include validating previous findings, enhancing internal validity, allowing for high control over variables, and being based on facts and experiences, making the research authentic and competent.
Common challenges in conducting empirical research include difficulties in data collection, time-consuming processes, obtaining permissions for certain methods, high costs, and potential misinterpretation of statistical significance.
Empirical research is commonly used in fields such as information technology, infectious diseases, occupational health, environmental science, economics, and various academic disciplines for student theses and dissertations.
Yes, empirical research can use both qualitative and quantitative methods, often combining them to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem.
The empirical research cycle is important because it provides a structured approach for systematically gathering and analyzing data to ensure accuracy, validity, and reliability. It facilitates reproducibility and helps refine theories, making research findings actionable and influential across multiple disciplines in 2027.
