literature review section of a research proposal

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Literature Review in Research Proposal: A Comprehensive Guide

• Introduction: What is a Literature Review and Why is it Important?

The introduction is an essential part of any literature review in a research proposal. It provides a foundation for the entire review and gives context to the importance of conducting a literature review in the first place. In this section, you will need to provide a brief definition of what a literature review is and why it is an essential component of a research proposal.

A literature review is a critical evaluation and summary of published research studies and other sources relevant to a particular research topic. The purpose of a literature review is to identify and evaluate the existing knowledge on a topic, as well as to identify any gaps in the knowledge base that the proposed research aims to fill.

In a research proposal, the introduction section must explain the importance of the literature review to the overall project. It is an opportunity to convince the reader of the significance of the research problem and to show how the literature review will contribute to knowledge building. This section should also provide a clear and concise statement of the research problem and the research question(s).

Overall, the introduction section sets the stage for the literature review and the research proposal as a whole. It provides a context for the research problem, highlights the knowledge gaps that the proposed research aims to fill, and justifies the importance of the literature review in achieving the research objectives. By providing a clear and compelling introduction, researchers can ensure that their proposal has a strong foundation for success.

In This Article:

Defining the Research Problem

Developing a research question, conducting a literature search, analyzing and synthesizing literature, evaluating the quality of literature, identifying themes and patterns, previous articles:, how to change document to pdf: a step-by-step guide.

• PowerPoint Remove Background Feature:Say Goodbye to Cluttered Presentations
• How to Make Manuscript: Tips and Tricks for Writers
• Scientific Article Journal: How to Find The Right One For Your Manuscript
• Referencing Bib 101: The Basics

Subheading 2, “Defining the Research Problem: Using Literature Review to Identify Gaps in Knowledge,” is an important subheading in the literature review section of a research proposal. A literature review is an essential part of any research project as it provides a comprehensive overview of the existing body of knowledge on a specific research topic.

To define the research problem, it is crucial to identify what is already known and what is not known about the research topic. This is where a literature review comes in handy. This process of identifying gaps in knowledge allows the researcher to identify the specific research problem and develop research questions and objectives that can address those gaps.

In summary, subheading 2 is critical in the literature review section of a research proposal as it highlights the importance of using a literature review to identify gaps in knowledge and define the research problem.

The subheading “Developing a Research Question: Using Literature Review to Inform Research Questions and Objectives” highlights the crucial role of literature review in guiding the development of research questions and objectives. A well-formulated research question provides a clear focus for the study, ensuring that the research stays on track and avoids any unnecessary or irrelevant work. In addition, by conducting a thorough literature review, researchers can identify the current state of knowledge on the topic, recognize any gaps or inconsistencies in the literature, and identify potential areas of further exploration.

To develop a research question, it is important to first consider the research problem and the purpose of the study. Once the problem has been defined, the literature review can help to identify relevant theoretical and empirical frameworks that can inform the development of research questions. The literature review can also help to refine and narrow the research question, ensuring that it is feasible, relevant, and important.

The fourth subheading, “Conducting a Literature Search: Tips and Strategies for Finding Relevant Studies and Sources,” is an essential aspect of writing a comprehensive literature review for a research proposal. The literature search is a critical step in identifying relevant studies and sources that will help answer the research question and objectives.

When conducting a literature search, it is crucial to develop a systematic approach that will guide the process.

In addition, it is important to document the search process by keeping a record of the keywords used, the sources searched, and the search results. This documentation will enable researchers to retrace their steps if necessary and ensure that they are transparent in their research methods.

Another important consideration when conducting a literature search is the quality of the sources used. Researchers should be mindful of the credibility of the sources and ensure that they are peer-reviewed, reputable, and relevant to the research question. Using sources that are not reliable or relevant can weaken the literature review and the overall research proposal.

Subheading 5, “Analyzing and Synthesizing Literature: Methods for Summarizing and Integrating Findings,” is a critical component of any literature review in a research proposal. This subheading refers to the process of reviewing and synthesizing existing research to gain an understanding of the current state of knowledge on the research topic.

In the analysis and synthesis phase, the researcher begins by reviewing the literature collected in the search phase. This process involves reading through each article or source, summarizing the main findings, and noting the key points that contribute to the understanding of the research problem. The researcher may use a variety of methods to organize the information, such as tables, charts, or diagrams.

Once the researcher has completed the summary of each study, the synthesis phase begins. This is the process of integrating the findings from the individual studies into a cohesive whole. The researcher must identify commonalities and differences between the studies and identify themes and patterns that emerge across the literature.

Subheading 6, “Evaluating the Quality of Literature: Criteria for Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Studies,” is a crucial element of any literature review in a research proposal. Evaluating the quality of literature is an essential step in ensuring that the information gathered from various sources is trustworthy and accurate.

To evaluate the quality of literature, researchers must use established criteria that are specific to the research topic and questions. For example, when conducting research in the social sciences, the criteria may include the validity of the research design, the reliability of the data collection methods, and the transparency of the analysis. In contrast, when researching in the natural sciences, the criteria may include the accuracy of the measurements, the statistical analysis, and the experimental design.

One way to evaluate the quality of literature is to use a systematic review approach. Systematic reviews involve a thorough and structured process of searching, evaluating, and synthesizing existing research to answer specific research questions. This approach ensures that the quality of the literature is assessed in a rigorous and transparent way, which increases the confidence in the findings of the literature review.

Subheading 7, “Identifying Themes and Patterns: Techniques for Identifying Common Themes and Patterns Across Studies,” is an important aspect of conducting a literature review in a research proposal. After conducting a thorough literature search and analyzing and synthesizing the findings, researchers need to identify the common themes and patterns that emerge across different studies. Furthermore, this process is essential because it helps to build a solid foundation for the proposed research by identifying existing knowledge gaps and areas where further research is needed.

One technique for identifying themes and patterns is to use a thematic analysis approach. Thematic analysis involves reading through the literature and highlighting or coding relevant data that relates to the research question or objective. Once all of the data has been coded, researchers can then categorize the codes into themes, which can be used to summarize the key findings of the literature review.

Another technique for identifying themes and patterns is to use a meta-synthesis approach. Meta-synthesis involves synthesizing the findings of multiple studies and identifying common themes and patterns that emerge.

In conclusion, a literature review is an essential component of any research proposal, and its importance cannot be overstated. The literature review helps to identify existing knowledge gaps, inform research questions and objectives, and build a solid foundation for the proposed research. In addition, by conducting a thorough literature search, analyzing and synthesizing the findings, and identifying common themes and patterns, researchers can ensure that their literature review is comprehensive and relevant to their research objectives.

Similar Posts

How To Edit Word Document Without Word

Introduction to editing Word documents without Word software Editing Word documents is a common task for many individuals and businesses, but not everyone has access to Microsoft Word software. Whether you are using a computer without Word installed or simply prefer to use alternative tools, it is possible to edit Word documents without Word software….

Streamline Your Storytelling: The Power of a Storyboard Word Template

Introduction to Storyboarding and its Importance Storyboarding is a critical step in the filmmaking and animation process that involves creating a visual representation of a story’s narrative structure. It helps filmmakers and animators plan the shots, transitions, and overall flow of a production before filming or animating. A well-crafted storyboard in Microsoft Word serves as…

Time Management 80/20 Rule:Maximizing Your Productivity

What is the 80/20 Rule in Time Management? The Pareto Principle, commonly known as the 80/20 Rule, is a theory that contends that only about 20% of causes result in 80% of the outcomes. Several diverse facets of life, especially time management, have been affected by this guideline. The 80/20 Rule states that only 20%…

Applicant Tracking Systems Keywords:Maximizing Your Recruitment Efficiency

Introduction to Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) Applicant Tracking Systems, also known as ATS, are software solutions designed to help organizations streamline their recruitment processes. They are used to manage the entire hiring process, from posting job vacancies to tracking applicants and finally to making hiring decisions. The use of ATS has become increasingly popular in…

Understanding the Benefits of Converting Your Documents to PDF PDF, or Portable Document Format, is a widely-used file format for electronic documents. One of the biggest advantages of PDF is its ability to maintain the original formatting and layout of the document, regardless of the software or platform being used to view it. This makes…

How to Edit a Document on iPhone Like a Pro

Introduction to Document Editing on iPhone The Apple iPhone is a versatile device that is designed to make our lives easier. One of its many features is the ability to edit documents, making it a powerful tool for both personal and professional use. Whether you need to make quick changes to a document or complete…

Privacy Overview

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list if you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

Read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models and methods? Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible, and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly-visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat – this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organise your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text, your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

In the conclusion, you should summarise the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasise their significance.

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarise yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your  dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 24 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: “A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management”
• Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

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

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

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

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

I will compare …

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

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

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

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

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 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved June 27, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

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

The Research Proposal

83 Components of the Literature Review

Krathwohl (2005) suggests and describes a variety of components to include in a research proposal.  The following sections present these components in a suggested template for you to follow in the preparation of your research proposal.

Introduction

The introduction sets the tone for what follows in your research proposal – treat it as the initial pitch of your idea.  After reading the introduction your reader should:

• Understand what it is you want to do;
• Have a sense of your passion for the topic;
• Be excited about the study´s possible outcomes.

As you begin writing your research proposal it is helpful to think of the introduction as a narrative of what it is you want to do, written in one to three paragraphs.  Within those one to three paragraphs, it is important to briefly answer the following questions:

• What is the central research problem?
• How is the topic of your research proposal related to the problem?
• What methods will you utilize to analyze the research problem?
• Why is it important to undertake this research? What is the significance of your proposed research?  Why are the outcomes of your proposed research important, and to whom or to what are they important?

Note : You may be asked by your instructor to include an abstract with your research proposal.  In such cases, an abstract should provide an overview of what it is you plan to study, your main research question, a brief explanation of your methods to answer the research question, and your expected findings. All of this information must be carefully crafted in 150 to 250 words.  A word of advice is to save the writing of your abstract until the very end of your research proposal preparation.  If you are asked to provide an abstract, you should include 5-7 key words that are of most relevance to your study. List these in order of relevance.

Background and significance

The purpose of this section is to explain the context of your proposal and to describe, in detail, why it is important to undertake this research. Assume that the person or people who will read your research proposal know nothing or very little about the research problem.  While you do not need to include all knowledge you have learned about your topic in this section, it is important to ensure that you include the most relevant material that will help to explain the goals of your research.

While there are no hard and fast rules, you should attempt to address some or all of the following key points:

• State the research problem and provide a more thorough explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction.
• Present the rationale for the proposed research study. Clearly indicate why this research is worth doing.  Answer the “so what?” question.
• Describe the major issues or problems to be addressed by your research. Do not forget to explain how and in what ways your proposed research builds upon previous related research.
• Explain how you plan to go about conducting your research.
• Clearly identify the key or most relevant sources of research you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Set the boundaries of your proposed research, in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you will study, but what will be excluded from your study.
• Provide clear definitions of key concepts and terms. As key concepts and terms often have numerous definitions, make sure you state which definition you will be utilizing in your research.

Literature Review

This is the most time-consuming aspect in the preparation of your research proposal and it is a key component of the research proposal. As described in Chapter 5 , the literature review provides the background to your study and demonstrates the significance of the proposed research. Specifically, it is a review and synthesis of prior research that is related to the problem you are setting forth to investigate.  Essentially, your goal in the literature review is to place your research study within the larger whole of what has been studied in the past, while demonstrating to your reader that your work is original, innovative, and adds to the larger whole.

As the literature review is information dense, it is essential that this section be intelligently structured to enable your reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your study. However, this can be easier to state and harder to do, simply due to the fact there is usually a plethora of related research to sift through. Consequently, a good strategy for writing the literature review is to break the literature into conceptual categories or themes, rather than attempting to describe various groups of literature you reviewed.  Chapter V, “ The Literature Review ,” describes a variety of methods to help you organize the themes.

Here are some suggestions on how to approach the writing of your literature review:

• Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methods they used, what they found, and what they recommended based upon their findings.
• Do not be afraid to challenge previous related research findings and/or conclusions.
• Assess what you believe to be missing from previous research and explain how your research fills in this gap and/or extends previous research

It is important to note that a significant challenge related to undertaking a literature review is knowing when to stop.  As such, it is important to know how to know when you have uncovered the key conceptual categories underlying your research topic.  Generally, when you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations, you can have confidence that you have covered all of the significant conceptual categories in your literature review.  However, it is also important to acknowledge that researchers often find themselves returning to the literature as they collect and analyze their data.  For example, an unexpected finding may develop as one collects and/or analyzes the data and it is important to take the time to step back and review the literature again, to ensure that no other researchers have found a similar finding.  This may include looking to research outside your field.

This situation occurred with one of the authors of this textbook´s research related to community resilience.  During the interviews, the researchers heard many participants discuss individual resilience factors and how they believed these individual factors helped make the community more resilient, overall.  Sheppard and Williams (2016) had not discovered these individual factors in their original literature review on community and environmental resilience. However, when they returned to the literature to search for individual resilience factors, they discovered a small body of literature in the child and youth psychology field. Consequently, Sheppard and Williams had to go back and add a new section to their literature review on individual resilience factors. Interestingly, their research appeared to be the first research to link individual resilience factors with community resilience factors.

Research design and methods

The objective of this section of the research proposal is to convince the reader that your overall research design and methods of analysis will enable you to solve the research problem you have identified and also enable you to accurately and effectively interpret the results of your research. Consequently, it is critical that the research design and methods section is well-written, clear, and logically organized.  This demonstrates to your reader that you know what you are going to do and how you are going to do it.  Overall, you want to leave your reader feeling confident that you have what it takes to get this research study completed in a timely fashion.

Essentially, this section of the research proposal should be clearly tied to the specific objectives of your study; however, it is also important to draw upon and include examples from the literature review that relate to your design and intended methods.  In other words, you must clearly demonstrate how your study utilizes and builds upon past studies, as it relates to the research design and intended methods.  For example, what methods have been used by other researchers in similar studies?

While it is important to consider the methods that other researchers have employed, it is equally important, if not more so, to consider what methods have not been employed but could be.  Remember, the methods section is not simply a list of tasks to be undertaken. It is also an argument as to why and how the tasks you have outlined will help you investigate the research problem and answer your research question(s).

Tips for writing the research design and methods section:

• Specify the methodological approaches you intend to employ to obtain information and the techniques you will use to analyze the data.
• Specify the research operations you will undertake and he way you will interpret the results of those operations in relation to the research problem.
• Go beyond stating what you hope to achieve through the methods you have chosen. State how you will actually do the methods (i.e. coding interview text, running regression analysis, etc.).
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers you may encounter when undertaking your research and describe how you will address these barriers.
• Explain where you believe you will find challenges related to data collection, including access to participants and information.

Preliminary suppositions and implications

The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you anticipate that your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the area of your study. Depending upon the aims and objectives of your study, you should also discuss how your anticipated findings may impact future research.  For example, is it possible that your research may lead to a new policy, new theoretical understanding, or a new method for analyzing data?  How might your study influence future studies?  What might your study mean for future practitioners working in the field?  Who or what may benefit from your study?  How might your study contribute to social, economic, environmental issues?  While it is important to think about and discuss possibilities such as these, it is equally important to be realistic in stating your anticipated findings.  In other words, you do not want to delve into idle speculation.  Rather, the purpose here is to reflect upon gaps in the current body of literature and to describe how and in what ways you anticipate your research will begin to fill in some or all of those gaps.

The conclusion reiterates the importance and significance of your research proposal and it provides a brief summary of the entire proposed study.  Essentially, this section should only be one or two paragraphs in length. Here is a potential outline for your conclusion:

• Discuss why the study should be done. Specifically discuss how you expect your study will advance existing knowledge and how your study is unique.
• Explain the specific purpose of the study and the research questions that the study will answer.
• Explain why the research design and methods chosen for this study are appropriate, and why other design and methods were not chosen.
• State the potential implications you expect to emerge from your proposed study,
• Provide a sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship currently in existence related to the research problem.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your research proposal.  In a research proposal, this can take two forms: a reference list or a bibliography.  A reference list does what the name suggests, it lists the literature you referenced in the body of your research proposal.  All references in the reference list, must appear in the body of the research proposal.  Remember, it is not acceptable to say “as cited in …”  As a researcher you must always go to the original source and check it for yourself.  Many errors are made in referencing, even by top researchers, and so it is important not to perpetuate an error made by someone else. While this can be time consuming, it is the proper way to undertake a literature review.

In contrast, a bibliography , is a list of everything you used or cited in your research proposal, with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.  In other words, sources cited in your bibliography may not necessarily appear in the body of your research proposal.  Make sure you check with your instructor to see which of the two you are expected to produce.

Overall, your list of citations should be a testament to the fact that you have done a sufficient level of preliminary research to ensure that your project will complement, but not duplicate, previous research efforts. For social sciences, the reference list or bibliography should be prepared in American Psychological Association (APA) referencing format. Usually, the reference list (or bibliography) is not included in the word count of the research proposal. Again, make sure you check with your instructor to confirm.

An Introduction to Research Methods in Sociology Copyright © 2019 by Valerie A. Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

How to Write a Successful Literature Review

One type of a proposal focus is a literature review/trend analysis . This type of a proposal is somewhat different from the other proposal foci. A sample literature/trend analysis is posted at the bottom of this guide.

A literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research or theory, and provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works.The goal of this form of a proposal is to provide an overview of the significant trends in the literature that is published on this topic.

The topics and references you include in your proposal should be purposeful and represent the key authors and arguments in that particular area of study. This necessitates that the review be consistently up to date and include the newest findings/discussions in that particular area of study or debate.

Definition and use/purpose

In a literature review you may highlight a critical area of a thesis, or it may be a focused, selected review of writings on a subject with the following purposes. Each work should:

• Relate to the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
• Describe / compare each work in relationship to the others in your proposal
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Resolve conflicts among what is deemed as contradictory previous studies
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
• Illustrate how this work can be a starting point for further research
• Highlight the relevancy of the work in the context of existing literature

The literature review itself, however, does not present new primary scholarship.

What to include

• An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review
• Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those supporting a particular position, those who have the opposite view, and those who give alternative theses entirely)
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others
• A conclusion . Determine which aspects are key in the debates on the topic, are most convincing, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of this particular research area.

Evaluating the data

• Authority — What are the author's credentials? Is there evidence to support the author's arguments (e.g., primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings)?
• Objectivity — Does the author have a bias in the writing, or is the perspective even-handed? Does the author consider contrasting or opposing data or does he or she ignore other pertinent information in order to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness — Which of the author's theses are most/least convincing?
• Value — Does the author provide enough context to make the case that this is a relevant discussion in the current state of the field? Does this work make a significant contribution to create a stronger understanding of the subject?

A sample of a well-written literature review/trend analysis is available below. If you have questions, please email Cindy Winter or call her at 612-759-8580. You may also contact one of the section chairs .

Family Science is a vibrant and growing discipline. Visit Family.Science to learn more and see how Family Scientists make a difference.

NCFR is a nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose members support all families through research, teaching, practice, and advocacy.

Get the latest updates on NCFR & Family Science in our weekly email newsletter:

Connect with Us

National Council on Family Relations 661 LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Saint Paul, MN 55114 Phone: (888) 781-9331 [email protected] Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

© Copyright 2023 NCFR

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.

Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.

Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.

Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:

“A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated.

Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”

Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.

A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.

As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.

What is the importance of a literature review?

The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:

• Gain an in-depth understanding of your research question and the surrounding area
• Convey that you have a thorough understanding of your research area and are up-to-date with the latest changes and advancements
• Establish how your research is connected or builds on the existing body of knowledge and how it could contribute to further research
• Elaborate on the validity and suitability of your theoretical framework and research methodology
• Identify and highlight gaps and shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge and how things need to change
• Convey to readers how your study is different or how it contributes to the research area

How long should a literature review be?

Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.

Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.

Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.

What are the different types of literature reviews?

All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.

Integrative review

It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Methodological review

This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question —  you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.

Systematic review

This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research and collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.

Meta-analysis review

Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.

Historical review

Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and identify future research's likely directions.

Theoretical Review

This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

Scoping Review

The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.

State-of-the-Art Review

The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:

• The research topic and your motivation behind selecting it
• A one-sentence thesis statement
• An explanation of the kinds of literature featured in the review
• Summary of what you've learned
• Conclusions you drew from the literature you reviewed
• Potential implications and future scope for research

Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.

How many sources for a literature review?

There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.

The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.

You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:

• Outline the purpose behind the literature review
• Search relevant literature
• Examine and assess the relevant resources
• Discover connections by drawing deep insights from the resources
• Structure planning to write a good literature review

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What kind of sources should I analyze?
• How much should I critically evaluate each source?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or offer a critique of the sources?
• Do I need to include any background information or definitions?

Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.

2. Search relevant literature

Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.

You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.

Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.

3. Examine and assess the sources

It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.

While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:

• What question or problem has the author been describing and debating?
• What is the definition of critical aspects?
• How well the theories, approach, and methodology have been explained?
• Whether the research theory used some conventional or new innovative approach?
• How relevant are the key findings of the work?
• In what ways does it relate to other sources on the same topic?
• What challenges does this research paper pose to the existing theory
• What are the possible contributions or benefits it adds to the subject domain?

Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.

Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.

4. Discover connections

At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.

A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:

• Rise to prominence: Theories and methods that have gained reputation and supporters over time.
• Constant scrutiny: Concepts or theories that repeatedly went under examination.
• Contradictions and conflicts: Theories, both the supporting and the contradictory ones, for the research topic.
• Knowledge gaps: What exactly does it fail to address, and how to bridge them with further research?
• Influential resources: Significant research projects available that have been upheld as milestones or perhaps, something that can modify the current trends

Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.

Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.

Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:

Find the right information

Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.

Assess credibility of papers quickly

When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.

Get the complete picture in no time

SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.

Make referring sources super easy

To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.

Final tips on how to write a literature review

A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.

We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.

Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

• How can you use this information to answer your questions?

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.

4. How to cite a literature review in APA format?

To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21

5. What are the components of a literature review?

• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.

• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.

• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.

• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.

7. What are the 5 C's of writing literature review?

• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.

• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.

• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.

• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.

• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

10. How old should sources be in a literature review?

Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.

But before you go,

• Six Online Tools for Easy Literature Review
• Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
• Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

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
• Perspect Med Educ
• v.7(1); 2018 Feb

Writing an effective literature review

Lorelei lingard.

Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Health Sciences Addition, Western University, London, Ontario Canada

In the Writer’s Craft section we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how’syourwriting?

This Writer’s Craft instalment is the first in a two-part series that offers strategies for effectively presenting the literature review section of a research manuscript. This piece alerts writers to the importance of not only summarizing what is known but also identifying precisely what is not, in order to explicitly signal the relevance of their research. In this instalment, I will introduce readers to the mapping the gap metaphor, the knowledge claims heuristic, and the need to characterize the gap.

Mapping the gap

The purpose of the literature review section of a manuscript is not to report what is known about your topic. The purpose is to identify what remains unknown— what academic writing scholar Janet Giltrow has called the ‘knowledge deficit’ — thus establishing the need for your research study [ 1 ]. In an earlier Writer’s Craft instalment, the Problem-Gap-Hook heuristic was introduced as a way of opening your paper with a clear statement of the problem that your work grapples with, the gap in our current knowledge about that problem, and the reason the gap matters [ 2 ]. This article explains how to use the literature review section of your paper to build and characterize the Gap claim in your Problem-Gap-Hook. The metaphor of ‘mapping the gap’ is a way of thinking about how to select and arrange your review of the existing literature so that readers can recognize why your research needed to be done, and why its results constitute a meaningful advance on what was already known about the topic.

Many writers have learned that the literature review should describe what is known. The trouble with this approach is that it can produce a laundry list of facts-in-the-world that does not persuade the reader that the current study is a necessary next step. Instead, think of your literature review as painting in a map of your research domain: as you review existing knowledge, you are painting in sections of the map, but your goal is not to end with the whole map fully painted. That would mean there is nothing more we need to know about the topic, and that leaves no room for your research. What you want to end up with is a map in which painted sections surround and emphasize a white space, a gap in what is known that matters. Conceptualizing your literature review this way helps to ensure that it achieves its dual goal: of presenting what is known and pointing out what is not—the latter of these goals is necessary for your literature review to establish the necessity and importance of the research you are about to describe in the methods section which will immediately follow the literature review.

To a novice researcher or graduate student, this may seem counterintuitive. Hopefully you have invested significant time in reading the existing literature, and you are understandably keen to demonstrate that you’ve read everything ever published about your topic! Be careful, though, not to use the literature review section to regurgitate all of your reading in manuscript form. For one thing, it creates a laundry list of facts that makes for horrible reading. But there are three other reasons for avoiding this approach. First, you don’t have the space. In published medical education research papers, the literature review is quite short, ranging from a few paragraphs to a few pages, so you can’t summarize everything you’ve read. Second, you’re preaching to the converted. If you approach your paper as a contribution to an ongoing scholarly conversation,[ 2 ] then your literature review should summarize just the aspects of that conversation that are required to situate your conversational turn as informed and relevant. Third, the key to relevance is to point to a gap in what is known. To do so, you summarize what is known for the express purpose of identifying what is not known . Seen this way, the literature review should exert a gravitational pull on the reader, leading them inexorably to the white space on the map of knowledge you’ve painted for them. That white space is the space that your research fills.

Knowledge claims

To help writers move beyond the laundry list, the notion of ‘knowledge claims’ can be useful. A knowledge claim is a way of presenting the growing understanding of the community of researchers who have been exploring your topic. These are not disembodied facts, but rather incremental insights that some in the field may agree with and some may not, depending on their different methodological and disciplinary approaches to the topic. Treating the literature review as a story of the knowledge claims being made by researchers in the field can help writers with one of the most sophisticated aspects of a literature review—locating the knowledge being reviewed. Where does it come from? What is debated? How do different methodologies influence the knowledge being accumulated? And so on.

Consider this example of the knowledge claims (KC), Gap and Hook for the literature review section of a research paper on distributed healthcare teamwork:

KC: We know that poor team communication can cause errors. KC: And we know that team training can be effective in improving team communication. KC: This knowledge has prompted a push to incorporate teamwork training principles into health professions education curricula. KC: However, most of what we know about team training research has come from research with co-located teams—i. e., teams whose members work together in time and space. Gap: Little is known about how teamwork training principles would apply in distributed teams, whose members work asynchronously and are spread across different locations. Hook: Given that much healthcare teamwork is distributed rather than co-located, our curricula will be severely lacking until we create refined teamwork training principles that reflect distributed as well as co-located work contexts.

The ‘We know that …’ structure illustrated in this example is a template for helping you draft and organize. In your final version, your knowledge claims will be expressed with more sophistication. For instance, ‘We know that poor team communication can cause errors’ will become something like ‘Over a decade of patient safety research has demonstrated that poor team communication is the dominant cause of medical errors.’ This simple template of knowledge claims, though, provides an outline for the paragraphs in your literature review, each of which will provide detailed evidence to illustrate a knowledge claim. Using this approach, the order of the paragraphs in the literature review is strategic and persuasive, leading the reader to the gap claim that positions the relevance of the current study. To expand your vocabulary for creating such knowledge claims, linking them logically and positioning yourself amid them, I highly recommend Graff and Birkenstein’s little handbook of ‘templates’ [ 3 ].

As you organize your knowledge claims, you will also want to consider whether you are trying to map the gap in a well-studied field, or a relatively understudied one. The rhetorical challenge is different in each case. In a well-studied field, like professionalism in medical education, you must make a strong, explicit case for the existence of a gap. Readers may come to your paper tired of hearing about this topic and tempted to think we can’t possibly need more knowledge about it. Listing the knowledge claims can help you organize them most effectively and determine which pieces of knowledge may be unnecessary to map the white space your research attempts to fill. This does not mean that you leave out relevant information: your literature review must still be accurate. But, since you will not be able to include everything, selecting carefully among the possible knowledge claims is essential to producing a coherent, well-argued literature review.

Characterizing the gap

Once you’ve identified the gap, your literature review must characterize it. What kind of gap have you found? There are many ways to characterize a gap, but some of the more common include:

• a pure knowledge deficit—‘no one has looked at the relationship between longitudinal integrated clerkships and medical student abuse’
• a shortcoming in the scholarship, often due to philosophical or methodological tendencies and oversights—‘scholars have interpreted x from a cognitivist perspective, but ignored the humanist perspective’ or ‘to date, we have surveyed the frequency of medical errors committed by residents, but we have not explored their subjective experience of such errors’
• a controversy—‘scholars disagree on the definition of professionalism in medicine …’
• a pervasive and unproven assumption—‘the theme of technological heroism—technology will solve what ails teamwork—is ubiquitous in the literature, but what is that belief based on?’

To characterize the kind of gap, you need to know the literature thoroughly. That means more than understanding each paper individually; you also need to be placing each paper in relation to others. This may require changing your note-taking technique while you’re reading; take notes on what each paper contributes to knowledge, but also on how it relates to other papers you’ve read, and what it suggests about the kind of gap that is emerging.

In summary, think of your literature review as mapping the gap rather than simply summarizing the known. And pay attention to characterizing the kind of gap you’ve mapped. This strategy can help to make your literature review into a compelling argument rather than a list of facts. It can remind you of the danger of describing so fully what is known that the reader is left with the sense that there is no pressing need to know more. And it can help you to establish a coherence between the kind of gap you’ve identified and the study methodology you will use to fill it.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Mark Goldszmidt for his feedback on an early version of this manuscript.

PhD, is director of the Centre for Education Research & Innovation at Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, and professor for the Department of Medicine at Western University in London, Ontario, Canada.

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to structure an essay, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of..., what’s the best chatgpt alternative for academic writing, how to write a good hook for essays,..., addressing peer review feedback and mastering manuscript revisions..., how paperpal can boost comprehension and foster interdisciplinary..., what is the importance of a concept paper..., how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding....

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• 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

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 10:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

15 Literature Review Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686  

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

• Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
• Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
• A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
• A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria. 

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review  

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X  

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

• A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
• Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
• Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
• Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386  

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

• The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
• How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
• A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
• Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

• Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
• Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
• Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
• Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
• State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

• Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
• Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
• Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments  in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
• Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
• Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 101 Class Group Name Ideas (for School Students)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 19 Top Cognitive Psychology Theories (Explained)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 119 Bloom’s Taxonomy Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ All 6 Levels of Understanding (on Bloom’s Taxonomy)

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

How to Prepare a Research Proposal and Literature Review

All HDR candidates are required to prepare a research proposal and literature review for their first Research Progress Review. If you are a PhD candidate, this will be your Confirmation Review. 

Your research proposal and literature review should be a comprehensive outline of your research topic and show how you will make an original contribution to knowledge in your field. Your Review panel will use your research proposal and literature review to assess the viability of your research project, and to provide you with valuable feedback on your topic, methodology, research design, timeline and milestones. 

UNSW Academic Skills provides a detailed description of how to develop and structure your research proposal. 

Your Faculty and/or School may have particular requirements, and you should contact your Postgraduate Coordinator or your supervisor if you’re unsure of what is required.  

Additional Resources

All disciplinary areas A guide for writing thesis proposals - UNSW Academic Skills Confirmation – not as big a deal as you think it is? - the Thesis Whisperer

Humanities and Social Sciences Essential ingredients of a good research proposal for undergraduate and postgraduate students in the social sciences – Raymond Talinbe Abdulai and Anthony Owusu-Ansah, SAGE Open, Jul-Sep 2014  Template for writing your PhD Confirmation document in Sociology and Anthropology - S A Hamed Hosseini

Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine How to prepare a research proposal – Asya Al-Riyami, Oman Medical Journal Writing a scientific research proposal – author unknown

• Find a degree
• Ask a Question
• Getting Started
• International
• Find a Researcher/Area
• Apply for a Higher Degree Research Program
•   UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 Australia
•   Telephone +61 2 9385 5500
•   Maps

Graduate Research School, Level 2, Rupert Myers Building (South Wing), UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 Australia Telephone +61 2 93855500 Dean of Graduate Research, Professor Jonathan Morris. UNSW CRICOS   Provider Code:  00098G  TEQSA Provider ID : PRV12055  ABN:  57 195 873 179

How To Write A Research Proposal

A Straightforward How-To Guide (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2019 (Updated April 2023)

Writing up a strong research proposal for a dissertation or thesis is much like a marriage proposal. It’s a task that calls on you to win somebody over and persuade them that what you’re planning is a great idea. An idea they’re happy to say ‘yes’ to. This means that your dissertation proposal needs to be   persuasive ,   attractive   and well-planned. In this post, I’ll show you how to write a winning dissertation proposal, from scratch.

Before you start:

– Understand exactly what a research proposal is – Ask yourself these 4 questions

The 5 essential ingredients:

• The title/topic
• The introduction chapter
• The scope/delimitations
• Preliminary literature review
• Design/ methodology
• Practical considerations and risks 

What Is A Research Proposal?

The research proposal is literally that: a written document that communicates what you propose to research, in a concise format. It’s where you put all that stuff that’s spinning around in your head down on to paper, in a logical, convincing fashion.

Convincing   is the keyword here, as your research proposal needs to convince the assessor that your research is   clearly articulated   (i.e., a clear research question) ,   worth doing   (i.e., is unique and valuable enough to justify the effort), and   doable   within the restrictions you’ll face (time limits, budget, skill limits, etc.). If your proposal does not address these three criteria, your research won’t be approved, no matter how “exciting” the research idea might be.

PS – if you’re completely new to proposal writing, we’ve got a detailed walkthrough video covering two successful research proposals here . 

How do I know I’m ready?

Before starting the writing process, you need to   ask yourself 4 important questions .  If you can’t answer them succinctly and confidently, you’re not ready – you need to go back and think more deeply about your dissertation topic .

You should be able to answer the following 4 questions before starting your dissertation or thesis research proposal:

• WHAT is my main research question? (the topic)
• WHO cares and why is this important? (the justification)
• WHAT data would I need to answer this question, and how will I analyse it? (the research design)
• HOW will I manage the completion of this research, within the given timelines? (project and risk management)

If you can’t answer these questions clearly and concisely,   you’re not yet ready   to write your research proposal – revisit our   post on choosing a topic .

If you can, that’s great – it’s time to start writing up your dissertation proposal. Next, I’ll discuss what needs to go into your research proposal, and how to structure it all into an intuitive, convincing document with a linear narrative.

The 5 Essential Ingredients

Research proposals can vary in style between institutions and disciplines, but here I’ll share with you a   handy 5-section structure   you can use. These 5 sections directly address the core questions we spoke about earlier, ensuring that you present a convincing proposal. If your institution already provides a proposal template, there will likely be substantial overlap with this, so you’ll still get value from reading on.

For each section discussed below, make sure you use headers and sub-headers (ideally, numbered headers) to help the reader navigate through your document, and to support them when they need to revisit a previous section. Don’t just present an endless wall of text, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph…

Top Tip:   Use MS Word Styles to format headings. This will allow you to be clear about whether a sub-heading is level 2, 3, or 4. Additionally, you can view your document in ‘outline view’ which will show you only your headings. This makes it much easier to check your structure, shift things around and make decisions about where a section needs to sit. You can also generate a 100% accurate table of contents using Word’s automatic functionality.

Ingredient #1 – Topic/Title Header

Your research proposal’s title should be your main research question in its simplest form, possibly with a sub-heading providing basic details on the specifics of the study. For example:

“Compliance with equality legislation in the charity sector: a study of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ made in three London care homes”

As you can see, this title provides a clear indication of what the research is about, in broad terms. It paints a high-level picture for the first-time reader, which gives them a taste of what to expect.   Always aim for a clear, concise title . Don’t feel the need to capture every detail of your research in your title – your proposal will fill in the gaps.

Need a helping hand?

Ingredient #2 – Introduction

In this section of your research proposal, you’ll expand on what you’ve communicated in the title, by providing a few paragraphs which offer more detail about your research topic. Importantly, the focus here is the   topic   – what will you research and why is that worth researching? This is not the place to discuss methodology, practicalities, etc. – you’ll do that later.

You should cover the following:

• An overview of the   broad area   you’ll be researching – introduce the reader to key concepts and language
• An explanation of the   specific (narrower) area   you’ll be focusing, and why you’ll be focusing there
• Your research   aims   and   objectives
• Your   research question (s) and sub-questions (if applicable)

Importantly, you should aim to use short sentences and plain language – don’t babble on with extensive jargon, acronyms and complex language. Assume that the reader is an intelligent layman – not a subject area specialist (even if they are). Remember that the   best writing is writing that can be easily understood   and digested. Keep it simple.

Note that some universities may want some extra bits and pieces in your introduction section. For example, personal development objectives, a structural outline, etc. Check your brief to see if there are any other details they expect in your proposal, and make sure you find a place for these.

Ingredient #3 – Scope

Next, you’ll need to specify what the scope of your research will be – this is also known as the delimitations . In other words, you need to make it clear what you will be covering and, more importantly, what you won’t be covering in your research. Simply put, this is about ring fencing your research topic so that you have a laser-sharp focus.

All too often, students feel the need to go broad and try to address as many issues as possible, in the interest of producing comprehensive research. Whilst this is admirable, it’s a mistake. By tightly refining your scope, you’ll enable yourself to   go deep   with your research, which is what you need to earn good marks. If your scope is too broad, you’re likely going to land up with superficial research (which won’t earn marks), so don’t be afraid to narrow things down.

Ingredient #4 – Literature Review

In this section of your research proposal, you need to provide a (relatively) brief discussion of the existing literature. Naturally, this will not be as comprehensive as the literature review in your actual dissertation, but it will lay the foundation for that. In fact, if you put in the effort at this stage, you’ll make your life a lot easier when it’s time to write your actual literature review chapter.

There are a few things you need to achieve in this section:

• Demonstrate that you’ve done your reading and are   familiar with the current state of the research   in your topic area.
• Show that   there’s a clear gap   for your specific research – i.e., show that your topic is sufficiently unique and will add value to the existing research.
• Show how the existing research has shaped your thinking regarding   research design . For example, you might use scales or questionnaires from previous studies.

When you write up your literature review, keep these three objectives front of mind, especially number two (revealing the gap in the literature), so that your literature review has a   clear purpose and direction . Everything you write should be contributing towards one (or more) of these objectives in some way. If it doesn’t, you need to ask yourself whether it’s truly needed.

Top Tip:  Don’t fall into the trap of just describing the main pieces of literature, for example, “A says this, B says that, C also says that…” and so on. Merely describing the literature provides no value. Instead, you need to   synthesise   it, and use it to address the three objectives above.

Ingredient #5 – Research Methodology

Now that you’ve clearly explained both your intended research topic (in the introduction) and the existing research it will draw on (in the literature review section), it’s time to get practical and explain exactly how you’ll be carrying out your own research. In other words, your research methodology.

In this section, you’ll need to   answer two critical questions :

• How   will you design your research? I.e., what research methodology will you adopt, what will your sample be, how will you collect data, etc.
• Why   have you chosen this design? I.e., why does this approach suit your specific research aims, objectives and questions?

In other words, this is not just about explaining WHAT you’ll be doing, it’s also about explaining WHY. In fact, the   justification is the most important part , because that justification is how you demonstrate a good understanding of research design (which is what assessors want to see).

Some essential design choices you need to cover in your research proposal include:

• Your intended research philosophy (e.g., positivism, interpretivism or pragmatism )
• What methodological approach you’ll be taking (e.g., qualitative , quantitative or mixed )
• The details of your sample (e.g., sample size, who they are, who they represent, etc.)
• What data you plan to collect (i.e. data about what, in what form?)
• How you plan to collect it (e.g., surveys , interviews , focus groups, etc.)
• How you plan to analyse it (e.g., regression analysis, thematic analysis , etc.)
• Ethical adherence (i.e., does this research satisfy all ethical requirements of your institution, or does it need further approval?)

This list is not exhaustive – these are just some core attributes of research design. Check with your institution what level of detail they expect. The “ research onion ” by Saunders et al (2009) provides a good summary of the various design choices you ultimately need to make – you can   read more about that here .

Don’t forget the practicalities…

In addition to the technical aspects, you will need to address the   practical   side of the project. In other words, you need to explain   what resources you’ll need   (e.g., time, money, access to equipment or software, etc.) and how you intend to secure these resources. You need to show that your project is feasible, so any “make or break” type resources need to already be secured. The success or failure of your project cannot depend on some resource which you’re not yet sure you have access to.

Another part of the practicalities discussion is   project and risk management . In other words, you need to show that you have a clear project plan to tackle your research with. Some key questions to address:

• What are the timelines for each phase of your project?
• Are the time allocations reasonable?
• What happens if something takes longer than anticipated (risk management)?
• What happens if you don’t get the response rate you expect?

A good way to demonstrate that you’ve thought this through is to include a Gantt chart and a risk register (in the appendix if word count is a problem). With these two tools, you can show that you’ve got a clear, feasible plan, and you’ve thought about and accounted for the potential risks.

Tip – Be honest about the potential difficulties – but show that you are anticipating solutions and workarounds. This is much more impressive to an assessor than an unrealistically optimistic proposal which does not anticipate any challenges whatsoever.

Final Touches: Read And Simplify

The final step is to edit and proofread your proposal – very carefully. It sounds obvious, but all too often poor editing and proofreading ruin a good proposal. Nothing is more off-putting for an assessor than a poorly edited, typo-strewn document. It sends the message that you either do not pay attention to detail, or just don’t care. Neither of these are good messages. Put the effort into editing and proofreading your proposal (or pay someone to do it for you) – it will pay dividends.

When you’re editing, watch out for ‘academese’. Many students can speak simply, passionately and clearly about their dissertation topic – but become incomprehensible the moment they turn the laptop on. You are not required to write in any kind of special, formal, complex language when you write academic work. Sure, there may be technical terms, jargon specific to your discipline, shorthand terms and so on. But, apart from those,   keep your written language very close to natural spoken language   – just as you would speak in the classroom. Imagine that you are explaining your project plans to your classmates or a family member. Remember, write for the intelligent layman, not the subject matter experts. Plain-language, concise writing is what wins hearts and minds – and marks!

Let’s Recap: Research Proposal 101

And there you have it – how to write your dissertation or thesis research proposal, from the title page to the final proof. Here’s a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• The purpose of the research proposal is to   convince   – therefore, you need to make a clear, concise argument of why your research is both worth doing and doable.
• Make sure you can ask the critical what, who, and how questions of your research   before   you put pen to paper.
• Title – provides the first taste of your research, in broad terms
• Introduction – explains what you’ll be researching in more detail
• Scope – explains the boundaries of your research
• Literature review – explains how your research fits into the existing research and why it’s unique and valuable
• Research methodology – explains and justifies how you will carry out your own research

Hopefully, this post has helped you better understand how to write up a winning research proposal. If you enjoyed it, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . If your university doesn’t provide any template for your proposal, you might want to try out our free research proposal template .

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

30 Comments

Thank you so much for the valuable insight that you have given, especially on the research proposal. That is what I have managed to cover. I still need to go back to the other parts as I got disturbed while still listening to Derek’s audio on you-tube. I am inspired. I will definitely continue with Grad-coach guidance on You-tube.

Thanks for the kind words :). All the best with your proposal.

First of all, thanks a lot for making such a wonderful presentation. The video was really useful and gave me a very clear insight of how a research proposal has to be written. I shall try implementing these ideas in my RP.

Once again, I thank you for this content.

I found reading your outline on writing research proposal very beneficial. I wish there was a way of submitting my draft proposal to you guys for critiquing before I submit to the institution.

Hi Bonginkosi

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we do provide a review service. The best starting point is to have a chat with one of our coaches here: https://gradcoach.com/book/new/ .

Hello team GRADCOACH, may God bless you so much. I was totally green in research. Am so happy for your free superb tutorials and resources. Once again thank you so much Derek and his team.

You’re welcome, Erick. Good luck with your research proposal 🙂

thank you for the information. its precise and on point.

Really a remarkable piece of writing and great source of guidance for the researchers. GOD BLESS YOU for your guidance. Regards

Thanks so much for your guidance. It is easy and comprehensive the way you explain the steps for a winning research proposal.

Thank you guys so much for the rich post. I enjoyed and learn from every word in it. My problem now is how to get into your platform wherein I can always seek help on things related to my research work ? Secondly, I wish to find out if there is a way I can send my tentative proposal to you guys for examination before I take to my supervisor Once again thanks very much for the insights

Thanks for your kind words, Desire.

If you are based in a country where Grad Coach’s paid services are available, you can book a consultation by clicking the “Book” button in the top right.

Best of luck with your studies.

May God bless you team for the wonderful work you are doing,

If I have a topic, Can I submit it to you so that you can draft a proposal for me?? As I am expecting to go for masters degree in the near future.

Thanks for your comment. We definitely cannot draft a proposal for you, as that would constitute academic misconduct. The proposal needs to be your own work. We can coach you through the process, but it needs to be your own work and your own writing.

Best of luck with your research!

I found a lot of many essential concepts from your material. it is real a road map to write a research proposal. so thanks a lot. If there is any update material on your hand on MBA please forward to me.

GradCoach is a professional website that presents support and helps for MBA student like me through the useful online information on the page and with my 1-on-1 online coaching with the amazing and professional PhD Kerryen.

Thank you Kerryen so much for the support and help 🙂

I really recommend dealing with such a reliable services provider like Gradcoah and a coach like Kerryen.

Hi, Am happy for your service and effort to help students and researchers, Please, i have been given an assignment on research for strategic development, the task one is to formulate a research proposal to support the strategic development of a business area, my issue here is how to go about it, especially the topic or title and introduction. Please, i would like to know if you could help me and how much is the charge.

This content is practical, valuable, and just great!

Thank you very much!

Hi Derek, Thank you for the valuable presentation. It is very helpful especially for beginners like me. I am just starting my PhD.

This is quite instructive and research proposal made simple. Can I have a research proposal template?

Great! Thanks for rescuing me, because I had no former knowledge in this topic. But with this piece of information, I am now secured. Thank you once more.

I enjoyed listening to your video on how to write a proposal. I think I will be able to write a winning proposal with your advice. I wish you were to be my supervisor.

Dear Derek Jansen,

Thank you for your great content. I couldn’t learn these topics in MBA, but now I learned from GradCoach. Really appreciate your efforts….

From Afghanistan!

I have got very essential inputs for startup of my dissertation proposal. Well organized properly communicated with video presentation. Thank you for the presentation.

Wow, this is absolutely amazing guys. Thank you so much for the fruitful presentation, you’ve made my research much easier.

this helps me a lot. thank you all so much for impacting in us. may god richly bless you all

How I wish I’d learn about Grad Coach earlier. I’ve been stumbling around writing and rewriting! Now I have concise clear directions on how to put this thing together. Thank you!

Fantastic!! Thank You for this very concise yet comprehensive guidance.

Even if I am poor in English I would like to thank you very much.

Thank you very much, this is very insightful.

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

Research in the Biological and Life Sciences: A Guide for Cornell Researchers: Literature Reviews

• Books and Dissertations
• Databases and Journals
• Locating Theses
• Resource Not at Cornell?
• Citing Sources
• Staying Current
• Measuring your research impact
• Plagiarism and Copyright
• Data Management
• Literature Reviews
• Evidence Synthesis and Systematic Reviews
• Writing an Honors Thesis
• Poster Making and Printing
• Research Help

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a body of text that aims to review the critical points of current knowledge on a particular topic. Most often associated with science-oriented literature, such as a thesis, the literature review usually proceeds a research proposal, methodology and results section. Its ultimate goals is to bring the reader up to date with current literature on a topic and forms that basis for another goal, such as the justification for future research in the area. (retrieved from  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature_review )

Writing a Literature Review

The literature review is the section of your paper in which you cite and briefly review the related research studies that have been conducted. In this space, you will describe the foundation on which  your  research will be/is built. You will:

• discuss the work of others
• evaluate their methods and findings
• identify any gaps in their research
• state how  your  research is different

The literature review should be selective and should group the cited studies in some logical fashion.

If you need some additional assistance writing your literature review, the Knight Institute for Writing in the Disciplines offers a  Graduate Writing Service .

Demystifying the Literature Review

For more information, visit our guide devoted to " Demystifying the Literature Review " which includes:

• guide to conducting a literature review,
• a recorded 1.5 hour workshop covering the steps of a literature review, a checklist for drafting your topic and search terms, citation management software for organizing your results, and database searching.

Online Resources

• A Guide to Library Research at Cornell University
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students North Carolina State University 
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting Written by Dena Taylor, Director, Health Sciences Writing Centre, and Margaret Procter, Coordinator, Writing Support, University of Toronto
• How to Write a Literature Review University Library, University of California, Santa Cruz
• Review of Literature The Writing Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Print Resources

• << Previous: Writing
• Next: Evidence Synthesis and Systematic Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Oct 25, 2023 11:28 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/bio

Organizing Academic Research Papers: Writing a Research Proposal

• 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 goal of a research proposal is to present and justify a research idea you have and to present the practical ways in which you think this research should be conducted. The forms and procedures for such research are defined by the field of study, so guidelines for research proposals are generally more exacting and less formal than a project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews and must provide persuasive evidence that there is a need for the research study being proposed. In addition to providing rationale for the proposed research, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and/or benefits derived from the study.

Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:

• Develop your skills in thinking about and designing a comprehensive research study.
• Help learn how to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to ensure a research problem has not already been answered [or you may determine the problem has been answered ineffectively] and, in so doing, become familiar with scholarship related to your topic.
• Improve your general research and writing skills.
• Practice identifying what logical steps must be taken to accomplish one's research goals.
• Nurture a sense of inquisitiveness within yourself and to help see yourself as an active participant in the process of doing scholarly research.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a complete research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the results of the study and your analysis of those results. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing. It is, therefore, important that your writing is coherent, clear, and compelling.

Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succient in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to research.
• Why do you want to do it? In addition to detailing your research design, you also must conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that it is a topic worthy of study. Be sure to answer the "So what? question.
• How are you going to do it? Be sure that what you propose is doable.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise; being "all over the map" without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review.
• Failure to delimit the contextual boundaries of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.].
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research.
• Failure to stay focused on the research question; going off on unrelated tangents.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing. Poor grammar.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues.

Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal .  The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal . Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal . International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing a traditional research paper, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout the social sciences. Most proposals are between ten and fifteen pages in length. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:

• What do I want to study, and why?
• How is it significant within the subject areas covered in my class?
• What problems will it help solve?
• How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on my topic?
• What exactly should I plan to do, and can I get it done in the time available?

In the end, your research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and highlight enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like--"Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"

In general your proposal should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write your doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to sense your passion for the topic and be excited about its possible outcomes.

Think about your introduction as a narrative written in one to three paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Why is this important research, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes from the study?

II.  Background and Significance

This section can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and flow of your proposal. This is where you explain the context of your project and outline why it's important. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the research problem; instead, you must choose what is relevant to help explain your goals for the study.

To that end, while there are no hard and fast rules, you should attempt to deal with some or all of the following:

• State the research problem and give a more detailed explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction.
• Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing. Answer the "So what? question [i.e., why should anyone care].
• Describe the major issues or problems to be addressed by your research.
• Explain how you plan to go about conducting your research. Clearly identify the key sources you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to the analysis of your topic.
• Set the boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus.
• Provide definitions of key concepts or terms, if necessary.

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methods they've used, and what is your understanding of their findings. Assess what you believe is still missing, and state how previous research has failed to examine the issue that your study addresses.

Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your study in relation to that of other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically describing materials one at a time.

To help frame your proposal's literature review, here are the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

• Cite : keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches and controversies expressed in the literature: what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate?
• Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, etc.] .
• Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, or synthesize what has been said in the literature?

IV.  Research Design and Methods

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research . As a consequence, the reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. The objective here is to ensure that the reader is convinced that your overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem. Your design and methods should be absolutely and unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to collect information, about the techniques you will use to analyze it, and about tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places or times].

When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover these issues:

• Specify the research operations you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results of these operations in relation to your research problem. Don't just describe what you intend to achieve from applying the methods you choose, but state how you will spend your time while doing it.
• Keep in mind that a methodology is not just a list of research tasks; it is an argument as to why these tasks add up to the best way to investigate the research problem. This is an important point because the mere listing of tasks to perform does not demonstrate that they add up to the best feasible approach.
• Be sure to anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to get around them.

V.  Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

Just because you don't have to actually conduct the study and analyze the results, it doesn't mean that you can skip talking about the process and potential implications . The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you believe your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the subject area under investigation. Depending on the aims and objectives of your study, describe how the anticipated results of your study will impact future scholarly research, theory, practice, forms of interventions, or policy. Note that such discussions may have either substantive [a potential new policy], theoretical [a potential new understanding], or methodological [a potential new way of analyzing] significance.   When thinking about the potential implications of your study, ask the following questions:

• What might the results mean in regards to the theoretical framework that frames the study?
• What suggestions for subsequent research could arise from the potential outcomes of the study?
• What will the results mean to practitioners in the "real world"?
• Will the results influence programs, methods, and/or forms of intervention?
• How might the results contribute to the solution of social, economic, or other types of problems?
• Will the results influence policy decisions?
• What will be improved or changed as a result of the proposed research?
• How will the results of the study be implemented, and what innovations will come about?

VI.  Conclusion

The conclusion reiterates the importance or significance of your proposal and provides a brief recap of the entire study . This section should be only one or two paragraphs long, emphasizing why your research study is unique, why it advances knowledge, and why the research problem is worth investigating.

Someone reading this section should come away with an understanding of:

• Why the study was done,
• The specific purpose of the study and the research questions it attempted to answer,
• The research design and methods used,
• The potential implications emerging from your proposed study of the research problem, and
• A sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship about the research problem.

VII.  Citations

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. In a standard research proposal, this section can take two forms, so speak with your professor about which one is preferred.

• References -- lists only the literature that you actually used or cited in your proposal.
• Bibliography -- lists everything you used or cited in your proposal with additional citations of any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.

In either case, this section should testify to the fact that you did enough preparatory work to make sure the project will complement and not duplicate the efforts of other researchers. Start a new page and use the heading "References" or "Bibliography" at the top of the page. Cited works should always use a standard format that follows the writing style advised by the discipline of your course [i.e., education=APA; history=Chicago, etc]. This section normally does not count towards the total length of your proposal.

Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal . Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal . The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. Developing and Writing a Research Proposal. In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills. Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal . Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal . International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal . University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• << Previous: Writing a Policy Memo
• Next: Acknowledgements >>
• 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  

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Writing a Research Proposal

• Purpose of Guide
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• The Research Problem/Question
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Research Effectively
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Is it Peer-Reviewed?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism [linked guide]
• Annotated Bibliography
• Grading Someone Else's Paper

The goal of a research proposal is to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. The design elements and procedures for conducting the research are governed by standards within the predominant discipline in which the problem resides, so guidelines for research proposals are more exacting and less formal than a general project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews. They must provide persuasive evidence that a need exists for the proposed study. In addition to providing a rationale, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and/or benefits derived from the study's completion.

Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:

• Develop your skills in thinking about and designing a comprehensive research study;
• Learn how to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to ensure a research problem has not already been answered [or you may determine the problem has been answered ineffectively] and, in so doing, become better at locating scholarship related to your topic;
• Improve your general research and writing skills;
• Practice identifying the logical steps that must be taken to accomplish one's research goals;
• Critically review, examine, and consider the use of different methods for gathering and analyzing data related to the research problem; and,
• Nurture a sense of inquisitiveness within yourself and to help see yourself as an active participant in the process of doing scholarly research.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a completed research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the findings of the study and your analysis of those results. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing and, therefore, it is important that your writing is coherent, clear, and compelling.

Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succinct in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to research.
• Why do you want to do it? In addition to detailing your research design, you also must conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that it is a topic worthy of study. Be sure to answer the "So What?" question.
• How are you going to do it? Be sure that what you propose is doable. If you're having trouble formulating a research problem to propose investigating, go here .

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise; being "all over the map" without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review.
• Failure to delimit the contextual boundaries of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.].
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research.
• Failure to stay focused on the research problem; going off on unrelated tangents.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing, or poor grammar.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues.

Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal .  The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal . Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal . International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal . University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing a regular academic paper, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout most social science disciplines. Proposals vary between ten and twenty-five pages in length. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:

• What do I want to study?
• Why is the topic important?
• How is it significant within the subject areas covered in my class?
• What problems will it help solve?
• How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on the topic?
• What exactly should I plan to do, and can I get it done in the time available?

In general, a compelling research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and demonstrate your enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like--"Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"

In general your proposal should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write a doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea or a thorough examination of the significance of a research problem. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to gain a sense of your passion for the topic and be excited about the study's possible outcomes. Note that most proposals do not include an abstract [summary] before the introduction.

Think about your introduction as a narrative written in one to three paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Why is this important research, what is its significance, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes of the proposed study?

II.  Background and Significance

This section can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and narrative flow of your proposal. This is where you explain the context of your proposal and describe in detail why it's important. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the topic; instead, you must choose what is relevant to help explain the goals for your study.

To that end, while there are no hard and fast rules, you should attempt to address some or all of the following key points:

• State the research problem and give a more detailed explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction. This is particularly important if the problem is complex or multifaceted .
• Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing. Answer the "So What? question [i.e., why should anyone care].
• Describe the major issues or problems to be addressed by your research. Be sure to note how your proposed study builds on previous assumptions about the research problem.
• Explain how you plan to go about conducting your research. Clearly identify the key sources you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Set the boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you will study, but what is excluded from the study.
• If necessary, provide definitions of key concepts or terms.

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a section of your proposal devoted to a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methods they have used, and what is your understanding of their findings and, where stated, their recommendations. Do not be afraid to challenge the conclusions of prior research. Assess what you believe is missing and state how previous research has failed to adequately examine the issue that your study addresses. For more information on writing literature reviews, GO HERE .

Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your study in relation to that of other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically describing groups of materials one at a time. Note that conceptual categories generally reveal themselves after you have read most of the pertinent literature on your topic so adding new categories is an on-going process of discovery as you read more studies. How do you know you've covered the key conceptual categories underlying the research literature? Generally, you can have confidence that all of the significant conceptual categories have been identified if you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations that are being made.

To help frame your proposal's literature review, here are the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

• Cite , so as to keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches, and controversies expressed in the literature: what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate?
• Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, etc.] .
• Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, synthesize, or add a new perspective to what has been said in the literature?

IV.  Research Design and Methods

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research, yet, your reader must have confidence that it is worth pursuing . The reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. Thus, the objective here is to convince the reader that your overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the problem and that the methods will provide the means to effectively interpret the potential results. Your design and methods should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Consider not only methods that other researchers have used but methods of data gathering that have not been used but perhaps could be. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to obtain information, the techniques you would use to analyze the data, and the tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places, events, and/or periods of time].

When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover the following:

• Specify the research operations you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results of these operations in relation to the research problem. Don't just describe what you intend to achieve from applying the methods you choose, but state how you will spend your time while applying these methods [e.g., coding text from interviews to find statements about the need to change school curriculum; running a regression to determine if there is a relationship between campaign advertising on social media sites and election outcomes in Europe ].
• Keep in mind that a methodology is not just a list of tasks; it is an argument as to why these tasks add up to the best way to investigate the research problem. This is an important point because the mere listing of tasks to be performed does not demonstrate that, collectively, they effectively address the research problem. Be sure you explain this.
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to address them. No method is perfect so you need to describe where you believe challenges may exist in obtaining data or accessing information. It's always better to acknowledge this than to have it brought up by your reader.

Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal . Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Heath, M. Teresa Pereira and Caroline Tynan. “Crafting a Research Proposal.” The Marketing Review 10 (Summer 2010): 147-168; Jones, Mark. “Writing a Research Proposal.” In MasterClass in Geography Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning . Graham Butt, editor. (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), pp. 113-127; Juni, Muhamad Hanafiah. “Writing a Research Proposal.” International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences 1 (September/October 2014): 229-240; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal . The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. "Developing and Writing a Research Proposal." In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills . Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal . International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal . University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• << Previous: Purpose of Guide
• Next: Types of Research Designs >>
• Last Updated: Sep 8, 2023 12:19 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.txstate.edu/socialscienceresearch

• How it works
• Pay for essays
• Do my homework
• Term Paper Writing Service
• Do my assignment
• Coursework help
• Our Writers

How to write a research proposal: a detailed guide for students

A professional writer with ten years of experience and a Ph.D. in Modern History, Catharine Tawil writes engaging and insightful papers for academic exchange. With deep insight into the impact of historical events on the present, she provides a unique perspective in giving students a feel for the past. Her writing educates and stimulates critical thinking, making her a treasure to those wading through the complexities of history.

How to write a research proposal? Although writing academic papers and completing projects is part of the routine of any young learner, this assignment can often be troublesome. Still, if you are looking for professional research proposal guidelines, you’ve come to the right place. In this post, we’ll go down the rabbit hole and discover all the best ways to complete this assignment easily and quickly. 

Research proposal: meaning and description

Research proposals are not easy to write. However, if you follow our tips and tricks, you will achieve all your academic goals. As a rule, you need to develop a strong research proposal before you start working on your research paper. In other words, it’s like preparing a list of ingredients for cooking your main course. 

Your paper will generally contain a topic (well, that’s the most straightforward component), your research questions, methodology, and the significance of the chosen field. However, the requirements might differ depending on your academic level and the overall complexity of your paper. 

Why a good research proposal matters

What do I need to compose a proposal writing? Many bright minds ask this question. The answer is that it has many goals. First and foremost, it allows learners to clarify their ideas and get approval from their teachers or professors. The second thing about this writing is that it helps students create a well-structured and properly formatted paper before diving too deep into the research paper. As a rule, you must submit your proposal before you start working on your research project, thesis, or dissertation. 

Top components of a research proposal

Your research proposal must cover many experts. For your convenience, we’ve prepared a list of top features you are expected to have in this type of writing. 

• Topic: Similar to a research paper, your proposal must have a precise topic. It should be understandable, fresh, and sharp. And, of course, it should be focused on your research for 100%.
• Intro: This is background info for your topic. In most cases, it highlights the importance of your study and describes the research objectives. 
• Literature review: What literature is related to the chosen niche? What unresolved questions does your field have? Why do you need to conduct the research? Your literature review helps you prove that you have already conducted the primary research and understand the selected topic well. This point is a must-to-write for all research proposals.
• Research questions: What questions will your study address? Make sure they are unique, measurable, and achievable.
• Methodology: In this field, you must specify the methods and techniques you will use to collect and process your findings. 
• Timeline: Every project has its deadlines and milestones. You will need to create an approximate schedule for completing your assignment. This schedule must include time for collecting information, advanced data analysis, and writing. 
• Reference: As with the other academic assignments, you must develop a reference list for your paper proposal. 
• Appendices: This is the best place to provide your supplementary artifacts and other materials. 

How can you understand your research problem 

Now that you have a better understanding of a research proposal, what’s next? Below is a simple step-by-step solution for writing a research proposal. 

Spotlighting the research gap

Identifying a research gap for a research proposal involves several stages. Firstly, you will need to review existing literature in your field. This will allow you to pinpoint areas where knowledge is lacking or contradictory. For example, you can search for some unanswered questions that require more investigation. After that, you may consider recent developments or emerging trends that created new gaps in existing research. Finally, you should critically evaluate your expertise and interests. 

Developing your main research question

Developing your main research question for a research proposal usually involves the following critical steps: 

• Brainstorming ideas and narrowing down your topic to a specific field. 
• Clarify the gaps you’ve discovered in the previous stage.
• Formulate your main research question.
• Double-check your question for relevance and clarity.
• Refine your research question and make sure it fully aligns with your goals. 

Choosing your top-notch research objectives

Now, it’s time to dive into the ocean of your research proposal objectives. Although there might be too many goals, you must select only the most important ones. Moreover, it requires careful consideration and strategic planning. The best approach to this task is to start by identifying the main purpose of your research. After that, you may try to connect your goals with the main questions and the research gap. Not to mention, make sure to focus only on realistic goals during your objective’s research design. 

Working on your literature review

If you look at any good-written research proposal example, you will notice that it always has a literature review section. To complete it easily, feel free to follow these easy steps:

• Gather articles and texts that address these themes.
• Critically analyze and synthesize the findings from the chosen sources.
• Organize your literature review thematically or chronologically.
• Conclude by summarizing the current state of knowledge and explaining your proposed research's contribution.

Selecting the research methodology 

When choosing the most fitting research methodology, consider the following parameters: 

• Define the research questions to guide your methodology selection.
• Evaluate different research methodologies (for example, you can choose quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods.)
• Consider practical factors, including resources, time constraints, and access to participants.
• Choose a methodology that aligns with your research goals and theoretical framework.
• Explain how the chosen methodology enables you to collect relevant data and generate insights for your research proposal.

Developing the introduction

There is nothing new about the introduction being one of the most impactful parts of any academic paper. To succeed in writing your assignment, you must follow many rules and requirements. So, here is a quick start on how to complete this part like a real pro. 

Collecting the background information

Writing a research proposal is never an easy task. However, a good introduction with properly arranged background information is one of the keys to success. You can begin by introducing the broad study area and its significance in the academic or practical realm. After that, you can provide historical context or foundational theories relevant to the research topic. It is always a brilliant idea to summarize past research and scholarly discussions related to the subject and highlight your key findings and knowledge gaps. After all, connect your background info and the proposed research. You can also add a smooth transition to your problem statements and research proposal purpose. 

Arranging the study context

This part of writing is one of the most complicated. However, the tips below might help you cope with it more easily. 

• Describe your research's social, cultural, economic, or environmental context.
• Identify any trends, developments, or events that underscore the relevance of the research significance.
• Highlight any specific challenges or opportunities presented by the research context.
• Emphasize the need to address the identified research problem.

Describing the research problem and objectives

This section articulates the specific research problem the proposal aims to address. The research problem is the focal point of the study, representing the gap or issue in knowledge that the research seeks to explore. Always make sure your objectives provide clear and measurable targets for the study.

Demonstrating the significance of the study

All excellent research proposal examples can boast of having an outstanding demonstration of the significance of the study. And you can do that, too! For these purposes, follow this easy schema: 

• Discuss the broader significance of the research topic within its field or discipline, emphasizing its relevance and timeliness.
• Identify the potential contributions that the proposed research is expected to make.

Composing the research methodology

You might feel tired of all the rules, but it’s not the time to give up. Your research proposal template desperately needs a sound research methodology. So, let’s get started! 

Determining the right research design

When determining the right research design for your proposal, consider the following tips:

• Clarify your research questions and objectives.
• Explore various research designs and methodologies that can fit the research proposal structure well. This approach will help you identify the best options for your research aims.
• Consider practical constraints. You need to consider time, budget, access to participants or data, and ethical considerations.
• Pilot-test your research design. It is always good to conduct a pilot study or small-scale test to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of your chosen research design in the primary stage of the research proposal template development. 

Choosing the research participants

Always consider the practical aspects of participant selection, such as accessibility and feasibility. Finally, be transparent about the participant selection process in your research proposal.

Collecting data: your most fitting methods

Any student is required to select the most suitable methods of data collection for their assignment. Here are a few tips for your convenience: 

• Choose methods that best capture the data needed to address your research questions and objectives.
• Assess the practicality of each method in terms of resources, time, and access to participants or data sources.
• Select methods that yield data with high reliability and validity.

The truth is that every research proposal format requires diverse methods of collecting data. So, always adapt them to your specific writing. 

Creating the plan for data analysis

In this step, you will outline the specific techniques and procedures you will use to analyze your research data. This includes selecting appropriate statistical or qualitative analysis methods and organizing and coding your data. The data analysis plan should align with your research objectives. This is the essential feature of all research proposals.

Ensuring the validity and reliability of your research

Ensuring validity and reliability means making sure your research methods accurately measure what they're supposed to and produce consistent results. Remember that ensuring research study validity is a must for this type of academic paper. 

Crafting the literature review

According to research proposal format rules, your paper must contain a literature review. Some students believe that completing this task during the data collection step is easier, while others admit they usually craft it at the final steps of writing a proposal. Anyway, the process usually has several steps. 

Choosing the relevant literature

Identifying the foundational studies and key sources that will guide your research is essential. Although you can look for some research proposal examples, it is still good to follow this plan during writing:

• Search academic databases and scholarly sources related to your research topic.
• Look for key studies, articles, and books that provide insights into your research area.
• Focus on literature that directly addresses your research questions and objectives.

Summarizing the literature lists

Once you've gathered relevant literature for your paper proposal, synthesizing it will be your next step. Here's how to approach it:

• Summarize the main findings and arguments of the chosen literature list.
• Identify common themes, trends, and patterns in different sources.
• Analyze how the literature contributes to the understanding of your research topic.

Evaluating the literature sources

Now, it's high time to evaluate the resources’ quality and relevance critically:

• Assess each source's credibility, relevance, and methodological rigor for your proposal writing.
• Consider the strengths and weaknesses of different research methods used in the literature.

Exploring the research gaps

At the final step of working with your literature sources, you need to find out the areas for further investigation: 

• Evaluate the existing literature to identify unanswered questions.
• Look for contradictions, inconsistencies, or limitations in the current research.
• Consider emerging trends, recent developments, or advancements in your field.

Now, the work with literature lists for your research proposal is done. 

Note: Failure to effectively analyze your sources is one of the most common mistakes in writing a research proposal, so don’t underestimate it. 

Creating the conclusion 

Every research proposal has a conclusion. Although many students don’t like this part of writing, it is still necessary to pay attention to it. Here is how to do that. 

Summarizing your findings

• Condense the primary outcomes of your study into clear statements.
• Make sure that your summary captures the essential research findings derived from your research.

Adding recommendations for future research

• Suggest areas for further investigation based on the limitations identified in your research proposal.
• Offer suggestions or directions for future research.

Showing off the implications of your study

• Discuss the broader significance and relevance of your study's findings for theory, practice, or policy.
• Articulate the potential impact or practical applications of your research results.

Note: The conclusion is a must-have writing piece in every research proposal format. Always add it to your paper. 

Composing the abstract

If you look at any professionally written research proposal example, you will discover it also has an abstract. 

Offering a concise study overview

Start your abstract with a brief overview of the study. In other words, you can provide a snapshot of your paper’s purpose and significance. You will also need to summarize the main topic and objectives. If you are feeling a bit lost in what to write in this part, read the introduction of your research proposal once more - you will find some basic info to write about. 

Introducing the research problem and objectives

Regardless of your writing style, it is crucial to add your research paper objectives to your abstract: 

• Clearly present your research problem and objectives.
• Define the research problem, emphasizing its importance.
• Clearly state the specific research questions that your study aims to address.

Detailing the research methodology

• Ensure the credibility of your study by providing a detailed overview of your research methodology.
• Describe your research design and methods used while composing a research proposal briefly.
• Justify your methodology choice.
• Briefly outline your data collection, analysis, and interpretation procedures.

Recapping the research findings

• Summarize your key findings.
• Outline the main outcomes of your study in clear and straightforward language.
• Highlight how your findings address the research objectives and contribute to filling the research gap.

Note: According to research proposal format requirements, all these abstract parts are obligatory.

Style and formatting

If you look for a fresh and up-to-date research proposal example online, you will likely discover they all have different formats. However, there are still some rules you are expected to follow. 

Following the research proposal guidelines

Employing clear and concise writing, proofreading and editing the proposal, conclusion .

Of course, writing papers is usually a tricky process. Fortunately, you can always get professional help and pay for essay online. Still, if you want to complete it by yourself, remember about these critical aspects. 

Most universities and colleges have a solid view of the components of the proposal:

• Introduction;
• Literature Review;
• Methodology;
• Research Timeline;
• References;
• Appendices.

A perfectly written research proposal is a roadmap for the entire research project. In other words, it guides the researcher in defining objectives, methods, and expected outcomes. A research proposal is also necessary to secure funding, gain approval from ethics committees, and attract collaborators or participants.

Final thoughts and recommendations

The best recommendation for creating this type of writing is to begin far in advance and follow all the professor’s requirements. Still, if you have an urgent deadline or writing difficulties, you can always rely on the Write my paper for me professional service. So, how to write a research proposal? It’s up to you!

What is the main goal of a research proposal?

The purpose of a research proposal is to outline the planned research project, including its objectives, methodology, and significance.

How long should a typical research proposal be?

Research proposal length typically ranges from 1500 to 2500 words.

What are the common mistakes to avoid when composing a research proposal?

The list of mistakes includes unclear objectives, inadequate literature review, and lack of coherence in the methodology.

Can I revise a research proposal after submission?

Yes, a research proposal can be revised after submission based on reviewer feedback or research plan changes.

How is it better to ensure the validity and reliability of my research study?

Use appropriate research designs and methods, maintain consistency in data collection and analysis, and address potential sources of bias.

Related posts

8 Answers on How to Write an Annotated Bibliography

How to write a research proposal: top tips for busy students

Exploring the Creative Universe of Jenny Parks Illustration 🎨

What are you waiting for?

You are a couple of clicks away from tranquility at an affordable price!

• Skip to main content |
• Skip to global navigation |
• Skip to local section navigation |
• Skip to supplemental navigation
• Edith Cowan University
• Open Collapsed Navigation
• Portal Login

The university is now organised into eight teaching schools, with each school responsible for ongoing research programs.

• Arts & Humanities
• Business & Law
• Engineering
• Medical & Health Sciences
• Nursing & Midwifery
• Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts

Our professional service areas support the University's core business of teaching and research.

• Public sites for Professional Services

Our internal professional service intranet webpages are for staff.

• Staff Only sites for Professional Services

Our campuses offer modern, vibrant and secure locations for work and study. All campuses are accessible via public transport.

• Our campuses
• Getting to ECU
• Campus Facilities
• Security on campus
• Continue on to Staff Intranet

Find everything you need to know about ECU's transition to the new campus in the Perth CBD.

• ECU City Staff Information Hub

Find out about the roles and responsibilities of specialist teams across ECU.

Check out the latest staff news and other things worth noting.

Information about enrolment and study opportunities, as well as exams and results and loads of study advice.

Discuss issues like your studies, your health, careers and jobs and much more with people who care about your life at ECU.

• Continue on to Student Intranet

Money Matters tells you about fees and accounts, scholarships and student loans.

• Money Matters

Libraries at each campus provide comprehensive book and journal collections, electronic resources and facilities for study and research.

Get the most out of your university experience - check out the facilities on your campus and learn about your Student Guild.

• Campus Life

Check out the latest student news and other things worth noting.

• Student News

Important dates for students, including enrolment dates, withdrawal dates, exam timetables and more.

• Important Dates

Go here for application forms for enrolments, extensions, scholarships, parking permits and lots more.

The Research Intranet is the gateway for research students and staff to information, news, resources and support relating to research.

• Continue on to Research Intranet

Graduate Research Services supports and develops research students through face-to-face and online training, mentoring, seminars and social activities.

• Research students

Research Services supports research staff on issues like research ethics, commercialisation and funding opportunities.

• Research staff

The conduct of research activities involving human or animal participants is governed by ethics guidelines contained in legislation and policies.

• Research ethics & integrity website

Boost your career with professional development, available at your fingertips.

• Professional development
• Staff development calendar
• Continue on to Learning Intranet

Strategies and techniques to enhance student learning.

• Teaching and learning

Be rewarded for your outstanding teaching and learning achievements.

• Awards and grants

Align your work to university goals and strategies.

• Workforce Strategy and Capability

Factsheets, handbooks and other useful support tools.

• Resource collection

Explore technologies you can use to support your teaching and learning.

• Technologies

Check out the latest CLT news and other things worth noting.

In this part of the intranet you'll find help and resources for many of the critical web application systems used by staff.

The web apps listed here, and many more, are also available as 'Easy Logins' and 'Other Logins' options from the Student and Staff portals.

• Continue on to Web Apps
• Credit and Recognition of Prior Learning
• Fees Calculator
• Teaching Timetable

To access these applications, and many more

• Student Printing
• Student Webmail

login to the Student Portal

• Course and Units Offering System
• Marks Recording System
• Online Exam Submission System
• Online Forms System
• Research Activity System
• Research Ethics Management System
• Research Management System
• Web Content Management System

Higher Degree by Research

• Starting your journey
• Forms, policies and guidelines
• Research scholarships
• Candidature management
• Research travel
• Progress tracking and reporting
• Support services and resources
• Appeals and grievances
• SOAR Centre

Proposal framework

• Proposal seminar
• Ethics approval
• Risk assessment and management
• Designing and undertaking your research
• Writing and presenting your research
• Thesis examination
• Research workshops and resources
• Software and databases
• Global Menu
• Staff Intranet
• Student Intranet
• Research Intranet
• Learning Intranet
• Social media
• ECU Home >
• Research >
• Higher Degree by Research >
• Resources and development >
• Research proposal >

Related Contents

• Research workshops and resources https://intranet.ecu.edu.au/research/higher-degree-by-research/resources-and-development/research-proposal/proposal-framework/related-content/see-also/research-workshops-and-resources
• EndNote https://intranet.ecu.edu.au/research/higher-degree-by-research/resources-and-development/research-proposal/proposal-framework/related-content/see-also/endnote
• Research support staff https://intranet.ecu.edu.au/research/higher-degree-by-research/contact
• Research support staff

This is a suggested framework for a research proposal. The elements may not all be necessary for your research – some sections may be combined or appear in a different order. Your supervisor is the best person to advise you on what’s expected.

A research proposal should be a maximum of 10,000 words for a doctoral candidate and 7,000 words for a Master by Research candidate.

1. Cover Page

The cover page should show:

• the title of your research;
• your name and candidate number;
• the name of the degree sought;
• the name of your Principal Supervisor; and
• the date of your research proposal submission.

2. Abstract

The abstract should be short (not more than 250 words), clear and provide a succinct overview of the research. It should stand alone as a description of the proposed research, stating what is intended to be done, why it needs to be done and what the results will mean for theory and/or practice.

3. Introduction/Literature Review

The introduction to the proposal should provide a clear rationale for the research and describe the background to the proposed research, based on existing theoretical literature, conceptual frameworks, or assumptions that underpin the research.

The proposal should demonstrate the significance of the proposed research within the context of what is already known and make clear the specific issues to be addressed. It should lead to a concise statement of the questions that the research is designed to answer or the hypotheses to be tested.

The objective is to demonstrate, through careful use of the literature, how the proposed research will make a substantial and original contribution to scholarship and knowledge. Note that this review of the literature is shorter and more focused than that required for the final thesis.

4. Method and materials

This section should contain, in sufficient detail, a clear outline of the proposed research, including intended participants, design and methods to be employed, research procedure and data analysis, in a manner consistent with ethical guidelines.

It’s important to plan the data collection and data analysis carefully at this time to ensure that the research question(s) can be answered.

5. References

You should consult your supervisors regarding the choice of the most appropriate referencing style for your discipline. It’s recommended that you use bibliographic software, such as EndNote, so that the reference list is generated automatically.

6. Appendices

• Timeline - the appendices must include a timetable for the research, aiming at submission approximately 36 months after date of commencement for a (full time) doctoral candidate and 24 months for a (full time) master by research candidate.
• Budget - appendices should also include detailed budget information covering expenses for fieldwork, consumables, additional library services, specialist software, photocopying, purchase of materials or any other legitimate expenses. The intention is to demonstrate an indicative budget that can be met by the candidate, the supervisor, the school or the University.  It should be updated annually.
• Confidentiality or intellectual property - any confidentiality or intellectual property issues must also be drawn to the attention of the Associate Dean Research through disclosure in the appendices. This is particularly important since candidates may not undertake research that requires the signing of a confidentiality agreement, or the imposition of restrictions on the publication of any resultant thesis, without prior approval.

Creative research proposal framework

If you’re undertaking creative research this traditional framework may not be appropriate to your project.

For advice and support in this area you should contact a research consultant listed on the Research support staff section of the Contact web page.

Contacting ECU

• Got a Question? Ask Us
• Phone 134 328
• International: +61 8 6304 0000
• Campus Maps
• Campus Tours (VR)

Supplemental

• Copyright , Disclaimer
• Accessibility
• Report errors
• Last reviewed 24 Jun 2024
• CRICOS Provider No. 00279B
• RTO Code 4756
• TEQSA ID PRV12160, Australian University

Help us improve our content

Please leave a comment about your rating so we can better understand how we might improve the page.

• 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
• Author Biographies
• 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

A holistic and multidimensional methodology proposal for a persona with total visual impairment archetype on the web.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methodology, 3. theorical context, 3.1. web accessibility and people with disabilities, people with visual impairment: total visual impairment and the web.

• Age-related macular degeneration;
• Corneal opacity;
• Diabetic retinopathy;
• Refractive error; and

3.2. User Experience (UX) and Usability

3.3. biometrics/neuroscience, galvanic skin response (gsr), 3.4. persona archetype and disabled persona, disabled persona, 4. research methodology proposal for a persona with total visual impairment, 4.1. research phase, instrumentation and stimuli.

• Sociodemographic data: gender, age, years of experience as accessibility consultant.
• Internet Usage data: frequency of use, devices, screen reader, operating system.
• Internet Experiences and Goals as internet user data: objectives on the web, needs on the web, satisfaction, achievement of goals, frustrations, relievers.
• Internet Expertise as accessibility expert data: levels of accessibility and conformance on the web, errors and barriers, facilitators, accessibility needs, improvements, WCAG: implementation, efficiency, and coverage.
• A sample expert questionnaire is included in Appendix A .
• Sociodemographic data: gender, age, city, visual impairment.
• Internet Usage data: years of internet usage, frequency of use, devices, screen reader, operating system, browser, level of expertise on the web, reasons, and motivations of usage.
• Internet Experiences and Goals data: objectives on the web, needs on the web, satisfaction, achievement of goals, obstacles, frustrations, relievers, accessibility, improvements.
• A sample user questionnaire is included in Appendix B .
• Manual expert audit;
• Automatic web accessibility tools (such as WAVE (available online: https://wave.webaim.org/ (accessed on 25 March 2024)), aXe Tools (available online: https://www.deque.com/axe/ (accessed on 25 March 2024)), Accessibility Insights (available online: https://accessibilityinsights.io/docs/web/overview/ (accessed on 25 March 2024)), etc.)
• Declaration of conformance with WCAG on the website.
• Task completion times;
• Task success (considering a task completed when it is successfully performed within the provided time frame);
• Perceived difficulty/efficiency;
• Perceived workload;
• Level of frustration;
• Satisfaction;
• Emotions, positive or negative affect;
• Comments and keywords relevant to the investigation.

4.2. Persona Design Phase

• Sociodemographic data : includes an inspiring photograph or image, a fictitious name, age, city, assistive technologies, occupation or background, and other personal relevant information.
• This information responds to a representative target user, which is invented but realistic, as mentioned in Section 3.4 .
• Biography: includes a brief realistic description of the user.
• Preferences and Motivations: describes what drives the user’s decisions on the web.
• Goals and Needs: includes the specific user’s objectives and needs to be reach on the web and general goals or needs related to them.
• Frustration: identifies specific frustrations encountered by users when interacting with the web.
• Problems and Barriers : issues that the user faces on the web more frequently.
• Quote: provides a brief quote summarizing the essence of this persona.
• Social and technological habits : offers context to the persona ’s social and technological behaviors.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

• More effective and accessible designs that consider the needs of all users regardless of their abilities and skills that improve their user experience and better meet their expectations.
• Provide designers, developers, and stakeholders with a tool that allows them to know and empathize with users to develop universally usable products and/or services from which all people benefit.
• Facilitate the development of websites that are not only accessible from a technical point of view but also providing and guaranteeing a satisfactory experience for people with visual impairments that allows them to achieve their objectives, complementing the current international accessibility standards (WCAG).
• Increase companies’ results thanks to the increase in the target audience and due to the increase in the efficiency of the design processes, reducing costs derived from support and redesigning and also reaching more legal compliance.
• And finally, reach more open and inclusive societies toward universal accessibility.

6. Limitations of the Study

Author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest, appendix a. expert questionnaire.

• Less than 1 year
• More than 5 years
• Internet Usage:
• Little or nothing
• Somewhat frequent
• Neither much nor little
• Very frequent (Likert scale from 1 to 5)
• Personal Computer
• Others: Which ones?
• Administrative Procedures
• Thank you very much, your participation contributes to building a better world for all.

Appendix B. Users Questionnaire

• Sociodemographic:
• Between 1 year–5 years
• Quite a bit
• Intermediate
• Social media
• Never or almost never
• Almost always

Appendix C. Post-Questionnaire

• From 1 to 5, what is the level of difficulty encountered on this website?
• From 1 to 5, what is the perceived level of accessibility on this website?
• From 1 to 5, how appealing did you find the pages of this website?
• From 1 to 5, how quickly did you find what you were looking for on this site?
• From 1 to 5, what is your satisfaction level with the use of this website?
• From 1 to 5, what is the level of obstacles or barriers on this website?
• From 1 to 5, how much did you feel you had control over this website?
• From 1 to 5, what is the level of elements that facilitated your navigation on this website?
• From 1 to 5, are the contents of this website easy to understand?
• From 1 to 5, when I perform an action, does it produce the expected outcome?
• From 1 to 5, did you feel you knew exactly where you were always on the website?
• From 1 to 5, do you consider that you have achieved the pursued objectives?
• From 1 to 5, did you feel autonomous/self-sufficient when using this website?
• From 1 to 5, how much did you like this website?
• From 1 to 5, is the structure of this website simple/easy to understand?
• From 1 to 5, is it easy to navigate this website?
• Nogueira, T.; Ferreira, D.J.; de Carvalho, S.T.; de Oliveira Berretta, L.; Guntijo, M.R. Comparing sighted and blind users task performance in responsive and non-responsive web design. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 2019 , 58 , 319–339. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silva, J.S.E.; Gonçalves, R.; Branco, F.; Pereira, A.; Au-Yong-Oliveira, M.; Martins, J. Accessible software development: A conceptual model proposal. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2019 , 18 , 703–716. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Theofanos, M.F.; Redish, J. Bridging the Gap: Between accessibility and usability. Interactions 2003 , 10 , 36–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yi, Y.J. Web accessibility of healthcare Web sites of Korean government and public agencies: A user test for persons with visual impairment. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2018 , 19 , 41–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Available online: https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-intro/ (accessed on 25 March 2024).
• Aizpurua, A.; Harper, S.; Vigo, M. Exploring the relationship between web (accessibility and user experience. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2016 , 91 , 13–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lazar, J.; Olalere, A.; Wentz, B. Investigating the accessibility and usability of job application web sites for blind users. J. Usability Stud. 2012 , 7 , 68–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopes, R.; Gomes, D.; Carriço, L. Web Not For All: A Large Scale Study of Web Accessibility. In Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, Raleigh, CA, USA, 26–27 April 2010; W4A. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pribeanu, C.; Fogarassy-Neszly, P.; Pătru, A. Municipal web sites accessibility and usability for blind users: Preliminary results from a pilot study. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2014 , 13 , 339–349. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pascual, A.; Ribera, M.; Granollers, T.; Coiduras, J.L. Impact of accessibility barriers on the mood of blind, low-vision and sighted users. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2014 , 27 , 431–440. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schmutz, S.; Sonderegger, A.; Sauer, J. Implementing Recommendations From Web Accessibility Guidelines: Would They Also Provide Benefits to Nondisabled Users. Hum. Factors 2016 , 19 , 611–629. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• World Health Organization (WHO) & World Bank. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44575 (accessed on 24 October 2023).
• Botelho, F.H. Accessibility to digital technology: Virtual barriers, real opportunities. Assist. Technol. 2021 , 33 (Suppl. 1), 27–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nielsen Norman Group. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/false-consensus/ (accessed on 24 March 2024).
• Just Ask: Integrating Accessibility Throughout Design. Uiaccess. Available online: http://uiaccess.com/accessucd/personas.html (accessed on 23 March 2024).
• Lee, J.H.; Kim, Y.M.; Rhiu, I.; Yun, M.H. A persona-based approach for identifying accessibility issues in elderly and disabled users’ interaction with home appliances. Appl. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nielsen Norman Group. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/accessibility-is-not-enough/?lm=accessible-design-for-users-with-disabilities (accessed on 23 March 2024).
• Organización Nacional de Ciegos Españoles (ONCE). Available online: https://www.once.es/dejanos-ayudarte/la-discapacidad-visual (accessed on 11 May 2024).
• World Health Organization (WHO). Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516570 (accessed on 11 May 2024).
• Leporini, B.; Paternò, F. Applying Web Usability Criteria for Vision-Impaired Users: Does It Really Improve Task Performance? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2008 , 24 , 17–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Power, C.; Freire, A.P.; Petrie, H.L. Guidelines are Only Half of the Story: Accessibility Problems Encountered by Blind Users on the Web. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, USA, 5–10 May 2012; pp. 433–442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lazar, J.; Beavan, P.; Brown, J.; Coffey, D.; Nolf, B.; Poole, R.; Wenger, B. Investigating the accessibility of state government web sites in Maryland. In Designing Inclusive Interactions: Inclusive Interactions Between People and Products in Their Contexts of Use ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 69–78. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petrie, H.; Hamilton, F.; King, N. Tension, What Tension? Website accessibility and visual design. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A), New York, NY, USA, 18 May 2004; pp. 13–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazar, J.; Allen, A.; Kleinman, J.; Malarkey, C. What frustrates screen reader users on the web: A study of 100 blind users. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2007 , 22 , 247–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Creswell, J.W. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design and Mixed Methods Research ; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kula, I.; Branaghan, R.J.; Atkinson, R.K.; Roscoe, R.D. Assessing user experience via biometric sensor affect detection. In Human Performance Technology: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications ; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2018; pp. 698–714. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yesilada, Y.; Brajnik, G.; Vigo, M.; Harper, S. Exploring perceptions of web accessibility: A survey approach. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2015 , 34 , 119–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yesilada, Y.; Brajnik, G.; Harper, S. Barriers common to mobile and disabled web users. Interact. Comput. 2011 , 23 , 525–542. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Forrester. Available online: https://www.forrester.com/report/The+Six+Steps+For+Justifying+Better+UX/-/E-RES117708 (accessed on 23 March 2024).
• Nielsen Norman Group. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/persona/ (accessed on 23 March 2024).
• Zubair, M.S.; Brown, D.; Hughes-Roberts, T.; Bates, M. A method of creating personae for children with autism spectrum condition: Application and revision. J. Enabling Technol. 2019 , 13 , 112–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goodman, J.; Clarkson, P.J.; Langdon, P. Providing information about older and disabled users to designers. In Proceedings of the HCI, the Web and the Older Population, Workshop at HCI, London, UK, 12 September 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schulz, T.; Skeide Fuglerud, K. Creating personas with disabilities. In Proceedings of the Computers Helping People with Special Needs: 13th International Conference, ICCHP 2012, Linz, Austria, 11–13 July 2012; Part II 13. pp. 145–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goris, S.J.A.G. Utilidad y tipos de revisión de literatura. Ene 2015 , 9 , 2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Serrano, E. Accesibilidad vs usabilidad web: Evaluación y correlación. Investig. Bibl. 2009 , 23 , 61–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Available online: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/es (accessed on 23 March 2024).
• United Nations. Available online: https://www.un.org/es/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights (accessed on 10 March 2024).
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:40500:ed-1:v1:en (accessed on 24 March 2024).
• European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Available online: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/03.02.01_60/en_301549v030201p.pdf (accessed on 24 March 2024).
• Section 508. Available online: https://www.section508.gov/ (accessed on 24 March 2024).
• Mátrai, R.K. How to make an electronic library accessible. Electron. Libr. 2018 , 36 , 620–632. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Petrie, H.; Kheir, O. The relationship between accessibility and usability of websites. In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 28 April–3 May 2007; pp. 397–406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Organización Nacional de Ciegos Españoles (ONCE). Available online: https://www.once.es/ (accessed on 11 May 2024).
• The International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness (IAPB). Available online: https://www.iapb.org/learn/vision-atlas/ (accessed on 11 May 2024).
• Schmutz, S.; Sonderegger, A.; Sauer, J. Effects of accessible website design on nondisabled users: Age and device as moderating factors. Ergonomics 2018 , 61 , 697–709. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hassan-Montero, Y.; Fernández, F.J.M. Propuesta de adaptación de la metodología de diseño centrado en el usuario para el desarrollo de sitios web accesibles. Rev. Española De Doc. Científica 2004 , 27 , 330–344. [ Google Scholar ]
• Disability Rights Commission. The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled People ; Disability Rights Commission: London, UK, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huber, W.; Vitouch, P. Usability and accessibility on the internet: Effects of accessible web design on usability. In Proceedings of the Computers Helping People with Special Needs: 11th International Conference, ICCHP 2008, Linz, Austria, 9–11 July 2008; pp. 482–489. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lazar, J.; Dudley-Sponaugle, A.; Greenidge, K.D. Improving web accessibility: A study of webmaster perceptions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2004 , 20 , 269–288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Microsoft. Engineering Software for Accessibility ; Microsoft: Redmond, WA, USA, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slatin, J.M. The art of ALT: Toward a more accessible Web. Comput. Compos. 2001 , 18 , 73–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nielsen Norman Group. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/beyond-accessibility-treating-users-with-disabilities-as-people/ (accessed on 5 November 2023).
• Schmitt, B. Experience marketing: Concepts, frameworks and consumer insights. Found. Trends® Mark. 2011 , 5 , 55–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hassenzahl, M.; Tractinsky, N. User experience—A research agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2006 , 25 , 91–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Boven, L.; Gilovich, T. To do or to have? That is the question. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2003 , 85 , 1193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nielsen Norman Group. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/ (accessed on 23 March 2024).
• Sauer, J.; Sonderegger, A.; Schmutz, S. Usability, user experience and accessibility: Towards an integrative model. Ergonomics 2020 , 63 , 1207–1220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nielsen, J. Usability Engineering ; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin, T.; Omata, M.; Hu, W.; Imamiya, A. Do physiological data relate to traditional usability indexes? In Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Computer-Human Interaction Conference, Canberra, Australia, 21–25 November 2005; pp. 1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• D‘Mello, S.K.; Kory, J. A review and meta-analysis of multimodal affect detection systems. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2015 , 47 , 1–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mandryk, R.L.; Inkpen, K.M.; Calvert, T.W. Using psychophysiological techniques to measure user experience with entertainment technologies. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2006 , 25 , 141–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yao, L.; Liu, Y.; Li, W.; Zhou, L.; Ge, Y.; Chai, J.; Sun, X. Using physiological measures to evaluate user experience of mobile applications. In Proceedings of the 11th International conference on engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics, Crete, Greece, 22–27 June 2014; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 301–310. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foglia, P.; Prete, C.A.; Zanda, M. Relating GSR signals to traditional usability metrics: Case study with an anthropomorphic web assistant. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, Victoria, BC, Canada, 12–15 May 2008; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 1814–1818. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kocaleva, M.; Stojanova, A.; Koceska, N. Using physiological parameters for evaluating User Experience. In Proceedings of the VII International Conference of Information Technology and Development of Education, ITRO 2017, Zrejanin, Serbia, 27–29 December 2017; pp. 228–232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Picard, R.W.; Healey, J. Affective wearables. Pers. Technol. 1997 , 1 , 231–240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ekman, P.; Levenson, R.W.; Friesen, W.V. Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes among emotions. Science 1983 , 221 , 1208–1210. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nielsen, J.; Pernice, K. Eyetracking Web Usability ; New Riders Pub.: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vicente, K.J.; Hayes, B.C.; Williges, R.C. Assaying and isolating individual differences in searching a hierarchical file system. Hum. Factors 1987 , 29 , 349–359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cohn, J.F.; De la Torre, F. Automated face analysis for affective computing. In The Oxford Handbook of Affective Computing ; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 131–150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003 , 88 , 879. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vermeeren, A.P.; Law, E.L.C.; Roto, V.; Obrist, M.; Hoonhout, J.; Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. User experience evaluation methods: Current state and development. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2010, Reykjavik, Iceland, 16–20 October 2010; pp. 521–530. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bruun, A. It’s not complicated: A study of non-specialists analyzing GSR sensor data to detect UX related events. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Oslo, Norway, 29 September–3 October 2018; pp. 170–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cowley, B.; Filetti, M.; Lukander, K.; Torniainen, J.; Henelius, A.; Ahonen, L.; Barral, O.; Kosunen, I.; Valtonen, T.; Huotilainen, M.; et al. The psychophysiology primer: A guide to methods and a broad review with a focus on human–computer interaction. Found. Trends® Hum. Comput. Interact. 2016 , 9 , 151–308. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alonso, J.L.N.; Lucas, J.M.A. Psicología de la Competición ; Wanceulen Editorial Deportiva. S.L.: Sevilla, Spain, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vallejo Ruiloba, J. Introducción a la Psicopatología y a la Psiquiatría ; Salvat: Barcelona, Spain, 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nacke, L.; Lindley, C.A. Flow and immersion in first-person shooters: Measuring the player’s gameplay experience. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3–5 November 2008; pp. 81–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dawson, M.E.; Schell, A.M.; Filion, D.L. The electrodermal system. In Handbook of Psychophysiology , 3rd ed.; Cacioppo, J.T., Tassinary, L.G., Berntson, G.G., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 159–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bach, D.R.; Friston, K.J. Model-based analysis of skin conductance responses: Towards causal models in psychophysiology. Psychophysiology 2013 , 50 , 15–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Boucsein, W. Electrodermal Activity ; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Healey, J.A. Wearable and Automotive Systems for Affect Recognition from Physiology. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ohme, R.; Reykowska, D.; Wiener, D.; Choromanska, A. Analysis of neurophysiological reactions to advertising stimuli by means of EEG and galvanic skin response measures. J. Neurosci. Psychol. Econ. 2009 , 2 , 21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fairclough, S.H. Fundamentals of physiological computing. Interact. Comput. 2009 , 21 , 133–145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Calvo, R.A.; D’Mello, S.K.; Gratch, J.; Kappas, A. The Oxford Handbook of Affective Computing ; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghergulescu, I.; Muntean, C.H. A novel sensor-based methodology for learner’s motivation analysis in game-based learning. Interact. Comput. 2014 , 26 , 305–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ward, R.D.; Marsden, P.H. Physiological responses to different WEB page designs. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2003 , 59 , 199–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cooper, A. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity ; Sams Publishing: Carmel, IN, USA, 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blokmvist, S. Persona–an overview. The User as a personality. Using Personas as a tool for design. Theoretical perspectives in Human-Computer Interaction at IPLab, KTH; 3 Septiembre 2002. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242401053_Persona_-_an_overview_Extract_from_the_paper_The_User_as_a_personality_Using_Personas_as_a_tool_for_design_Position_paper_for_the_course_workshop_Theoretical_perspectives_in_Human-Computer_Interaction (accessed on 23 March 2024).
• Calabria, T. An introduction to personas and how to create them. KM Column. 2. Steps to designs . 2004. Available online: https://www.studocu.com/en-us/document/indiana-university-purdue-university-indianapolis/info-resources-services/calabria-personas-example-and-practice-for-human-computer-interaction-persona-assignment/19810284 (accessed on 23 March 2024).
• Pruitt, J.; Grudin, J. Personas: Practice and theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing the User Experiences, DUX03, San Francisco, CA, USA, 6–7 June 2003; pp. 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garreta, M.; Mor, E. Diseño Centrado en el Usuario ; Universidad Oberta de Catalunya: Barcelona, Spain, 2011; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10609/9861 (accessed on 27 March 2024).
• Goodwin, K. Designing for the Digital Age: How to Create Human-Centered ; Products and Services: Wiley, NJ, USA, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Adlin, T.; Pruitt, J. The Essential Persona Lifecycle: Your Guide to Building and Using Personas ; Morgan Kaufmann: Burlington, MA, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pruitt, J.; Adlin, T. The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design ; Morgan Kaufmann: Burlington, MA, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Forrester Research. Available online: https://www.forrester.com/report/The-ROI-Of-Personas/RES55359 (accessed on 27 March 2024).
• Cooper, D. Challenging Diversity ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grudin, J.; Pruitt, J. Personas, participatory design and product development: An infrastructure for engagement. In Proceedings of the 7th Biennial Participatory Design Conference 2002, Malmø, Sweden, 23–25 June 2002; 2002; pp. 144–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitchin, R. The researched opinions on research: Disabled people and disability research. Disabil. Soc. 2000 , 15 , 25–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brooke, J. SUS: A Quick and Dirty Usability Scale. In Usability Evaluation in Industry ; Digital Equipment Co Ltd.: London, UK, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hassenzahl, M.; Burmester, M.; Koller, F. AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität . In Mensch & Computer 2003: Interaktion in Bewegung ; Vieweg + Teubner Verlag: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2003; pp. 187–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirakowski, J.; Cierlik, B. Measuring the usability of web sites. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1 October 1998; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998; Volume 42, pp. 424–428. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Laugwitz, B.; Held, T.; Schrepp, M. Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In Proceedings of the HCI and Usability for Education and Work: 4th Symposium of the Workgroup Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Engineering of the Austrian Computer Society, Graz, Austria, 20–21 November 2008; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 63–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthews, O.; Davies, A.; Vigo, M.; Harper, S. Unobtrusive arousal detection on the web using pupillary response. Int. J. Hum. -Comput. Stud. 2020 , 136 , 102361. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Available online: https://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/TLX/ (accessed on 9 May 2024).
• Nielsen, J.; Landauer, T.K. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Amsterdam, The Nederlands, 24–29 April 1993; pp. 206–213. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petrie, H.; Precious, J. Measuring user experience of websites: Think aloud protocols and an emotion word prompt list. In Proceedings of the Computer Human Interactions, CHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–15 April 2010; pp. 3673–3678. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson, D.; Clark, L.A.; Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988 , 54 , 1063. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nielsen Norman Group. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/thinking-aloud-the-1-usability-tool/ (accessed on 23 March 2024).

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Marin-Alvarez, E.; Carcelen-Garcia, S.; Galmes-Cerezo, M. A Holistic and Multidimensional Methodology Proposal for a Persona with Total Visual Impairment Archetype on the Web. Societies 2024 , 14 , 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14070102

Marin-Alvarez E, Carcelen-Garcia S, Galmes-Cerezo M. A Holistic and Multidimensional Methodology Proposal for a Persona with Total Visual Impairment Archetype on the Web. Societies . 2024; 14(7):102. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14070102

Marin-Alvarez, Esther, Sonia Carcelen-Garcia, and María Galmes-Cerezo. 2024. "A Holistic and Multidimensional Methodology Proposal for a Persona with Total Visual Impairment Archetype on the Web" Societies 14, no. 7: 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14070102

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04375-7
• Corpus ID: 270587402

Patient safety in orthodontic care: a scoping literature review with proposal for terminology and future research agenda

• Nikolaos Ferlias , A. Michelotti , P. Stoustrup
• Published in BMC Oral Health 18 June 2024

58 References

Orthodontic treatment and root resorption: an overview of systematic reviews., systematic review of patient safety interventions in dentistry, improving patient safety through a clinical audit spiral: prevention of wrong tooth extraction in orthodontics, the use of dental patient-reported outcomes among randomized controlled trials in orthodontics: a methodological study., dental patient-reported outcomes update 2022., clinical governance in general dental practice, preventing wrong tooth extraction, patient safety in dentistry – state of play as revealed by a national database of errors.

• Highly Influential

Why do patients transition between orthodontic appliances? A qualitative analysis of patient decision-making.

Patient safety: reducing the risk of wrong tooth extraction, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Environment
• Science & Technology
• Business & Industry
• Health & Public Welfare
• Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
• Public Inspection
• Presidential Documents
• Document Search
• Advanced Document Search
• Public Inspection Search
• Reader Aids Home
• Office of the Federal Register Announcements
• Using FederalRegister.Gov
• Understanding the Federal Register
• Recent Site Updates
• Federal Register & CFR Statistics
• Videos & Tutorials
• Developer Resources
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Congressional Review
• My Clipboard
• My Comments
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up
• Site Feedback
• Search the Federal Register

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government.

• Legal Status

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Proposed Rule

Fair and competitive livestock and poultry markets.

A Proposed Rule by the Agricultural Marketing Service on 06/28/2024

This document has a comment period that ends in 58 days. (08/27/2024) Submit a formal comment

Thank you for taking the time to create a comment. Your input is important.

Once you have filled in the required fields below you can preview and/or submit your comment to the Agriculture Department for review. All comments are considered public and will be posted online once the Agriculture Department has reviewed them.

You can view alternative ways to comment or you may also comment via Regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/AMS-FTPP-21-0046-0001 .

• What is your comment about?

Note: You can attach your comment as a file and/or attach supporting documents to your comment. Attachment Requirements .

this will NOT be posted on regulations.gov

• Opt to receive email confirmation of submission and tracking number?
• Tell us about yourself! I am... *
• First Name *
• Last Name *
• State Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
• Country Afghanistan Åland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine, State of Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Réunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
• Organization Type * Company Organization Federal State Local Tribal Regional Foreign U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate
• Organization Name *
• You are filing a document into an official docket. Any personal information included in your comment text and/or uploaded attachment(s) may be publicly viewable on the web.
• I read and understand the statement above.
• Preview Comment

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register .

Document Statistics

Enhanced content.

Relevant information about this document from Regulations.gov provides additional context. This information is not part of the official Federal Register document.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Enhanced Content - Table of Contents

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, table of contents, i. authority, ii. purpose of this rulemaking, a. unfair practices and prior rulemakings, b. statutory language of the act, c. legislative history of the act, d. court decisions, iii. the proposed rule, a. proposed § 201.308(a) and (b), b. evaluation of potential injury to market participants, c. proposed § 201.308(c) and (d), d. evaluation of potential injury to the market, e. contracts, f. protected parties, iv. severability, v. request for comments, vi. regulatory analysis, a. paperwork reduction act, b. executive orders 12866, 13563, and 14094, c. regulatory impact analysis, regulatory alternatives considered, proposed rule: benefits, proposed rule: costs, direct administrative costs of the proposed rule, direct firm level administrative costs of the proposed rule, direct contract level administrative costs of the proposed rule preferred alternative, direct firm level and contract level administrative costs of the proposed rule preferred alternative, litigation costs—preferred alternative, indirect costs, costs and benefits of the limited scope alternative, d. regulatory flexibility analysis, defining small businesses, direct firm administrative costs of the proposed rule to small businesses, alternative regulation, e. executive order 13175 —consultation and coordination with indian tribal governments, f. executive order 12988 —civil justice reform, g. civil rights impact analysis, h. e-government act, i. unfunded mandates reform act, list of subjects in 9 cfr part 201, part 201—administering the packers and stockyards act, enhanced content - submit public comment.

• Submit a public comment on this document

Enhanced Content - Read Public Comments

1 comment has been received at regulations.gov, across 1 docket.

Agencies review all submissions and may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof). Submitted comments may not be available to be read until the agency has approved them.

Enhanced Content - Sharing

• Email this document to a friend

Enhanced Content - Document Print View

• Print this document

Enhanced Content - Document Tools

These tools are designed to help you understand the official document better and aid in comparing the online edition to the print edition.

These markup elements allow the user to see how the document follows the Document Drafting Handbook that agencies use to create their documents. These can be useful for better understanding how a document is structured but are not part of the published document itself.

Enhanced Content - Developer Tools

This document is available in the following developer friendly formats:.

• JSON: Normalized attributes and metadata
• XML: Original full text XML
• MODS: Government Publishing Office metadata

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

Official Content

• View printed version (PDF)

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 06/27/2024 at 8:45 am. It was viewed 0 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture.

Proposed rule.

The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA or Department) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposes to amend the regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (the P&S Act or the Act) to clarify the unfair practices that the P&S Act prohibits. The proposed rule would define unfair practices as conduct that harms market participants and conduct that harms the market. Combined, these comprehensively define the contours of “unfair practices” under the P&S Act. The purpose of this proposed rule is to promote fair and competitive markets in the livestock, meats, poultry, and live poultry markets.

Comments must be received by August 27, 2024.

Comments must be submitted through the Federal e-rulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov and should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register . AMS strongly prefers comments be submitted electronically. However, written comments may be submitted ( i.e., postmarked) via mail to Docket No. AMS-FTPP-21-0046, S. Brett Offutt, Chief Legal Officer, Packers and Stockyards Division, USDA, AMS, FTPP; Room 2097-S, Mail Stop 3601, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-3601. All comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of individuals or entities submitting comments will be made public on the internet at the address provided above. Parties who wish to comment anonymously may do so by entering “N/A” in the fields that would identify the commenter. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4) , a plain language summary of this proposed rule is available on https://www.regulations.gov in the docket for this rulemaking.

S. Brett Offutt, Chief Legal Officer/Policy Advisor, Packers and Stockyards Division, USDA AMS Fair Trade Practices Program, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250; Phone: (202) 690-4355; or email: [email protected] .

Section 407 of the Act ( 7 U.S.C. 228 ) provides that the Secretary “may make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.” The Secretary has delegated the responsibility for administering the P&S Act to AMS. Within AMS, the Packers and Stockyards Division (PSD) of the Fair-Trade Practices Program has responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the Act. The current regulations implementing the Act are found in title 9, part 201, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Based on the authority Congress delegated to the Secretary to administer the P&S Act, AMS is proposing this rule to amend 9 CFR part 201 to specify the practices that are unfair and in violation of the P&S Act.

Prior to this rulemaking, the decisions of USDA's Judicial Officer, [ 1 ] acting for the Secretary, have comprised the bulk of USDA's interpretation of the meaning of “unfair” under the P&S Act, and the Judicial Officer's final decisions have the same force as regulation. [ 2 ] Those decisions make clear that “harm to competition can be proven by showing harm to competitors; . . . the Packers and Stockyards Act does not require that the person harmed be a direct competitor of the person causing the harm, viz., it would be a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act if it were shown that a packer caused harm, which the Packers and Stockyards Act is designed to prevent . . . .”  [ 3 ] Although, the Federal courts have not expressly rejected the Judicial Officer's overall interpretation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, courts have inconsistently applied the Judicial Officer's decisions. As a result, AMS proposes this regulation to provide a clear interpretation and promote consistency and predictability in its application of the law.

Congress enacted the P&S Act, 7 U.S.C. 181 et seq., to promote fairness, reasonableness, and transparency in the livestock, meat, and poultry marketplace by prohibiting practices contrary to these goals. Enacted in 1921 “to comprehensively regulate packers, stockyards, marketing agents and dealers,”  [ 4 ] the Act, among other things, prohibits actions that hinder integrity and competition in the livestock, meat, and poultry markets. Section 202(a) of the Act states that it is unlawful for any packer, swine contractor, or live poultry dealer to “[e]ngage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device.”  [ 5 ]

Congress granted rulemaking and enforcement authority to USDA to ensure that appropriate competitive and fair trade and market protections are afforded to those participating in agricultural activities pertaining to livestock, meat, and poultry. [ 6 ] To date, USDA has largely left these determinations to a case-by-case analysis. Court decisions interpreting this statute, however, have not been consistent with respect to the evidence needed to establish, and the legal standard that applies to, unlawful unfair practices under section 202(a) of the Act, particularly as to whether competitive injury is a requirement and what the term “unfair practice or device” means. This proposed rule, therefore, seeks to clarify what falls under the scope of unfair practice or device.

From the plain language of the text, section 202 of the Act is broader than the antitrust laws and does not necessarily require harm to competition as that term is understood under the antitrust laws. The term “unfair” applies to conduct that harms the market (anticompetitive harm) and conduct that harms market participants (market abuse), similar to section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits both unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices. Based on the text of section 202, legislative history, and both agency and judicial decisions, this proposed rule defines the term unfair. Those definitions draw on longstanding understandings of the term unfair both under the Act as well as the related Federal Trade Commission Act. The proposed rule also clarifies that the statute addresses conduct in its incipiency, does not require proof of actual harm, nor does it require proof of predatory intent.

USDA recognizes that some courts have recently required proof of competitive injury before finding that conduct is unfair. Those courts were not offered an alternative definition for unfair, which this rulemaking would propose. A competitive injury requirement cannot be imposed in a way that abrogates part of a statute. To the degree requiring a “competitive injury” precludes finding conduct is unfair when it satisfies criteria in the proposed rule, such a requirement would unduly limit the reach of section 202(a) and is improper. Moreover, the statute and P&S Act case law make plain that competitive injury under the P&S Act is broader than harm to competition under the antitrust laws. To the extent that “competitive injury” is shorthand for the scope of harm section 202 reaches, competitive injury as understood under the P&S Act should include both harms to the market and harms to market participants as defined in the proposed rule.

Section 202(a) of the Act prohibits any unfair practice or device. The Act does not, however, specify what those practices and devices are, and in section 228(a), Congress has granted to the Secretary the authority to interpret and apply the Act to effectuate its purposes. Under the Act, this authority includes complete supervisory and regulatory power, which includes, inter alia, “the power to prevent packers . . . from engaging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practices or devices.”  [ 7 ] USDA has consistently viewed the Act as prohibiting both market abuses (unfair trade practices) and competitively unfair conduct or unreasonable acts and practices (including anticompetitive conduct) owing to the adverse impact both have on the fair functioning of the marketplace and the importance of ensuring that producers can obtain the full value of their livestock and poultry despite economic power imbalances. [ 8 ]

The Department has consistently interpreted unfair practices—and thus applied the Act—to protect producer welfare and advance fair-trade practices in the livestock, meat, and poultry industries. The Department's policy on unfair practices has not changed throughout the course of its enforcement of the Act.

In 2010, the Department issued a proposed rule that was never finalized (“2010 proposed rule”). The 2010 proposed rule was broader in scope than this proposed rule. It addressed undue or unreasonable preference or advantage; undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage; criteria related to reasonable notice of a suspension of the delivery of birds under a poultry growing arrangement; when a requirement of additional capital investments over the life of a poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and whether a packer, swine contractor or live poultry dealer has provided a reasonable period of time for a grower or a swine producer to remedy a breach of contract that could lead to termination of the growing arrangement or production contract ( 75 FR 35338 ; June 22, 2010). As it relates to the scope of this proposed rulemaking, the preamble to the 2010 proposed rule stated that “Section 202(a) of the P&S Act prohibits `any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice.' ” The preamble also stated that “USDA has consistently taken the position that, in some cases, a violation of section 202(a) or (b) can be proven without proof of predatory intent, competitive injury, or likelihood of injury.”  [ 9 ] But the USDA “always understood that an act or practice's effect on competition can be relevant and, in certain circumstances, even dispositive[.]” The proposed regulation attempted to define competition, and proposed a series of specific violations of the Act including: “Any act that causes competitive injury Start Printed Page 53888 or creates a likelihood of competitive injury.”

The 2010 proposed rule was never finalized due to a series of appropriations riders from fiscal years 2012 through 2015 that prevented the Department from working on rules related to the subjects covered in the 2010 proposed rule.

In 2016, the Department issued an interim final rule that, in relevant part, addressed the scope of section 202(a) and (b) of the P&S Act (“2016 IFR”). The 2016 IFR published what had been issued as the 2010 proposed rule with slight modifications. However, the 2016 IFR reiterated “USDA has consistently taken the position that, in some cases, a violation of section 202(a) or (b) can be proven without proof of predatory intent, competitive injury, or likelihood of competitive injury.” ( 81 FR 92556 , 92567 ; December 20, 2016). The 2016 IFR preamble also stated that “USDA has always understood that an act or practice's effect on competition can be relevant and, in certain circumstances, even dispositive with respect to whether an act or practice violates sections 202(a) and/or (b).” The 2016 IFR did not define competition or describe when harm to competition would not be required.

In 2017, following a change in administration, finalization of the 2016 IFR was delayed, and ultimately withdrawn ( 82 FR 48594 ; October 18, 2017). The 2016 IFR was withdrawn on the grounds that USDA believed that specific rule would not have effectively addressed court decisions in several U.S. Courts of Appeals, that the courts would not have deferred to it, and that the “good cause” justification for dispensing with notice and comment was inadequate. At that time, the Department further determined that “[p]rotracted litigation to both interpret this regulation and defend it serves neither the interests of the livestock and poultry industries nor GIPSA.”  [ 10 ] The 2017 withdrawal did not alter the longstanding position of USDA articulated in the 2010 proposed rule and again in the 2016 IFR. [ 11 ] Nor did the withdrawal announce a policy against regulation in general.

The current proposed rule is less about a judicial debate over competitive injury and instead would establish a more workable standard for USDA to consistently apply in its own administrative hearings and investigations, which in turn would provide a standard that the public can more easily understand. And the current rule is being issued through notice and comment. Thus, AMS does not believe that the same concerns that prompted withdrawal of the 2016 IFR apply to this proposal.

In sum, it has always been USDA's position that it is not necessary in every case to demonstrate competitive injury in order to show a violation of section 202(a). But USDA has also consistently recognized that any act or practice that harms or is likely to harm competition also violates the statute. [ 12 ] This proposed rule provides a basis for the public to understand precisely how USDA would apply the statute to both categories of harms.

The P&S Act's language and structure support USDA's longstanding position on section 202(a) and (b), as well as USDA's position on the Act's legislative history and purposes. Congress drafted section 202(a) to reach a range of unfair practices and devices, such as anticompetitive practices, market abuses, or other distortions of the competitive process. [ 13 ] Congress proscribed “unfair” practices without limitation, using terms like section 202's proscription of “deceptive” and “unjust” conduct commonly understood then and now to encompass more than conduct causing competitive injury. [ 14 ] Congress confirmed this plain meaning by amending the P&S Act to add specific instances of conduct prohibited as unfair that do not involve any inherent likelihood of competitive injury. [ 15 ]

Unlike with other provisions of section 202, Congress chose not to limit section 202(a) and (b) to specific types of competitive injuries identified in other sections of the Act. [ 16 ] While section 202(c) through (f) include provisions that address particular competitive injuries—such as where a practice has the tendency, effect, or purpose of “creating a monopoly” or “restraining commerce”—those limitations are absent from section 202(a) and (b). [ 17 ] This difference confirms that section 202(a) and (b) do not require a showing of competitive injury for such conduct. [ 18 ]

Moreover, Congress has amended the P&S Act to confirm the Department's longstanding view that there are specific instances of conduct that are prohibited as “unfair” that do not involve any inherent likelihood of competitive injury. [ 19 ] In 1976, Congress confirmed that failing to pay, when due, for livestock and meats was an “unfair practice” under the P&S Act, and it did not require any harm to competition to be a violation of section 202(a).

The prevailing interpretation of section 312 of the P&S Act, which uses similar language, further confirms USDA's interpretation of section 202(a). Start Printed Page 53889 Courts have recognized that the proper analysis under this provision depends on “the facts of each case,”  [ 20 ] and that these sections may apply in the absence of competitive injury. [ 21 ]

Furthermore, even with respect to subsections of the Act that do focus on competitive harm, the text of those subsections indicates that competitive harm under the P&S Act goes beyond the types of competitive injuries cognizable under Federal antitrust laws. [ 22 ] For example, section 202(d) through (f) unambiguously apply to market injuries that the antitrust laws often do not reach—such as price manipulation, where a single-firm practice “manipulat[es] or control[s] price” or otherwise restrains trade, irrespective of conspiracy. These prohibitions in the relevant subsections are each embedded within “or” clauses that otherwise cover prohibitions that are squarely about anticompetitive conduct cognizable under Federal antitrust laws. Further, section 202(a) and (b) must cover conduct not covered by section 202(d) through (f) or section 202(a) and (b) would be superfluous. The presence of all of these provisions in the P&S Act shows, at a minimum, the regulatory scheme for fair competition under the P&S Act is broader than competitive injury under the Federal antitrust laws and at least as broad as section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. [ 23 ] And, when compared to antitrust statutes, the P&S Act, like section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), covers incipient threats to competition and potential injuries to market participants. In addition, the P&S Act's remedial purposes prohibit incipient violations of the P&S Act even if the practice has no potential anti-competitive or impact on markets at all. [ 24 ]

In short, section 202(a) covers unfair conduct beyond harm to competition, and where harm to competition is relevant, the P&S Act is broader than the antitrust laws.

The legislative history and purposes of the P&S Act also support USDA's interpretation of section 202(a) with regard to the role of competitive injury. As the Supreme Court has stated, when interpreting a statute, a provision “must take meaning from its historical setting.”  [ 25 ]

The genesis of the P&S Act predates its enactment by several decades. [ 26 ] On May 16, 1888, the U.S. Senate authorized an investigation “to determine whether there exists or has existed any combination . . . on the part of those engaged in buying and shipping meat products, by reason of which the prices of beef and beef cattle have been so controlled or affected as to diminish the price paid the producer without lessening the cost of meat to the consumer.”  [ 27 ] In 1902, a bill of equity was filed by the United States to enjoin the alleged conspiracy as a violation of the antitrust laws. In 1903, an injunction was issued, which was sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court. [ 28 ] The dominance and unfair or unreasonable anticompetitive conduct of the packers continued; on February 7, 1917, President Wilson directed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate and report the facts with respect to the packing industry. [ 29 ]

The FTC meat industry investigation found that, in 1916, the Big Five  [ 30 ] (the five largest meatpackers) controlled the processing of 82 percent of cattle, 79 percent of calves, 87 percent of sheep, and 63 percent of swine in the U.S. [ 31 ] The Big Five also controlled an interlocking network of feed mills, stockyards, and transportation infrastructure that supported the industry. As extensively documented in an FTC report, those five packers used their market power to engage in a range of practices to further entrench their dominance of the meat industry. [ 32 ] The FTC report documented a number of complaints by producers that the U.S. Supreme Court summarized in the synopsis of the case upholding the constitutionality of the P&S Act, including excessive charges by stockyards for hay and other facilities, the duplication of commissions by commission men and dealers, and fraudulent reporting of livestock being crippled in transit, in addition to suppression of competition through collusion. [ 33 ]

Following the FTC's report, and before the passage of the signed a consent decree in 1920. [ 34 ] The decree enjoined the packers from pursuing combinations to monopolize the purchase and control the price of livestock and the sale and distribution of meat products, and from being involved in other food sectors. [ 35 ] In this way, the decree sought to break the industry up vertically, underscoring the broad approach of the P&S Act.

After the consent decree, the Senate and House of Representatives held extensive hearings on several bills to address problems related to concentration and market domination in the meat industry, one of which, H.R. 6320, eventually became the P&S Act of 1921. [ 36 ]

The House of Representatives' report on the P&S Act stated, “A careful study of the bill, will . . . convince one that it and existing laws, give the Secretary of Agriculture complete inquisitorial, visitorial, supervisory, and regulatory power over the packers, stockyards and all activities connected therewith; that it is the most comprehensive measure and extends farther than any previous law in the regulation of private business, in time of peace, except possibly the Interstate Commerce Act.”  [ 37 ] The Conference Report on the P&S Act stated that: “Congress intends to exercise, in the bill, the fullest control of the packers and stockyards which the Constitution permits . . .”. [ 38 ]

It was emphasized by Representative Samuel T. Rayburn (later Speaker of the House of Representatives) that although Congress “gave the Federal Trade Start Printed Page 53890 Commission wide powers” to prohibit unfair methods of competition, the authority of the Commission at that time was not as broad as that given to “the Secretary of Agriculture under this bill,” which became the P&S Act. [ 39 ]

Congress subsequently made clear, through further legislative developments, that its goals for the statute extended beyond the prohibition of anticompetitive conduct in the manner of the antitrust laws. For instance, in a 1935 amendment adding live poultry dealers to the coverage of section 202(a) and (b), Congress amended the text to specify that “[t]he handling of the great volume of live poultry . . . is attendant with various unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent practices and devices, resulting in the producers sustaining sundry losses and receiving prices far below the reasonable value of their live poultry . . . ”  [ 40 ] Similarly, the House Committee Report regarding 1958 amendments identified “[t]he primary purpose” of the P&S Act as “assur[ing] fair competition and fair trade practices” and “safeguard[ing] farmers . . . against receiving less than the true market value of their livestock.”  [ 41 ] In accordance with this legislative history, courts and commentators have, over a span exceeding 70 years, recognized that although the purposes of the P&S Act include proscribing anticompetitive conduct, they are not limited solely to conduct that injures competition as understood in the antitrust laws. [ 42 ] Indeed, for these seven decades, USDA has regularly maintained and enforced a wide range of fair trade rules and principles including prompt payment, standardized weights and measures, sufficient bonding and solvency, prohibitions on commercial bribery, and more. These rules and enforcement mandates play important roles in protecting market participants from abuse, and to that end, they proscribe conduct that USDA has also viewed as distorting the competitive process within the livestock, meat, and poultry markets. [ 43 ] To that end, proscribing abuses of market participants is integral to any effort to understand “harm to competition” under the P&S Act itself. [ 44 ]

Nor is the statutory history of the P&S Act monolithic: it was used as a pattern for other laws as well, notably changes to the FTC Act. When Congress passed the FTC Act in 1914, the statute prohibited only unfair methods of competition, which was a then-new term of art with a broad scope. [ 45 ] In 1937, the Supreme Court in FTC v. Raladam Co. gave a narrowing interpretation, holding that the FTC's unfairness authority was limited to conduct causing competitive injury. [ 46 ] Congress disapproved of this interpretation, and in 1938 it passed the Wheeler-Lea Act, [ 47 ] which clarified the expansiveness of the FTC's unfairness authority by specifying that it covers acts or practices that injure consumers, regardless of whether the acts or practices may also injure competition.

Notably, the Wheeler-Lea Act was modeled on the P&S Act, specifically section 202(a)'s prohibition on unfair practices that injure producers. When the FTC proposed the Wheeler-Lea Act, the FTC pointed to the P&S Act as the precedent for its text. [ 48 ] If it were not enough that the FTC succeeded—that it persuaded Congress to pass the Wheeler-Lea Act by relying on the P&S Act as precedent for prohibiting unfair practices without a competitive injury requirement—the 17 years of P&S enforcement prior to the Wheeler-Lea Act are especially telling. During the period from 1921 to 1938, the Secretary frequently found unfairness violations under section 202 that would not have been “unfair methods of competition” under the narrowing gloss the Supreme Court applied in Raladam —and that Congress subsequently rejected by passing the Wheeler-Lea Act.

The design of the P&S Act's text, and the legislative history, thus clearly reflect Congressional intent that the Act's unfairness authority extend beyond unfair methods of competition. [ 49 ] The Act “was framed in language designed to permit the fullest control of packers and stockyards which the Constitution permits, and its coverage was to encompass the complete chain of commerce and give the Secretary of Agriculture complete regulatory power over packers and all activities connected therewith.”  [ 50 ] It was hailed as a “far-reaching measure and extend[ing] further than any previous law into the regulation of private business.”  [ 51 ] If the existing antitrust laws and the consent decree signed by the Big Five packers had been sufficient to protect market participants from unfair practices, Congress would not have passed the P&S Act.

The P&S Act's legislative history demonstrates Congress intended the Act to cover a broader range of conduct than is covered by the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Congress intended to regulate practices that would violate those two antitrust laws and practices that would be unfair under the FTC Act, as well as the “special mischiefs and injuries inherent in livestock and poultry traffic.”  [ 52 ] Particularities in the market structure and operation of the livestock, meat, and poultry industries compelled Congress to create a statute specific to them; to regulate fair trade practices among livestock and poultry producers, stockyards, meat packers, swine contractors, and live poultry dealers; and to ensure equal access to Start Printed Page 53891 markets. [ 53 ] In these industries, a handful of firms owning a small number of capital-intensive slaughter and meat processing plants exercised substantial market power over thousands of producers spread across rural communities. [ 54 ] These conditions continue today and are even more important in light of increased industry concentration. For example, in 2019 the four-firm concentration ratio (the combined market share of the four largest firms in the industry) was as follows: 53% for broiler chickens, 55% for turkeys, 67% for hogs, and 85% for fed cattle. [ 55 ] These concentrated industries procure their poultry and livestock for processing from a large number of unconcentrated farms engaged in livestock and poultry production, including 14,144 farms raising broilers under contract, 47,510 farms that sold hogs and pigs, and 25,783 farms with cattle on feed in 2022. [ 56 ]

Further, as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Act was intended to “assure fair competition and fair trade practices in livestock marketing.”  [ 57 ] “Fair competition” is consistent with the view of the P&S Act as a device for protecting against not only Sherman and Clayton Act violations but also other unfair methods of competition that tend to negatively affect market conditions, embodied for example in the prohibitions in 202(d) and (e) of the Act. [ 58 ] However, “fair trade practices” has a different connotation, going beyond practices that cause (or tend to cause) competitive injury to include practices that harm market participants, specifically producers, as well as other regulated entities and consumers. This term invokes a standard of equitable unfairness, which does not implicate market conditions, competition, efficiency, or consumer welfare. [ 59 ] USDA has long viewed keeping a marketplace free from abusive conduct for participants as part and parcel of maintaining a fair competitive landscape even if the unfair practice is directed at only a few individuals or firms. To the extent that violations of P&S Act section 202(a) require a showing of “harm to competition” under the P&S Act, that would necessarily have to cover both competitively unfair conduct and market abuses.

Courts for decades have made it clear that section 202 of the P&S Act reaches beyond the antitrust laws. [ 60 ] That is consistent with USDA's approach to enforcement since the earliest days of the Act. As discussed extensively in section III.A. below, USDA has enforced the Act to prohibit a wide range of unfair practices that harm individual market participants. [ 61 ]

AMS has observed that rising market concentration and the growth of vertical contracting in the late 1990s and early 2000s—including insufficient USDA enforcement of the Act—led to increased private actions under the P&S Act. [ 62 ] Starting in the 1970s, Congress expanded the Act to authorize private rights of action in Federal court, which could be filed with respect to livestock starting in 1976, and with respect to poultry starting in 1987. [ 63 ] By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Federal courts faced private cases making claims based on alleged unfair practices. In the majority of these cases the Federal courts did not rely upon the opinions of USDA's Judicial Officer, and have come to conflicting conclusions about how to interpret section 202(a) and (b) of the Act. [ 64 ] And indeed, notably commencing in 2005 with the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., a handful of Circuits have held that private litigants could establish conduct is “unfair” in violation of section 202(a) only with evidence that the behavior caused competitive injury as a marketwide harm. [ 65 ] The courts incorporating a competitive injury requirement point to the P&S Act's “antitrust origins,” although those courts also readily acknowledge that the P&S Act is broader than the antitrust laws.

Courts that apply a standard with a competitive-injury component, however, are far from unanimous in their interpretation of the P&S Act's prohibitions, generally, and of competitive injury, specifically. The Start Printed Page 53892 Tenth Circuit has required competitive injury for unfairness but not deception claims, while the Fifth and Sixth Circuit appear to require “competitive injury” even for deception claims. Similarly, although the Tenth Circuit in Been v. O.K. Industries, Inc. adopted the competitive injury requirement, it had previously found violations of section 202 for failure to pay ( Hays Livestock ), market agent's loan to packer, which was a conflict of interest, ( Capitol Livestock ), and failing to disclose a change in grading system ( Excel ). [ 66 ]

Some decisions seemingly apply a higher standard than what the antitrust laws require. In Pickett, after a jury found that Tyson's vertical supply restrictions adversely affected competition by artificially reducing Tyson's purchase price for cattle, the court required the plaintiff to further rebut Tyson's claimed countervailing justifications in order to establish harm to competition. In London v. Fieldale Farms Corp., the court invoked a Sherman Act standard in holding that a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition, [ 67 ] but the case also quoted with approval Armour& Co. v. United States, [ 68 ] which held that a violation of section 5 of the FTC Act—which is broader than the Sherman Act—would be sufficient. As discussed below, section 5 reaches conduct that does not violate the Sherman Act, and liability under section 5 does not depend on demonstrable anticompetitive effects or proof of the defendant's market power. The Act reaches practices “not merely in their fruition, but also in their incipiency” if they “could lead to trade restraints and practices deemed undesirable” and also “conduct which, although not a violation of the letter of the antitrust laws, is close to a violation or is contrary to their spirit.”  [ 69 ] In Been, the court similarly required that the plaintiffs show that the “specific practices have the effect of injuring competition or are likely to do so,” but then it went further, requiring more than courts ordinarily require to prove even a Sherman Act violation. In Been, plaintiffs had to show the practices resulted in both lower prices for producers and higher prices for retail consumers. [ 70 ] Finally, Wheeler v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. held that “an anti-competitive effect is necessary” to prove a violation of section 202(a) of the P&S Act, despite citing with approval Farrow v. U.S. Dep't of Agr., [ 71 ] where the court held that harm to competition merely “can be found” sufficient to demonstrate violation of the P&S Act. Moreover, the courts' varying interpretations of section 202(a)—including those that have required competitive injury—apply inconsistent legal standards to the evidence. Or, as it has been observed: “courts' application of the harm-to-competition test is inconsistent with their own antitrust rules that they claim to be applying.”  [ 72 ] Simply, “harm to competition” fails even its basic function as the judicial stand-in for well-articulated contours of a prohibition on unfair practices.

At the same time, other courts have either explicitly rejected a competitive injury requirement or have found violations without addressing the impact on competition. [ 73 ] Disagreement among the courts over the need for competitive injury and what the term means makes enforcement difficult and has created a legal patchwork in which different rules apply depending on the presiding circuit. The lack of consistent legal standards has adversely affected the Department's ability to maintain fair and competitive livestock and poultry markets and ensure producers can obtain the full value of their products and services. Livestock and poultry industries are inherently interstate activities, with activities, services, and trading regularly occurring across multiple states and in regional and national markets. Much like the FTC's policy statements have defined its national approaches to unfair practices and unfair methods of competition, a workable rule governing how the prohibitions on unfair practices will operate and be enforced is important for providing clarity to market participants and for AMS to effectuate its nationwide statutory obligation to ensure fair and competitive livestock, meat, and poultry markets, and ensure livestock producers and poultry growers can secure the full value for their products and services. [ 74 ]

The cases mentioned above all applied different standards despite all claiming to have derived their standards from the Act and the caselaw. These opinions gave little or no guidance on the practices that would satisfy their standards. Moreover, in the cases adopting a competitive injury requirement, the litigants did not offer an affirmative definition of “unfair” like the criteria in the proposed rule. Those courts never addressed whether “unfair” applies to harms typically treated as unfair practices under the FTC Act.

This ambiguity and inconsistency across judicial interpretations of the statute impedes enforcement of the Act under section 202(a) because to date neither the Department nor the public have had appropriate clarity on the meaning of “unfair” under the P&S Act. Further, to the extent courts have limited application of the P&S Act's protections against unfair practices to anticompetitive or unfair conduct that causes competitive injury, those courts' decisions are contrary to both the legislative text and Congressional intent.

For over a decade, USDA has received repeated calls from the public to address these court decisions which frustrate the purposes of the Act, [ 75 ] although USDA Start Printed Page 53893 also notes that some industry groups have generally opposed changes to the existing regulatory landscape. [ 76 ]

Consistent with Executive Order 14036 , this proposed rule would, however, make those changes. [ 77 ] Specifically, it would provide regulatory clarity in the face of these conflicting interpretations so as to more fully and effectively enforce section 202(a)'s prohibition on unfair practices. To do so, it proposes to establish clearer tests and frameworks with which to apply section 202(a)'s prohibition on unfair practices, provide guidance to those hearing enforcement cases as to what unfairness means, and, in circumstances when competition is relevant, provide a framework for assessing the impact of a practice on the competitive environment. USDA intends with this proposed rule to provide clearer standards for the Department, courts, and private parties to use in understanding what conduct the P&S Act prohibits.

In this proposed rulemaking, AMS proposes separate comprehensive rules intended to protect both market participants and the market from harm. [ 78 ] In the very first docket under the P&S Act in 1922, the Secretary stated: “It is not the purpose of the Act to destroy business, but to require the observance of the public's interests in the conduct of business by conforming to standards laid down in the law.”  [ 79 ] In other words, the Act is broader than an antitrust law; it is a comprehensive regulation of the poultry and livestock industry that enforces norms of fair behavior for the public benefit. Thus, since passage of the Act, the Department has taken the position that section 202(a) could be violated if a challenged practice injures the market to the detriment of the public interest, or if it injures market participants without any specific harm to the market. Often, in the Department's view, a challenged practice could cause both kinds of injuries in unison.

For example, a supply broker was found to have engaged in both an unfair and deceptive practice in agreeing to provide a hidden “kickback” that affords unduly preferential treatment to a powerful retailer at the expense of rival retailers. Indeed, the practice was unfair both in the sense that it specifically injured the rival retailers, who were forced to pay discriminatorily higher broker fees, and in the sense that it harmed competition because the hidden competitive advantage bestowed upon the powerful retailer tampered with the competitive process for procuring supply. [ 80 ] This comprehensive analytical approach, which the Secretary applied in cases as diverse as failure to pay in full  [ 81 ] and price cutting, [ 82 ] never required the Secretary to draw distinctions between unfair conduct that injures producers, unfair conduct that injures competition, or unfair conduct that caused both kinds of injury. But in analyzing these cases the Judicial Officer determined harm to an individual or harm to competition in each separate administrative case rather than a specific “test” or “rule.”

In building the analytical framework for this proposed rule, USDA considered, in addition to the forgoing, the contemporaneous statutory history of section 5 of the FTC Act, which bans both unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices. While Congress never limited the scope of the P&S Act's “unfair practices” to “unfair methods of competition,” the first FTC Act was purportedly so limited. The amendments to the FTC Act in 1938 reflected Congress's intent to make the scope of the FTC Act more aligned with the P&S Act's broader scope.

A standard should be consistent and consistently applied, so this proposed rule would explain the P&S Act in terms more widely understood. USDA has found the framework of the FTC Act and the FTC's policy statements useful in understanding the past century of USDA's administrative and Federal caselaw.

Thus, for this proposed rule, USDA employs an analytical structure similar to that presently used by the FTC and proposes two analyses. First, proposed § 201.308(a) and (b) would protect against injuries to market participants from unfair practices. Second, proposed § 201.308(c) and (d) would protect the market from unfair practices. When the Secretary considers whether an injurious practice rises to the level of an unfair practice, either or both approaches may be relied on.

Although the proposed tests are distinct, in the context of the P&S Act, they are not mutually exclusive. Just as it has always been true that an unfair practice can be simultaneously injurious to individual market participants and to market conditions more generally, an unfair practice under this proposed rule may be unfair to an individual market participant (under proposed Start Printed Page 53894 § 201.308(a)), to markets (under proposed § 201.308(c)), or unfair under each proposed test.

Thus, based on the statutory language, administrative case law, and Federal case law, this proposed regulation clarifies that unfair acts under the P&S Act apply to harms to market participants and harms to the market. The scope of section 202(a) is similar to section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits both unfair and deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of competition. Further, the operative definition of harm to market participants (substantial harm, not reasonably unavoidable, and not outweighed by benefits) is analogous to the codified definition of unfairness under the FTC Act. The operative definition for harm to the market is analogous to the principles the FTC has adopted in that context (collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful or exclusionary method of competition that may negatively affect competitive conditions).

USDA proposes the addition of § 201.308(a) and (b) as a comprehensive rule for unfair practices with respect to market participants.

The proposed test under § 201.308(a) for whether a practice unfairly injures market participants is similar to the FTC's test for consumer protection injuries. Under the FTC Act, an unfair practice is an act or practice that “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”  [ 83 ] Harm to competition is not part of the test. Although section 202(a) of the P&S Act's authority precedes the FTC's 1980 policy statement and subsequent Congressional amendments to the FTC Act, the FTC's current approach offers useful pillars around which to anchor P&S case law that has developed over the years. [ 84 ]

USDA thus proposes under § 201.308(a) that a practice is unfair if the practice (1) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to one or more market participants, which (2) the participant or participants cannot reasonably avoid, and which (3) the regulated entity that has engaged in the act cannot justify by establishing countervailing benefits to the market participant or participants or to competition in the market that outweighs the substantial injury or likelihood of substantial injury. Application of these three elements, when combined, explain the outcome of a great many of the cases brought under the P&S Act, and provide a clear and workable standard for adjudicating many kinds of unfairness claims.

The simplest example that illustrates the principles underlying these proposed provisions is the failure to pay for meat, [ 85 ] live poultry, [ 86 ] or livestock. [ 87 ] First, it causes a substantial injury to the seller or grower. When a seller or grower delivers product to a regulated entity and the entity arbitrarily refuses to pay, the seller or grower loses the value of the product, and they lose the opportunity to use the capital from selling their product to grow more food, invest in their farm, or process more products. Second, they cannot avoid this breach of contract. Instead, they must either engage in costly litigation or settle for less than they are owed. Finally, there is no benefit to the market for the purchaser to fail to pay for the product they received. If this practice is adopted by all purchasers, the sellers become increasingly less efficient as trust fails and less livestock, meat, and poultry is produced. Thus, even if the seller or grower is eventually paid, and suffers no loss of business, the regulated entity's failure to pay when due can still cause substantial, unavoidable market injury. That is, in the aggregate, even a small delay suffered by many producers produces a substantial harm.

Similar principles have guided the Secretary's interpretation for the entire history of the Act. In the 1956 decision in In re: Central California Livestock, Inc. d/b/a Machlin Meat Packing Company, the Judicial Officer held that accord and satisfaction could not be a defense to the failure to pay for livestock because a refusal to abide by contract terms that occurs after the livestock is slaughtered leaves the seller or grower with no other remedy than to sue. If a refusal to pay is not based upon a bona fide dispute, but rather is a deliberate policy of contract noncompliance, then it is “obvious that by the activities in issue the respondent engaged in or used an unfair practice” in violation of section 202(a) of the Act. [ 88 ] And “[n]ot only was it unfair to the sellers but it was unfair competitively with respect to other packers.”  [ 89 ]

Even in 1956 those principles were not a new application of section 202(a). In 1937, USDA Secretary Wallace found that discounting the agreed upon price for a defect (so-called oily hogs) undiscoverable until after slaughter rather than as a condition of the contract was an “unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive practice” in violation of section 202(a) of the Act. [ 90 ]

Congress drafted the Act to provide every participant in the industry due consideration, and honest, transparent, and equitable treatment. Accordingly, dishonest, hidden, and inequitable practices that injure market participants, like mis-weighing, are unfair because the producer or grower suffers a substantial injury that they cannot avoid. For example, a producer delivers their product for the regulated entity to establish the grade, weight, and payment. The producer's loss of physical control of the animal is Start Printed Page 53895 inherent in a failure-to-pay or a mis-weighing case, illustrating the unavoidability of the injury.

Some elements of the dangers of unavoidable injuries have informed prior rulemaking. For example, when USDA required packers to pay on actual hot weights—the weight before the carcass is cooled to storage temperatures—in 1968, USDA noted that allowing packers to set shrinkage amounts for a projected weight after refrigeration (a cold weight) was an unfair and deceptive practice: “In these instances, the packer decides what shrinkage factor he will use. . . The farmer is not in a position to bargain freely on the basis of a full understanding of the contract terms which are within the control of the packer and can only accept or reject the bid offered by the packer.”  [ 91 ] Market participants are often at the mercy of regulated entities, who often pay based on factors that the livestock seller or poultry grower is unable to personally witness or negotiate, thus making their injury from the use of variable cold weights or shrinkage unavoidable.

Even absent an express rule, the principles maintaining that unjustified practices that produce unavoidable injury violate section 202(a) of the Act have been, and still are, applied in “unfair practices” cases. [ 92 ]

The final factor in the proposed regulation at § 201.308(a) is that the conduct does not violate section 202(a) of the Act if regulated entities prove that countervailing benefits to producers, growers, or to competition outweigh the harm. In practice, the question is whether the regulated entity can show benefits of the alleged unfair conduct outweigh the injury or likely injury.

The proposed rule allows the consideration of not only harm to the market, but also likely harm to Congressional policy goals concerning the structure of agricultural markets over and against possible countervailing benefits to other producers or the market. [ 93 ] Congressional policy goals have included, for example, supporting new, beginning, and military veteran producers. [ 94 ]

Balancing allegedly unfair conduct against countervailing benefits is not a new consideration for the Secretary. For example, when examining the allegedly unfair and discriminatory preferences given to one group of sellers over others in In re: IBP, Inc. (57 Agric. Dec. 1353 (U.S.D.A. July 31, 1998)), the Department considered whether right of first refusal of the contract terms was “worth extra payment” and whether the contract was profitable for both the buyers and the sellers of livestock. Preferences for lengthening extra delivery times justified higher payments (even if higher payment was not proven), and so concluded that the practice was not unduly discriminatory. [ 95 ]

Accordingly, when examining the practice, “actual competition carried on in good faith by normally fair methods not `heretofore regarded as opposed to good morals because characterized by deception, bad faith, fraud, or oppression['] . . . is a fact which must be given substantial weight . . . .”  [ 96 ] Unfair practices under section 202 is not only a matter of unfair market conditions; the intention and results of the unfair acts and practices are relevant. [ 97 ] For example, if a company intends to act to monopolize, even if the intended mechanism would not achieve it, the practice would be unfair. Moreover, some practices have no benefit, even if unintentional: mis-weighing, failing to pay when due for livestock or meats, failure to maintain a bond, and insolvency.

To date, no court has disagreed with the principle that the P&S Act not only reaches practices that directly injure, such as failures to pay and changes to the terms of payment without notice, but also acts that are likely to cause injury. Congress designed the Act to prevent actual monetary loss  [ 98 ] and those practices are “unfair” even though they require no evidentiary showing of completed injury. Even courts that have adopted the competitive injury standard have affirmed that the Act does not require actual harm. The Fifth Circuit stated, the “Act is designed to `. . . prevent potential injury by stopping unlawful practices in their incipiency. Proof of a particular injury is not required.' ”  [ 99 ] Those potential injuries may be any injury the Act was designed to prevent, including financial loss to sellers. [ 100 ]

Therefore, the Department has taken the view that some practices must be stopped before they harm market participants. [ 101 ] For example, a packer operating while insolvent or without a bond can present a great risk of potential harm to the livestock sellers who may find that their livestock is being used to finance a packer's operations. [ 102 ] If the undercapitalized packer fails, even with the rights of a floating trust, livestock sellers are vulnerable to protracted litigation and non-payment. The livestock seller's ability to participate in the market would be imperiled, the magnitude of potential injury would be great, and without prior knowledge of the insolvency, the seller's ability to freely Start Printed Page 53896 exercise decision-making would be undermined.

As another example, an exclusive agreement between packers and livestock dealers not to bid against one another might severely restrict the ability of other livestock sellers to participate in the market, because packers would not accept offers from other livestock dealers or from sellers directly. [ 103 ] The agreement is an unfair practice, among other reasons, because it injures sellers by restricting them from making offers and thus tends to subvert market forces. Proposed § 201.308(a) recognizes that although a specific injury has not occurred, the potential for injury is so great that the Secretary must stop the practice in advance. [ 104 ]

Proposed § 201.308(b) is intended to explain those instances where likely or potential harms to producers rise to violations of the P&S Act, and so this rulemaking sets out factors or criteria that attempt to cover that broad scope. Thus, the Secretary retains the statutory authority to identify and regulate unfair practices or devices in a manner not predicted by this proposed rule, either through subsequent rulemaking or in particular enforcement matters.

First, proposed § 201.308(b)(1) includes consideration of the extent to which the practice may impede or restrict the ability to participate in a market, interfere with the free exercise of decision-making by market participants, tend to subvert the operation of competitive market forces, deny a covered producer the full value of their products or services, or violate traditional doctrines of law or equity.

This is not entirely dissimilar from comment (g) in the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, which noted that unfair practices are not merely a matter of antitrust harms:

Courts continue to evaluate competitive practices against generalized standards of fairness and social utility . . . . An act or practice is likely to be judged unfair only if it substantially interferes with the ability of others to compete on the merits of their products or otherwise conflicts with accepted principles of public policy recognized by statute or common law. [ 105 ]

Thus, proposed § 201.308(b)(1) provides standards to evaluate when a practice under § 201.308(a) is likely to cause a substantial injury.

Second, proposed § 201.308(b)(2) provides a clarification of “substantial injury” by considering the magnitude of a likely injury that the Secretary must halt: an injury may be substantial if it causes significant harm to one market participant or if it imposes a small harm to many market participants. AMS does not propose to eliminate from regulatory oversight those injuries that the Department has deemed in past cases as substantial. A single failure to pay, for even a relatively small amount of money, is sufficiently substantial for USDA to bring administrative action against a regulated entity, and to be a basis for an order of the Secretary to cease and desist. Notably, an injury that does not harm a market participant is not a violation of the Act. [ 106 ]

Third, in proposed § 201.308(b)(3) AMS proposes considering the extent to which the producer would have to take unreasonable steps to avoid injury. An injury is not reasonably avoidable solely because the practice has been disclosed. A market participant is also not required to take unreasonable steps, such as exiting the market or making unreasonable additional investments or efforts, to avoid the harm. The harder it is for market participants to escape the injury, the more likely the harm would be to occur and the more likely that it would not be reasonably avoidable.

Again, returning to failure to pay, it would be unreasonable for a livestock seller to cease selling livestock on the open market to prevent themselves from being victims of a breach of contract or to ask them to accept revised contract terms after delivery of the livestock. To determine otherwise would undermine the regulatory purpose, which is to give the producers of livestock, and the growers of poultry, the opportunity to receive the fair value of their participation in the market. Nor would it benefit consumers to encourage producers to leave the market or accept substandard payment terms that would discourage appropriate market participation.

AMS proposes § 201.308(c) and (d) as a comprehensive rule with respect to markets.

Unfair practices are not only those that injure producers, but also those that may negatively impact competition because they injure or tend to injure competition or competitive market conditions. AMS takes the position in this proposed rulemaking that harmful methods of competition under the P&S Act are similar to the practices that the FTC and the courts have long recognized as either anticompetitive or unfair: collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful or exclusionary methods of competition that may negatively affect competitive conditions.

Congress intended the prohibitions in section 202(a) (and, also, section 312(a)) of the P&S Act to go further than the prohibition in section 5 of the FTC Act against “unfair methods of competition.”  [ 107 ] Not only did the P&S Act address deceptive practices before the FTC Act did so, but it also includes many prohibitions that the FTC Act does not. In that breadth, there has been no real dispute that the P&S Act should prohibit at least as much as the FTC Act itself. [ 108 ] Thus, as the Ninth Circuit explained, “section 202(a) should be read liberally enough to encompass the types of anti-competitive practices properly deemed `unfair' by the Federal Trade Commission.”  [ 109 ] The FTC has long prosecuted collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful or exclusionary actions that tend to negatively affect competitive conditions as unfair methods of competition. [ 110 ] Moreover, USDA has regularly cited FTC precedent in interpreting the P&S Act. [ 111 ] As the Ninth Circuit has noted, “While sec. 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act may have been made broader than antecedent antitrust legislation in order to achieve its Start Printed Page 53897 remedial purpose, it nonetheless incorporates the basic antitrust blueprint of the Sherman Act and other pre-existing antitrust legislation such as the Clayton Act and the [Federal] Trade Commission Act.”  [ 112 ]

Thus, AMS proposes § 201.308(c) to capture at least conduct that would violate the antitrust laws, conduct that would constitute an unfair method of competition under the FTC Act, and conduct that courts or administrative officers have held violates the P&S Act's unfairness prohibition. Practices that do violate the antitrust laws therefore are within the umbra of this rulemaking. So too is “conduct which, although not a violation of the letter of the antitrust laws, is close to a violation or is contrary to their spirit,”  [ 113 ] and practices that “not merely in their fruition, but also in their incipiency . . . could lead to . . . trade restraints and practices deemed undesirable.”

Conduct falls within proposed § 201.308(c) if it harms competition or has the tendency to negatively affect competitive conditions, impairs market participants' ability to compete, or reduces the likelihood of potential or nascent competition, notwithstanding that it may or may not yet have done so. If the practice is analyzed similarly to an antitrust violation, the Secretary will, where appropriate, consider any buyer- or seller-side anticompetitive effect on price (including the price paid to producers), output, quality, choice, innovation, bargaining power in the market for services or products, the imposition or presence of entry barriers, the imposition or presence of information asymmetries, the entrenching or extending of a dominant position, or the distortion of the competitive process, among other anticompetitive or competitively unfair effects. [ 114 ] In some cases, it is not necessary to measure the effect on competitive conditions expressly because the conduct, is a per se violation, or otherwise on its face tends to distort, impair, or frustrate the competitive process, including of price discovery. Moreover, section 202 of the P&S Act prohibits unfair competition in its incipiency, consistent with the FTC Act and the Clayton Act.

Because the courts have been clear that behavior that is likely to harm competition violates the P&S Act, AMS proposes standards with respect to injuries that are likely to harm the market. Like other statutes, such as the FTC Act and the Clayton Act, the P&S Act prohibits competition harms in their incipiency. [ 115 ] The antitrust laws recognize a wide range of harms, which this proposed rule would fully encompass. [ 116 ] Because the Act is intended to protect the market from harm and protect producers and consumers from unfair practices, there does not need to be any proof that any harm to the market has yet occurred: only that the threat the Act is designed to prevent is likely.

Accordingly, AMS proposes standards in § 201.308(d) for the Secretary to consider when examining practices that likely pose a threat to the competitiveness of markets. These standards include (1) the extent to which the practice impedes or restricts the ability to participate in a market; tends to subvert the operation of competitive market forces; interferes with the free exercise of decision-making by market participants; violates traditional doctrines of law or equity; or has indicia of oppressiveness, such as evidence of anticompetitive intent or purpose or absence of an independent legitimate business reason for the conduct; and (2) the extent to which the practice tends to foreclose or impair the opportunities of market participants, reduces competition between rivals, limits choice, distorts or impedes the process of competition, or denies a market participant the full value of their products or services.

Thus, proposed § 201.308(d) addresses harms that are likely to threaten markets, including “acts and practices which, when full blown would violate the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.”  [ 117 ] These include several practices that have been directly found to constitute incipiency violations by the Federal courts or in FTC administrative proceedings, which the FTC details in full in its policy statement regarding the scope of unfair methods of competition under section 5 of the FTC Act. [ 118 ] The Secretary may also consider violations of other laws and equity. Thus, when considering harm to markets, the proposed rule allows the consideration of harm that is cognizable under laws that further policy goals concerning the structure of agricultural markets. [ 119 ] The proposed rule recognizes that regulatory enforcement may take into account policies such as increasing market diversity through new, beginning, and military veteran producers, [ 120 ] and increasing supply chain resiliency including through investing in new and expanded meat and poultry processing. [ 121 ] Moreover, USDA's Start Printed Page 53898 Judicial Officer has explained that section 202(a) of the P&S Act includes within its scope every trade practice which is an “unfair method of competition” under section 5 of the FTC Act or is otherwise prohibited by the Clayton Act or the Robinson-Patman Act. [ 122 ]

Among the factors the Secretary may consider when halting a practice prior to harm occurring are whether the practice offends public policy because it has indicia of oppressiveness, such as evidence of anticompetitive intent or purpose, or absence of an independent legitimate business reason for the conduct.

This factor addresses a particular danger that Congress recognized when it wrote the P&S Act: abuse of the imbalance of power, and the creation of vertical relationships that would stifle competition. Congress expected the Secretary to address the power that the dominant, vertically-integrated packers and stockyards could exert in preventing a distant and less capitalized farmer or rancher from asserting their rights. This is the heart of oppressive conduct and is part of the market structure Congress expected the Secretary to regulate.

Moreover, this proposal extends to horizontal, vertical, and other market relationships because, historically, the Department has found that practices like certain vertical and horizontal information sharing are likely to harm competition, and therefore unfair practices prohibited by the P&S Act. [ 123 ] USDA regulations under the P&S Act (in part to address concerns relating to market agencies as regulated under title III of the Act) have also prohibited certain forms of vertical integration, common or interlocking ownership, financing, or management relationships owing to conflict of interest and impacts on market integrity and market access. [ 124 ]

To be clear, under section 202(a) of the P&S Act, if a practice is taken in good faith by normally fair methods, and not characterized by deception, bad faith, fraud, or oppression, then the practice is less likely to be unfair. [ 125 ] Accordingly, proposed § 201.308(d) provides that the Secretary may assess the extent to which the practice is collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful, or exclusionary and presents incipient threats to competition in determining whether the conduct tends to negatively impact competition by adversely affecting competitive market conditions.

This rulemaking has no particular prohibition with respect to contracts. A breach of contract, however, is unfair under section 202 if it meets the criteria of proposed § 201.308(a) or (c). For decades the Department found, without controversy, that breaches of contract could result in harm to nonbreaching parties to the agreement or to the market or to both under the Act. [ 126 ]

To account for this, under proposed § 201.308(b) and (d) the Secretary may consider traditional doctrines of law and equity in determining whether there is any harm the Act was designed to prevent. Traditional common-law doctrines are fundamentally designed to ensure fairness in the functioning of the marketplace and support the normal and fair operation of market forces. In short, fair enforcement of contract, bans against unconscionable conduct, and prohibitions against deception, make a fair market work. Academics have rightly pointed out that violations of the P&S Act include practices that offend public policy as established “by statutes, the common law, or otherwise—whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness.”  [ 127 ]

The Department's position is that included in this set of practices are breaches of contract that are of regulatory concern. Recently, there are some courts that have claimed that Congress could not have intended breaches of contract to be violations of the P&S Act. [ 128 ] Read to an unlimited extent, that conclusion would be contrary to the plain language of the statute. Congress intended unfair practices to include breaches of contract, not only with the passage of the Act in 1921, but also with the passage of section 409 in 1976 and section 410 in 1987. By specifically prohibiting failures to make prompt payment under contract, Congress included among unfair practices the simplest form of a contractual breach.

As a matter of statutory construction, under section 312(a) of the Act it is unlawful for livestock dealers and market agencies to engage in any “unjust, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device”; section 309 of the Act gives any injured person the right to proceed in an administrative reparation hearing before the Secretary against a market agency or livestock dealer. Breach of contract is the basis for the overwhelming majority of reparations cases, as Congress intended.

USDA concluded that some breaches of contract violated the Act many decades prior to the Congressional passage of section 409; administrative findings that failure to pay was a violation of the Act were some of the earliest administrative decisions. The Department issued its first regulatory prohibition against late payment for livestock in 1964. [ 129 ] As the Department has held with respect to allegations of the breach of the duty of good faith in the operation of contract which led to underpayment:

[A] violation of the payment requirements in 7 U.S.C. 228b-1(a) is also a prohibited “unfair practice” under 7 U.S.C. 192 . . . . The Packers and Stockyards Act contains no requirement that injury to competition or likelihood of injury to competition must be shown in order to prove a violation of 7 U.S.C. 228b-1(a) ; however, 7 U.S.C. 228b-1(b) specifically provides that a violation of 7 U.S.C. 228b-1(a) shall be considered an “unfair practice” under the Packers and Stockyards Act. Thus, a violation of 7 U.S.C. 228b-1(a) is a prohibited “unfair practice” under 7 U.S.C. 192 without regard to whether injury to competition or likelihood of injury to competition is shown. [ 130 ]

This rulemaking is not intended to change the Department's position on the Act's remedial purposes to protect market participants from unfair and deceptive practices. In general, refusal to honor contracts drives honest businesses from competition because competitors cannot compete in a market where the buyer with greater capital can capture the supply without paying for it, modify contract terms after delivery, or delay payment indefinitely to extract concessions from sellers. These proposed regulations, therefore, match USDA's ability to order packers and Start Printed Page 53899 swine contractors to cease these breaches of contract and penalize packers and swine contractors to deter these behaviors and to protect the public from these harms. [ 131 ]

To be clear, this proposal would not make every commercial dispute into a P&S Act matter. Rather, this regulation proposes a specific framework under which claims—including ones involving a breach of contract—of unfair practices under the P&S Act would be analyzed.

This proposed rule does not limit its protection against unfair conduct by regulated entities to enumerated individuals, like producers or consumers, because the Act protects anyone that suffers a violation of the P&S Act. Section 202(a) of the Act bans unfair practices in the entire market for livestock, meats, meat food products, livestock products in unmanufactured form, and live poultry. Further, P&S Act section 308(a) holds all regulated entities liable for any consequential damages to the persons injured: “[i]f any person subject to this chapter violates any of the provisions of this chapter . . . he shall be liable to the person or persons injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of such violation.”  [ 132 ]

The Secretary has brought administrative cases under section 202(a) based on the full spectrum of market behaviors that have injured its participants. This has included practices that injured livestock sellers, livestock dealers, market agencies, stockyards, live poultry dealers, packers, retailers, and consumers. [ 133 ]

Thus, this proposed rule is intended to capture everyone that Congress intended to protect, which includes any person injured by a violation of section 202(a).

This proposed regulation contains four provisions; the inclusion of each is intended to clarify the P&S Act, and thus strengthen the Act's protections against unfair treatment in agricultural markets. The proposed regulation provides guidance to market participants, regulated entities, presiding courts and USDA when determining whether specific conduct is unfair under section 202(a) of the P&S Act. Although each proposed provision serves to further these effects, the benefits this proposed rule seeks to provide would not be negated by the exclusion of one or more of its provisions as finalized.

For example, proposed § 201.308(a), “Unfair practices with respect to market participants,” would still function without proposed § 201.308(c), “Unfair practices with respect to markets,” and vice versa. The clarifying provisions of proposed § 201.308(b) and (d) are also severable. While AMS included all the provisions to clarify the term “unfair” under the Act, the purpose of the regulation is not lost if a court severs a provision of the rule as finalized. The remaining provisions would still function sensibly and inform the interpretation of the Act.

AMS invites comments on this proposed rule. Comments submitted on or before August 27, 2024 will be considered. Comments should reference Docket No. AMS-FTPP-21-0046 and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register . AMS seeks comment on the following subjects:

1. Do the two tests described in this proposed rule appropriately guide enforcement of “unfair practices” under section 202(a) of the P&S Act?

2. What modifications to the proposed rule would be appropriate to meet the goals of the P&S Act?

3. Are the factors described in the proposed rule to contextualize the two tests appropriate? If not, are certain factors more appropriate to one or the other test?

4. What other relevant factors may be considered in addition to or instead of the current factors?

5. Should the Department add regulatory text to define legitimate business justifications? If so, who should bear the burden of proof and what constitutes a cognizable justification?

6. Should the rulemaking consider: (a) whether the method of competition is so facially unfair that business justifications should not be entertained; (b) whether the party claiming a business justification must show that the asserted justification for the method of competition is legally cognizable, non-pretextual, and narrowly tailored to bring about a benefit while limiting the harm to the competitive process and to market participants; or (c) whether the party claiming a justification must show that the claimed benefit occurs in the same market where harm is alleged?

7. Does the proposed rule appropriately define what behavior is “reasonably avoidable”? Should this language be delineated more precisely or more broadly or in other ways, and if so, how?

8. Should AMS provide additional guidance around incipient harms to the market, and if so, should AMS draw from Clayton Act standards, [ 134 ] such as whether the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.”  [ 135 ]

9. What benefits would this proposed rule provide for producers or other persons?

10. What burdens would this proposed rule create for regulated entities?

11. What is your preferred way to measure countervailing benefits?

12. Should some things be categorically excluded from consideration as countervailing benefits, such as cross-market balancing?

13. How would you describe conduct that is oppressive?

14. How would this proposed rule affect competitive conditions in the livestock and poultry industries?

15. Should the proposed rule treat private causes of action differently from violations of section 202(a) of the Act when enforced by the Federal Government, and if so, how?

16. Would this proposed rule have any other effects on the market or market participants? If so, in what ways should they be addressed?

Comments can be submitted by either of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov . Enter AMS-FTPP-21-0046 in the Search field. Select the Documents tab, then Start Printed Page 53900 select the Comment button in the list of documents.

Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. AMS-FTPP-21-0046, S. Brett Offutt, Chief Legal Officer, Packers and Stockyards Division, USDA, AMS, FTPP; Room 2097-S, Mail Stop 3601, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-3601.

Proposed § 201.308 defines how AMS evaluates unfair acts or practices and unfair methods of competition under section 202(a) the P&S Act. Proposed § 201.308 does not impose any information collection or recordkeeping requirements on any regulated entity or member of the public. Accordingly, approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is not required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 .

AMS is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 reaffirms, supplements, and updates Executive Order 12866 and further directs agencies to solicit and consider input from a wide range of affected and interested parties through a variety of means.

This rulemaking has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been accordingly reviewed by the OMB. As a required part of the regulatory process, AMS prepared an economic analysis of the costs and benefits of proposed § 201.308.

AMS proposes to establish § 201.308 to define how AMS evaluates unfair acts or practices and unfair methods of competition under section 202(a) the P&S Act. The term “unfair” has caused confusion and contention in the industry and in courts, and this rulemaking is intended mitigate both.

Paragraph (a) of proposed § 201.308 defines an unfair act or practice as one that causes or will likely cause substantial injury to a market participant, which the market participant could not reasonably avoid but is not justified by countervailing benefits to market participants or competition. Paragraph (b) includes factors the Secretary of Agriculture may consider in evaluating whether an unfair act or practice is likely to cause substantial injury. Factors include the extent to which an act or practice impedes or restricts the ability to participate in the market, the extent to which an act or practice subverts competitive market forces, the size of any potential injury, and the extent to which the act or practice interferes with free decision making.

Paragraph (c) of proposed § 201.308 defines an unfair practice with respect to markets as a practice that is collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful, or exclusionary method of competition that may negatively affect competitive conditions.

AMS intends for proposed § 201.308 to be consistent with the way USDA has interpreted section 202(a) of the Act for decades. The preamble for this rulemaking explains how USDA has defined “unfair” in past actions and how those actions are consistent with the interpretation of “unfair” in proposed § 201.308. Concerning USDA's interpretation and enforcement of “unfair” in section 202(a) of the Act, AMS does not expect proposed § 201.308 to change USDA's position on enforcement of section 202(a).

Proposed § 201.308 is made of two parts. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed § 201.308 concern unfair practices with respect to market participants. Paragraphs (c) and (d) concern unfair practices with respect to markets. The two parts have some similarities, and some overlapping protections. Neither part requires that proof of completed or market wide harm to competition to find a violation of the Act. This is consistent with USDA's longstanding interpretation and enforcement of the Act, but it is not consistent with all Federal court decisions.

Proposed § 201.308 addresses unfairness. Unfairness is not an economic term, and it is not among the market failures that OMB has defined in Circular A-4. Some of the factors in proposed § 201.308 are intended to limit the exercise market power. But proposed § 201.308 also regulates practices unrelated to market power.

Exercise of market power has long been a problem in the meat packing industry. From the 1880s to 1920, a series of investigations found the largest meat packers controlling prices through a variety of methods. Those findings were much of the reason that Congress passed the Act in 1921. [ 136 ]

Market power in livestock, meat, and poultry markets has not gone away. Academic and government sponsored research has consistently found that meat packers have some measure of market power, especially as livestock buyers. Livestock and poultry markets are characterized by atomistic livestock producers and poultry growers numbering in the tens of thousands that deal with a much smaller number of downstream packers and poultry processors that may possess some oligopsonistic characteristics. Table 1 below lists four-firm concentration ratios for fed cattle, hogs, chickens, and turkeys for 2010 through 2019. The concentration ratios were relatively stable over this period. The fed cattle industry has been the most concentrated with four firms controlling between 83 and 85 percent for the entire period.

The nature of livestock production compounds the market power problems. When livestock, are ready for slaughter, whether they are cattle, hogs, or lambs, they must go to the packer within a few weeks, or the quality starts to decrease. As the quality of the livestock fades, producers pay the costs of continuing to feed livestock while the value decreases. As a result, livestock producers are relatively determined sellers who have a limited capacity to wait for market conditions to change.

Market power in livestock, meat, and poultry markets is a continuing problem that USDA has regulated through the Act since the 1920s. USDA has consistently established the rules and regulations necessary to maintain fair and competitive markets, including protecting producers from marketplace abuses and injuries they could not avoid. One example is § 201.70, which requires packers to conduct their livestock buying operations independently and in competition with other packers. [ 137 ] Proposed § 201.308 is another step in the ongoing regulation of competition in the livestock, meat, and poultry markets. Proposed § 201.308 is designed to mitigate market power and the implications of market power especially on producers. It would also address fair trade practices in the marketplace generally. Unlike many of the regulations under the Act, proposed § 201.308 does not place any specific requirements on packers, live poultry dealers, or swine contractors.

Instead, it is a method of evaluating acts, practices, and methods of competition to determine if they are violations of the Act. Proposed § 201.308 would be a new regulation, and USDA has not articulated the factors in proposed § 201.308 in enforcing violations of the Act in the past.

USDA has asserted that a violation of the Federal antitrust laws may also violate the Packers and Stockyards Act but that the Packers and Stockyards Act's prohibition on unfair practices incorporates trade practices beyond those covered by the Federal antitrust laws. AMS expects that proposed § 201.308 will improve its enforcement of the Act and make livestock, meat, and poultry markets more competitive.

Executive Order 12866 requires an assessment of costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably feasible regulatory alternatives and an explanation of why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the potential alternatives. Including proposed § 201.308, AMS considered four regulatory alternatives. The first alternative that AMS considered is to maintain the status quo and not propose the new rule. The second alternative that AMS considered is to propose § 201.308 as presented in this rulemaking. This second alternative is AMS's preferred alternative as will be explained below.

The third alternative that AMS considered is limiting the scope of proposed § 201.308 to contain only paragraphs (a) and (b) that concern unfair acts and practices of the currently proposed § 201.308. In other words, this limited scope alternative would limit the scope of the proposed regulation by eliminating paragraphs (c) and (d) which prohibit unfair practices with respect to markets.

AMS considered a fourth alternative of issuing a statement of general policy rather than a new regulation, but AMS chose to propose a regulation because it expects that a regulation will be more effective. Proceeding by regulation also affords all market participants an opportunity to give input on the proposed regulation. AMS did not estimate costs and benefits for a statement of general policy, but AMS estimated costs and benefits for proposed § 201.308 and for the limited scope alternative.

The proposed rule and the limited scope alternative have some similarities but proposed § 201.308 is more comprehensive. It would restrict unfair practices with respect to markets and individual market participants while the limited scope alternative would only restrict unfair practices with respect to market participants.

For either proposed § 201.308 or the limited scope alternative, AMS was not able to estimate indirect costs or indirect benefits that might accrue from the proposed rule. AMS was able to estimate direct costs associated with proposed § 201.308 and the limited scope alternative. Those costs are largely comprised of regulated entities reviewing their own practices for compliance with the new regulation. The cost of reviewing practices is expected to be similar whether regulated entities review for compliance with proposed § 201.308 or the limited scope alternative. AMS does not expect that regulated packers, live poultry dealers, or swine contracts will need to make costly immediate changes in their current practices as a result of the proposed rule's implementation because the proposed rule serves as a framework for agency analysis and enforcement to address problematic practices as they may arise, rather than as a mandate to ameliorate specifically identified practices at present.

With similar direct costs and uncertain indirect costs, AMS prefers the more comprehensive proposed § 201.308 over the limited scope alternative. It is more consistent with the administration's policy goals and more consistent with policies of other Federal agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission.

AMS expects that proposed § 201.308 will improve its regulation of livestock, meat, and poultry markets, making the markets more competitive and fairer. Applying a quantified dollar value to the improvement would be a difficult task. Because proposed § 201.308 is a method of evaluating acts, practices, and methods of competition, the value of any improvements would depend on many unknown factors.

AMS expects that benefits of proposed § 201.308 would accrue to livestock producers, poultry growers, and consumers. To the extent that predatory practices are prevented, Start Printed Page 53902 smaller packers, live poultry dealers, or swine contractors may benefit. Economic models of market power involve a deadweight loss to society as well transfers from producers, consumers, or both to the firms exerting market power. To the extent that proposed § 201.308 reduces acts, practices, and unfair methods that limit competition, society will benefit from the reduction in the deadweight loss, which is a loss to society due to a misallocation of resources. Livestock producers, poultry growers, consumers, competing packers, or all four might benefit from a reduction in the deadweight loss. Competition models also have a transfer component, in which income is transferred to firms exerting market power.

As an example of potential benefits from improving competition, AMS estimated economic gains in losses for a range of hypothetical changes in market power in cattle and beef markets. Estimated gains are not available for the other livestock, meat, and poultry markets. These values are not estimates of benefits of proposed § 201.308. They are only examples that indicate possible benefits of improving competitive conditions.

Table 2 presents the economic changes in packer market power for cattle associated with changing level of market competition, where baseline price and quantity information are for 2023 and are from USDA's November 2023 edition of World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. [ 138 ] The economic model to estimate the economic impacts is from Hadechek, Ma, and Sexton as are all the model parameters except for the WASDE data. [ 139 ] The model assumes buyer and seller market power parameters falling in the range of 0 to 1. While these are not tied to a particular form of competition, a value of 0.15 would be what the Department of Justice and FTC regard as moderate firm concentration under their joint their 2023 Merger Guidelines and 0.30 would be well into the range that it considers as highly concentrated. [ 140 ] The value of 0.15 corresponds to a Hirschman-Herfindahl index (HHI) of approximately 1,500, and 0.3 corresponds to HHI value of approximately 2,500 to 3,300, which is well above the value of 1,800 that is considered highly concentrated market in the 2023 Merger Guidelines. [ 141 ] While the intent of this proposed rule is to lower incidence of practices that are harmful to competition, one cannot discount the possibility that litigation spurred by the proposed rule could deter entry or cause firms to leave the market and hinder innovative or even practices that make the market more competitive or more efficient.

The analysis in the table below holds seller market power fixed at 0.15 and has output under packer market power parameters of 0.15 in section A and 0.30 in section B. In both sections, results are provided for 1 and 3 percent decreases in the market power parameter for the beef packer. A 3 percent change in market power is likely on the high side given that USDA does not expect that packers, live poultry dealers or swine contractors will make large changes as a result of proposed § 201.308. With the assumed decreases and base levels of market power, production increases, retail prices decrease, and the producers' price of cattle increases with a decrease in market power. With a decrease in market power, gross returns to cattle producers increase and processor variable profits ( i.e., not including fixed costs) decrease. Total market benefits (the producer plus consumer surplus line) increase with a decrease in market power. When the packer market power parameter decreases by 3 percent, deadweight loss decreases $26 million and $54 million when the buyer market power parameter is 0.15 and 0.30, respectively.

To put some perspective of the size of the deadweight loss changes relative to the market value of cattle sold for slaughter, even their largest changes in table 2 are 0.18 percent the size of the forecasted value of cattle production for 2023 from USDA's November 2023 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate. [ 142 ] Note that while the percent change in market power are in the same in parts A and B of the table, the economic impacts are larger in part B as the baseline level of market power is higher in there.

Proposed § 201.208 would apply to all livestock, meat, and poultry industries, including hogs and pork, sheep and lamb, and poultry. Although AMS is only providing an example for cattle and beef markets, AMS would also expect benefits from a more competitive market in each of the livestock, meat, and poultry industries. Sizes of the changes would be different due to differences in size and structure of other livestock, meat, and poultry markets, but potentially much larger than the expected direct costs associated to § 201.308.

AMS is not able to make quantified estimates of indirect costs or benefits associated with proposed § 201.308. However, AMS is able to estimate direct costs associated with proposed § 201.308. AMS expects that packers, swine contractors, and live poultry dealers will incur direct administrative costs of reviewing and learning the proposed rule, assessing any impacts on their business operations, and then reviewing marketing and production contracts to ensure compliance with proposed § 201.308. Direct administrative costs are estimated below for (1) firm level costs to learn and review the proposed rule and assess any impacts on their business operations; and (2) in contract level costs to review production and marketing contracts to ensure compliance with the proposed rule. AMS expects that the firm level and contract level costs are one-time costs to be incurred the first year the rule would be effective and that these costs will not be recurring costs. These estimates do not include any costs or benefits associated with changes in practices resulting from either firm level or contract level reviews.

AMS expects that proposed § 201.308 will prompt packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors to incur one-time costs to first review and learn the rule and then assess any impacts on their business operations. Firm level costs are estimated as the total value of the time required to review and learn the proposed rule and to assess any impacts on their business operations.

AMS expects the direct administrative costs of complying with proposed § 201.308 will be relatively small. Proposed § 201.308 is consistent with long held USDA policy, although the position has not yet been established in regulations. Consequently, AMS expects packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors to make relatively few changes to their business operations and production and marketing contracts.

AMS estimated firm level administrative costs by identifying the regulated entity staff that will be involved in reviewing and learning the proposed rule, assessing any impacts on their business operations, estimating the respective time requirement for each regulated entity profession, and obtaining estimates of hourly costs for each profession. AMS expects most of the time at the firm level will come from meetings with company executives, their assistants, and legal staff to review the proposed rule and assess any impacts on their business operations. At the contract level, most firms maintain their production and marketing contracts in an electronic format and IT staff will be needed to provide access to all contracts in the contract review process. Managers, assistants, and legal staff will then review the contracts to ensure compliance with the proposed rule. Multiplying estimated hours required by estimated hourly costs will yield total costs by profession, which is then summed across professions to obtain total firm level administrative costs.

Firm level and contract level estimates of the amount of time required to review and learn the proposed rule, assess impacts on business operation, and to review contracts were provided by AMS subject matter experts. These experts were auditors and supervisors with many years of experience in AMS's PSD conducting investigations and compliance reviews of regulated entities. AMS used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Start Printed Page 53904 Employment and Wage Statistics, released in May 2022, for the time values in this analysis. [ 143 ] BLS estimated an average hourly wage for an administrative assistant salary in animal slaughtering and processing at $20.64 per hour. The average hourly wage for managers in animal slaughtering and processing is $61.24 per hour. The average hourly wage for IT system managers in animal slaughtering and processing is $66.07 per hour. The average hourly wage for lawyers in food manufacturing is $103.81 per hour. In applying the cost estimates, AMS marked-up the wages by 41.79 percent  [ 144 ] to account for fringe benefits.

For firm level costs, AMS expects that on average, each poultry dealer, beef packer, pork packer, and swine contractor will spend 20 hours of administrative assistant time, 40 hours of management time, 5 hours of IT systems manager time, and 40 hours of legal time to learn the proposed rule and assess any impacts on their business operations.

For firm level costs, AMS estimated the number of regulated entities impacted, that is, the number of live poultry dealers, livestock packers, and swine contractors, from information PSD receives in its required forms. Live poultry dealers are currently required to file form PSD 3002, “Annual Report of Live Poultry Dealers,” OMB control number 0581-0308, with AMS. Ninety live poultry dealers filed annual reports with AMS for their 2021 fiscal year. Livestock packers are currently required to file form PSD 3004, “Annual Report of Packers” OMB control number 0581-0308, with AMS. Among other things, each packer reports the number of head of cattle or calves, hogs, and lamb, sheep, or goats that it processed. Three hundred sixty-five packers that processed cattle or calves, hogs, or lamb, sheep or goats filed reports or were due to file a report with AMS for their fiscal year 2021. Two hundred sixty-one were beef or veal packers, 196 were pork packers, and 139 were lamb, sheep, or goat packers. [ 145 ] The number of beef, pork, and lamb packers do not sum to 365 because many firms slaughtered more than one species of livestock. For instance, 345 packers slaughtered both beef and pork.

AMS estimated that on average, live poultry dealers that are regulated under the proposed rule will require 20 hours of administrative time at $29.27 per hour costing the industry $53,000  [ 146 ] ; 40 hours of management time at $86.83 per hour costing the industry $313,000  [ 147 ] ; 5 hours of IT systems managers' time at $93.68 per hour costing the industry $42,000  [ 148 ] ; and 40 hours of an attorney's time at $147.19 per hour costing the industry $530,000  [ 149 ] for learning and reviewing the proposed rule and assessing any impacts on their business operations. The total cost for poultry dealers to learn and review the proposed rule is estimated to be $937,000. [ 150 ]

AMS utilized similar calculations to estimate the costs to packers and swine contractors, as shown in the table below. The estimated total costs will be $2.72 million  [ 151 ] for beef packers, $8.93 million  [ 152 ] for pork packers and swine contractors, and $1.45 million  [ 153 ] for lamb packers. The cost to pork packers is an expected $2.04 million and $6.88 million to swine contractors. Total firm level costs across all entities totals $13.13 million.

This section estimates the costs associated with reviewing production and marketing contracts to ensure compliance with proposed § 201.308, after learning and reviewing the proposed rule and assessing any business impacts. The total cost to review contracts is estimated by multiplying the number of contracts in each industry by the estimated hours for regulated entity professionals to review the contracts and by the hourly cost of each profession.

AMS estimated that there are 23,047 broiler grower agreements, 8,094 swine production agreements, [ 154 ] 1,960 hog marketing agreements, [ 155 ] and 1,116 feedlot agreements. [ 156 ] AMS does not estimate sheep production or marketing agreements because they are structured differently than contracts for other species and would not need to be reviewed under this proposed rule.

The time requirement by each regulated entity professional to review production and marketing contracts would be less than the time requirement in learning and reviewing the proposed rule assessing any business impacts. AMS estimates that it will take 0.5 hours each for administrative assistants, managers, IT system managers, and attorneys to review the production and marketing contracts in the respective livestock and poultry industries.

The table above shows that the contract level administrative costs of reviewing the contracts are $4.11 million for poultry dealers, [ 157 ] $199,000 for beef packers, [ 158 ] $350,000 for pork packers, [ 159 ] and $1.44 million for swine contractors. [ 160 ] Lamb contracts are structured differently from other species' contracts, are mainly fixed-price contracts, and are not expected to be reviewed under this proposed rule. The total administrative cost of reviewing contracts is $6.11 million. [ 161 ]

Total administrative industry costs are presented in the table above. The description of estimated firm level and contract level administrative costs were presented above. AMS expects that producers will not face any costs from the proposed rule. Firm level costs to learn the proposed rule and assess any impacts on business operations are estimated to be $14.03 million and the contract level costs to review production and marketing contracts are estimated to be $6.11 million, for a total estimated administrative cost of $20.14 million in the proposed rule. AMS expects that the firm level and contract level costs which comprise the total administrative industry costs are one-time costs to be incurred the first year the proposed rule would be effective and that these costs will not be recurring costs.

AMS believes that proposed § 201.308 may possibly reduce litigation due to the clarity provided by the proposed rule as to the unfair practices with respect to market participants and markets that violate the Act. However, the proposed rule possibly increases litigation to the extent that AMS or producers are better able to identify unfair practices and thus may be more likely to seek relief in courts. AMS is uncertain as to which of these offsetting effects will dominate and to what extent. Therefore, AMS does not estimate litigation costs in this analysis.

AMS is unable to quantify any costs or benefits that would arise from changing business practices due to proposed § 201.308. If AMS's enforcement of proposed § 201.308 has the effect of improving competitive conditions in the markets, then the changing market conditions would likely result in a reduction in welfare for packers and live poultry dealers and an increase for producers and consumers. These would be costs to packers and live poultry dealers, and would be offset by gains for consumers, growers, and producers.

Changing competitive conditions could have production efficiency effects, which may or may not be larger than market power effects, [ 162 ] e.g., decreasing market power could result in more smaller packers with higher production costs per unit. Hence, a full accounting of net benefits would involve analysis of demand and supply changes.

The alternative is the same as the preferred alternative, with the exception that the alternative would limit the scope of the proposed rule to § 201.308(a) and (b). Section 201.308(c) and (d) from the preferred alternative would not be part of the limited scope alternative.

Proposed § 201.308(a) protects market participants from the type of unjustified acts or practices that produce unavoidable injury that cannot be justified by countervailing benefits to producers or to competition. Proposed § 201.308(b) provides criteria under which likely injuries must be halted before actual injury occurs.

Proposed § 201.308(a) defines unfair practices as those that injure market participants, while § 201.308(c) defines unfair practices as those that result in harms to the market. Both sections of the preferred alternative define “unfair” from slightly different vantage points. Combining these provisions results in a more comprehensive definition of the term “unfair.”

While AMS believes the inclusion of both provisions fully define the meaning and applicability of the term “unfair” under the Act, AMS considered a regulatory alternative of severing § 201.308(a) and (b) from Start Printed Page 53906 § 201.308(c) and (d) and eliminating § 201.308(c) and (d) as a viable regulatory alternative. A rule of that kind meets many of the policy goals for this rulemaking. What this regulatory alternative does not do is to define unfair practices as those that result in harm to the market. Thus, this regulatory alternative provides is less comprehensive compared to the preferred alternative.

In terms of the costs of complying with the limited scope alternative, the costs are similar, but slightly smaller than the preferred alternative. AMS expects that regulated entities will still need to spend time understanding the limited scope alternative, its impacts on its business operations, and will still need to review all contracts to ensure compliance with the proposed rule. Given the amount of overlap in defining the term “unfair” in the preferred alternative, AMS expects that regulated entities will need to spend 90 percent of the time to review the limited scope alternative, assess the impact of its businesses, and review contracts for compliance with the alternative rule.

AMS expects that under the limited scope alternative live poultry dealers, packers and swine contractors expend 90 percent of the time in firm level administrative costs in learning and reviewing the alternative rule and assessing any impacts on their business operations, and 90 percent of the time in reviewing contracts. The time requirement for administrative assistants is expected to be 18 hours, 36 hours for managers, 4.5 hours for IT systems support and 36 hours for attorneys. The time requirement of reviewing production and marketing contracts is expected to be 0.45 hours for each profession. It is expected that the respective regulated entities reviewing the rule and assessing business impacts will be the same as in the preferred alternative, and their respective hourly compensation will remain the same as in the preferred alternative. The number of live poultry dealers, packers and swine contractors will also remain the same as in the preferred alternative.

The estimated firm level costs will be $0.84 million for poultry dealers, [ 163 ] $2.45 million for beef packers, [ 164 ] and $8.03 million for pork packers and swine contractors, [ 165 ] and $1.30 million for lamb packers. [ 166 ] The firm level cost for pork packers is $1.84 million and $6.20 million for swine contractors. Total firm level costs across all entities total $12.63 million. [ 167 ]

The contract level administrative costs are also presented in the table above. AMS estimated that it will cost poultry dealers $3.70 million, [ 168 ] $0.18 million for beef packers, [ 169 ] $1.62 million for pork packers and swine contractors, [ 170 ] and no cost to lamb packers. It is expected that lamb packers will not incur a contract level administrative cost because production and marketing contracts are structured differently, and it is not expected that the contracts will be reviewed. The contract level cost for pork packers is $315,000 and $1.30 million for swine contractors. The total contract level administrative cost is expected to be $5.50 million. [ 171 ]

As shown in the table above, the 10-year PV costs at three percent for the proposed limited scope alternative is expected to be $17.59 million. The total cost to the poultry industry is expected to be $4.55 million, $2.62 million for beef packers, $9.65 million for pork packers and swine contractors, and $1.3 million for the lamb packers. The 10-year PV costs at seven percent for the proposed limited scope alternative is expected to be $16.94 million.

The benefits of the limited scope alternative are similar to the benefits of the preferred alternative, since both alternatives provide a definition of “unfair” acts and practices and may lead to more competitive livestock, meat, and poultry markets. AMS prefers to propose the alternative of § 201.308(a) through (d) because it offers a more comprehensive guide to market participants than the limited scope alternative.

AMS proposes to establish § 201.308 to define how AMS evaluates unfair acts or practices and unfair methods of competition under section 202(a) the Start Printed Page 53907 P&S Act. The term “unfair” has caused confusion and contention in the industry and in courts, and this rulemaking is intended mitigate both.

Proposed § 201.308 is made of four parts. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed § 201.308 concern unfair acts or practices with respect to market participants. Paragraphs (c) and (d) concern unfair practices with respect to markets. Parts of both of these provisions relate to the likely harms the Act was designed to prevent; paragraph (b) helps define paragraph (a), and paragraph (d) helps define paragraph (c). No part, however, requires that proof of harm to competition to find a violation of the Act. This is consistent with USDA's interpretation and enforcement of the Act, but it is not consistent with all Federal court decisions.

Paragraph (a) of proposed § 201.308 defines an unfair act or practice as one that causes or will likely cause substantial injury to a market participant, which the market participant could not reasonably avoid and which the regulated entity that has engaged in the act cannot justify by establishing countervailing benefits to market participants or competition. Paragraph (b) includes factors the Secretary of Agriculture may consider when evaluating whether an unfair act or practice is likely to cause substantial injury. Factors include the extent to which an act or practice impedes or restricts the ability to participate in the market, the extent to which an act or practice subverts competitive market forces, the size any potential injury, and the extent to which the act or practice interferes with free decision making.

Paragraph (c) of proposed § 201.308 defines an unfair practice with respect to markets as a practice that is collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful, or exclusionary and that may negatively affect competitive conditions.

Addressing the exercise of market power is one purpose of proposed § 201.308, although it potentially addresses other issues concerning “unfairness” under the Act as well. Market power has been a problem in the meat packing industry since the invention of refrigerated rail cars enabled Chicago packers to process western livestock and ship the carcasses east at costs lower than eastern packers could achieve. From the 1880s to 1920, a series of investigations found the largest meat packers controlling prices through a variety of methods. Those findings were much of the reason that Congress passed the Act in 1921. [ 172 ]

Market power in livestock, meat, and poultry markets is a continuing problem that USDA has regulated through the Act since the 1920s. USDA has consistently established the rules and regulations necessary to maintain fair and competitive markets, including protecting producers from marketplace abuses and harms they could not avoid. One example is § 201.70, which requires packers to conduct their livestock buying operations independently and in competition with other packers. [ 173 ] Proposed § 201.308 is another step in the ongoing regulation of competition in the livestock, meat, and poultry markets. Proposed § 201.308 is designed to mitigate market power and the implications of market power especially on producers. It would also address fair trade practices in the marketplace generally. Unlike many of the regulations under the Act, proposed § 201.308 does not place any specific requirements on packers, live poultry dealers, or swine contractors.

Instead, it provides a framework for evaluating acts, practices, and methods of competition to determine if they are violations of the Act. Proposed § 201.308 would be a new regulation, and USDA has not articulated the factors in proposed § 201.308 as such in enforcing violations of the Act in the past. However, the preamble to the rulemaking explains that past enforcement actions under the Act have been consistent with the factors in proposed § 201.308.

While proposed § 201.308 is consistent with actions that USDA has taken in the past, it is less clear what different acts or practices may violate proposed § 201.308 that USDA would not have been considered violations without the proposed rule. USDA has asserted that a violation of the Federal antitrust laws may also violate the Packers and Stockyards Act, but that the Packers and Stockyards Act's prohibition on unfair practices incorporates trade practices beyond those covered by the Federal antitrust laws. AMS expects that proposed § 201.308 will improve its enforcement of the Act and make livestock, meat, and poultry markets fairer and more competitive. AMS estimated administrative costs of proposed § 201.308 in two parts, firm level and contract level. In firm level costs, AMS expects that each small packer, swine contractor, and live poultry dealer would need to review and learn the proposed rule and to assess any impacts on their business operations. In contract level costs, AMS expects that small entities would review production and marketing contracts to ensure compliance with the proposed rule.

The SBA defines small businesses by their North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS). [ 174 ] Live poultry dealers, NAICS 311615, are considered small businesses if they have fewer than 1,250 employees. Meat packers, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, and goat packers, NAICS 311611, are small businesses if they have fewer than 1,000 employees. Swine contractors, NAICS 112210, are considered small if their sales are less than $1 million annually.

AMS maintains data on live poultry dealers from the annual reports these firms file with AMS. Currently, 90 live poultry dealers would be subject to the regulation. Fifty-five of the live poultry dealers will be small businesses according to the SBA standard.

Most packers will be small businesses, although large packers are responsible for most meat production. According to the SBA standard, there are 255 small beef packers, 185 small pork packers, and 139 small lamb packers. All lamb packers are considered small.

AMS does not have similar records for swine contractors because they are not required to register with AMS or provide annual reports. Table 24 of the 2022 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census of Agriculture  [ 175 ] indicated that there were Start Printed Page 53908 661 swine contractors in 2022. The Census of Agriculture table has categories for the number of head that swine contractors sold, but not the value of the head sold. AMS expects that the 461 swine contractors that sold 5,000 head of hogs or more were large businesses, and the 194 contractors that sold less than 5,000 head were small businesses.

As shown in the table below, the firm level cost for small poultry dealers is $573,000, [ 176 ] $2.66 million for small beef packers, [ 177 ] $1.93 million for small pork packers, [ 178 ] $1.12 million for small swine contractors, [ 179 ] and $1.45 million for small lamb packers. The total firm level cost for small firms from the proposed rule is $7.73 million. [ 180 ]

AMS estimated the small business contract level costs by estimating small businesses' share (the market share) of all businesses contract level costs. The percent of poultry growing arrangements held by small businesses is 3.2 percent, the percent of production contracts held by small swine contractors is 8.9 percent, the portion of hog marketing agreements with small firms is 11.3 percent, and the percent of cattle feedlot agreements with small businesses is 17.4 percent. Contract level administrative costs are not estimated for lamb packers because these contracts are structured differently than for other species, and lamb packers are not expected to revise contracts under the proposed rule.

Contract level costs for small poultry dealers are $131,000, [ 181 ] $35,000 for small beef packers, [ 182 ] $40,000 for small pork packers, [ 183 ] and $127,000 for small swine contractors. [ 184 ] The total contract level costs for small firms from the proposed rule are $334,000. [ 185 ]

The following table compares the average per entity first-year costs of proposed § 201.308 to the average revenue per establishment for all regulated small businesses. First-year costs are appropriate for a threshold analysis because all expected costs occur in the first year.

Average first-year costs as a percent of revenues are small, ranging from 0.01 percent for beef packers to 2.66 percent for swine contractors. Costs are highest for swine contractors because average revenues for swine contractors are considerably smaller than average revenues for packers and live poultry dealers.

AMS considered an alternative to proposed § 201.308. The alternative would be the same as the preferred alternative, with the exception that the alternative would limit the scope of the rule to § 201.308(a) and (b). Section 201.308(c) and (d) from the proposed rule would not be part of the alternative. AMS expects that the direct costs associated with this limited scope alternative will be similar to the costs associated with the currently proposed Start Printed Page 53909 § 201.308. AMS also expects that regulated packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors would need to review their business practices and their marketing and production contracts with livestock producers as well as their production contracts with live poultry dealers. They might be able to spend a little less time on this review because there would only be about half as much new regulation to learn and comprehend.

AMS still expects that regulated packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors would need still need to spend about 90 percent of the time to review the alternative as they needed to review the proposed regulation. All of the direct administrative costs were due to the time required for regulation packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors to review the regulation. As a consequence, AMS's estimate of the administrative costs for the alternative are 90 percent of the costs for proposed rule. The table below is as summary of expected direct cost associated with this limited scope alternative.

Direct costs associated with the limited scope alternative are not much different than the direct costs associated with proposed § 201.308. Similarly, to the proposed rule, all costs occur in the first year. Also like the proposed rule, costs are not likely significant for packers or live poultry dealers. However, for swine contractors, costs are expected to be more than 2 percent of net sales for the first year the alternative would be effective. For each of the remaining years, cost to swine contractors would not likely be significant.

AMS prefers to propose the alternative of § 201.308(a) through (d) because it offers more comprehensive protection to livestock producers and contract growers than the limited scope alternative. Direct costs to regulated entities would likely be smaller with the limited scope alternative, but they would not be much smaller.

AMS was not able to quantify indirect costs or benefits associated with proposed § 201.308 or with the limited scope alternative. To the extent that either alternative would improve the competitive environment in livestock, meat, or poultry markets, the regulation would likely result in reduced welfare to meat packers, and live poultry dealers and increased welfare to livestock producers and contract growers. Even small improvements in the market could cause benefits that are much larger than the direct costs estimated for either proposed § 201.308 or the limited scope alternative.

The proposed rule may have the effect of reducing deadweight losses. To the extent that packers, live poultry dealers, or swine contractors transfer surpluses to growers and producers due to improved competition caused by proposed § 201.308 or the alternative, AMS will consider the regulation a success.

Small businesses are typically not associated with market power or practices that restrict competition, but in small markets the largest firms can be small businesses. In the lamb industry, for example, the largest packer is a small business.

AMS expects that the direct costs associated with proposed § 201.308 would be significant for a substantial number of swine contractors. AMS was not able to quantify costs associated with changes to the level of competition in the regulated markets, but changes could result in significant costs to substantial numbers of packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors. However, these costs, which are actually transfers in surplus, are the intended purpose of the regulation. AMS acknowledges that individual businesses may have relevant data to supplement our analysis. AMS encourages small stakeholders to submit any relevant comments and data during the comment period.

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult with Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications. This includes regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions. Consultation is required when such policies have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. The following is a summary of activity to date.

AMS engaged in a Tribal Consultation in conjunction with a previous proposed rule also under the Act (“Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity Under the Packers and Stockyards Act,” 87 FR 60010 ) on January 19, 2023, in person in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and virtually. AMS received multiple Tribal comments from that Consultation, many of which were specific to and considered in that rulemaking. In that consultation, Tribes raised legal concerns with respect to the jurisdiction of the AMS enforcement of the P&S Act. Tribes commented that the P&S Act does not apply to Tribes and Tribal entities. Those comments raise a legal issue of statutory interpretation, but these concerns are not directly implicated by this proposed rule. Additionally, the proposed rule would provide a framework for AMS analysis of unfair practices and does not mandate specific changes to particularly identified practices. Therefore, other than the legal issue AMS does not find that this rulemaking carries substantial direct Tribal implications.

AMS recognizes and supports the Secretary's desire to incorporate Tribal Start Printed Page 53910 and Indigenous perspectives, remove barriers, and encourage Tribal self-determination principles in USDA programs, including hearing and understanding Tribal views on legal authorities and cost implications as facts and circumstances develop. If a Tribe requests additional consultation, AMS will work with USDA's Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided in accordance with Executive Order 13175 .

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988 —Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have a retroactive effect. If adopted, this proposed rule would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rulemaking. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rulemaking.

AMS has considered the potential civil rights implications of this proposed rule on members of protected groups to ensure that no person or group would be adversely or disproportionately at risk or discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital or family status, or protected genetic information. This proposed rule does not contain any requirements related to eligibility, benefits, or services that would have the purpose or effect of excluding, limiting, or otherwise disadvantaging any individual, group, or class of persons on one or more prohibited bases.

In its review, AMS conducted a Civil Rights Impact Analysis, which resulted in a finding that Asian, and Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders could be disproportionately impacted by this proposed rule, insofar as fewer farmers in those groups participate in livestock and poultry production than would be expected by their representation among U.S. farmers in general and, therefore, are less likely to benefit from the enhanced protections provided by this proposed rule. Other impacted farmers, including men, women, Hispanics, Whites, Black/African Americans, and American Indians would not be disproportionately impacted by this proposed rule.

The effects of this proposed regulation would fall on slaughtering packers, swine contractors and live poultry dealers. The primary beneficiaries of proposed § 201.308 would include farmers, feedlot owners, swine production contract growers, and poultry growers. These producers and growers are those most likely harmed by unfair and deceptive practices resulting from the actions or conduct of firms subject to the P&S Act.

Protected groups would see minimal, if any, direct or indirect costs because of the implementation or enforcement of the new regulation. Although the required analysis indicates a disproportionate impact for Asian, and Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, because the new regulation would impact all industry participants equally, no individual or group would likely be adversely impacted.

USDA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act by promoting the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4 ) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions of State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rulemaking. This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

• Confidential business information
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Surety bonds
• Trade practices

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS proposes to amend 9 CFR part 201 as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 181-229c .

2. Add § 201.308 to read as follows:

(a) Unfair practices with respect to market participants. An act by a regulated entity with respect to one or more market participants is an unfair practice for the purposes of section 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 as amended and supplemented ( 7 U.S.C. 192(a) ) if the act causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to one or more market participants, which the participant or participants cannot reasonably avoid, and which the regulated entity that has engaged in the act cannot justify by establishing countervailing benefits to the market participant or participants or to competition in the market that outweighs the substantial injury or likelihood of substantial injury.

(b) Standards with respect to market participants. When assessing whether a practice under paragraph (a) of this section causes or is likely to cause substantial injury, and therefore the Secretary must halt the practice, the Secretary may consider:

(1) The extent to which the practice may impede or restrict the ability to participate in a market, interfere with the free exercise of decision-making by market participants, tend to subvert the operation of competitive market forces, deny a covered producer the full value of their products or services, or violates traditional doctrines of law or equity.

(2) The potential magnitude of the injury. An injury may be substantial if it causes significant harm to one market participant or if it imposes a small harm to many market participants.

(3) The extent to which the producer would have to take unreasonable steps to avoid injury. An injury is not reasonably avoidable solely because the practice has been disclosed. A market participant is not required to take unreasonable steps, such as exiting the market or making unreasonable additional investments or efforts, to avoid the harm.

(c) Unfair practices with respect to markets. A practice is unfair for the purposes of section 202(a) of the Packers Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented ( 7 U.S.C. 192(a) ) if it is a collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful or exclusionary method of competition that may negatively affect competitive conditions. Start Printed Page 53911

(d) Standards with respect to markets. When assessing whether a practice poses or is likely to pose a threat to markets under paragraph (c) of this section, and therefore the Secretary must halt the practice, the Secretary may consider the following:

(1) The extent to which the practice impedes or restricts the ability to participate in a market, tends to subvert the operation of competitive market forces, interferes with the free exercise of decision-making by market participants, violates traditional doctrines of law or equity, or has indicia of oppressiveness, such as evidence of anticompetitive intent or purpose, or absence of an independent legitimate business reason for the conduct.

(2) The extent to which the practice tends to foreclose or impair the opportunities of market participants, reduces competition between rivals, limits choice, distorts or impedes the process of competition, or denies a market participant the full value of their products or services.

Melissa Bailey,

Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.

1.  The position of Judicial Officer was established pursuant to the Act of April 4, 1940 ( 7 U.S.C. 450c-450g ); Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, 18 FR 3219 (1953), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app. at 1490 (1994); and sec. 212(a)(1) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 ( 7 U.S.C. 6912(a)(1) ).

2.   See, e.g., City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 668 F.3d 229, 240 (5th Cir. 2012), aff'd, 569 U.S. 290 (2013) (“It is well-established that agencies can choose to announce new rules through adjudication rather than rulemaking.” ( citing NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 294 (1974))); Mobil Exploration & Producing N. Am., Inc. v. FERC, 881 F.2d 193, 198 (5th Cir.1989); see also Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 207 (1947) (“The scope of our review of an administrative order wherein a new principle is announced and applied is no different from that which pertains to ordinary administrative action.”).

3.   In re: IBP, Inc., 57 Agric. Dec. 1353 (U.S.D.A. July 31, 1998).

4.   Hays Livestock Comm'n Co. v. Maly Livestock Comm'n Co., 498 F.2d 925, 927 (10th Cir. 1974).

5.   7 U.S.C. 192(a) .

6.  See section 407 ( 7 U.S.C. 228(a) ): “The Secretary may make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. . .”. Congress understood it was giving the Secretary “the power to prevent packers, stockyards, companies, and all persons in the stockyards from engaging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practices or devices.” Report of the House Committee on Agriculture, H.R. Rep. No. 77 67th Congress, 1st session at pg. 2 (May 18, 1921). When amending the statute in 1987, this authority with respect to live poultry dealers was explained: “the Packers and Stockyards Administration will retain jurisdiction as the act currently provides. These transactions include things like weighing practices and contract compliance.” 133 Cong. Rec. H9000-02, 133 Cong. Rec. H9000-02, H9002, 1987 WL 850252.

7.  H.R. Rep. no. 67-77 at 2 (1921).

8.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” chapter 3, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ . (The report provides the following acknowledgement: “A U.S. Department of Agriculture-Washington Center for Equitable Growth cooperative agreement supported the research and writing of this report. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author and should not be construed to represent any official U.S. Department of Agriculture or U.S. government determination or policy.”).

9.   75 FR 35338 , 35340 (June 22, 2010).

10.  Scope of section 202(a) and (b) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 82 FR 48594 , 48597 (Oct. 18, 2017).

11.   82 FR 48594 , 48596 (Oct. 18, 2017) (“The purpose of the IFR was to clarify that conduct or actions may violate 7 U.S.C. 192(a) and (b) without adversely affecting, or having a likelihood of adversely affecting, competition. This reiterated USDA's longstanding interpretation that not all violations of the P&S Act require a showing of harm or likely harm to competition. Contrary to comments that GIPSA failed to show that USDA's interpretation was longstanding, USDA has adhered to this interpretation of the P&S Act for decades. DOJ has filed amicus briefs with several Federal appellate courts arguing against the need to show the likelihood of competitive harm for all violations of 7 U.S.C. 192(a) and (b) .” (footnotes omitted)).

12.   See id. at 92568.

13.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” chapter 3, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ . quoting, inter alia, Herbert Hovenkamp, “Does the Packers and Stockyards Act Require Antitrust Harm?” (Philadelphia: Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law, 2011), available at https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/​faculty_​scholarship/​1862 .

14.  When the P&S Act was enacted, Webster's New International Dictionary defined “unfair” as “[n]ot fair in act or character; disingenuous; using or involving trick or artifice; dishonest; unjust; inequitable” (2d. definition); “unjust” as “[c]haracterized by injustice; contrary to justice and right; wrongful”; “undue” as “[n]ot right; not lawful or legal; violating legal or equitable rights; improper” (2d. definition); and “unreasonable” as “[n]ot conformable to reason; irrational” or “immoderate; exorbitant.” Webster's New International Dictionary 578, 2237, 2238, 2245, 2248 (1st ed. 1917). This is the same understanding of the terms today.

15.  See sections 409, 410.

16.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” chapter 3, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ , quoting, inter alia, Herbert Hovenkamp, “Does the Packers and Stockyards Act Require Antitrust Harm?” (Philadelphia: Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law, 2011), available at https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/​faculty_​scholarship/​1862 .

17.  More specifically, subsection (c) reaches certain sales that apportion supply “if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly.” Subsection (d) reaches sales and other transfers wherein parties “receive from or for any other person, any article for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce. Subsection (e) reaches a course of business or any act with “the purpose or with the effect of manipulating. or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce.”

18.   Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913, 919 (2015), citing Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983): “Congress generally acts intentionally when it uses particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another.”

19.   See, e.g., secs. 409 and 410 of the P&S Act.

20.   Capitol Packing Company v. United States, 350 F.2d 67, 76 (10th Cir. 1965); see also Spencer Livestock Comm'n Co. v. USDA, 1988.

21.   Spencer Livestock Comm'n Co. v. USDA, 841 F.2d 1451, 1454 (9th Cir. 1988): section 312 covers “a deceptive practice, whether or not it harmed consumers or competitors.”

22.  In particular see the FTC Act ( 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq. ), Sherman Antitrust Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq. ), and the Clayton Antitrust Act ( 15 U.S.C. 12 et seq. ).

23.   See Fed. Trade Comm'n, Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 9 (Nov. 10, 2022) (discussing competitive injuries cognizable under section 5 of the FTC Act that are not cognizable under the Sherman or Clayton Act); Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217, 1241 (10th Cir. 2007) (Hartz, J. concurring) (“[I]t would be somewhat surprising if `unfair practices' under the PSA had a narrower meaning than `unfair methods of competition' in the FTCA.”).

24.   See, e.g., Bowman v. United States Dep't of Agric., 363 F.2d 81, 85 (5th Cir. 1966) (finding the Department's insolvency standard was not an abuse of discretion because it helps to prevent the unfair practice of late payment).

25.   United States v. Henning, 344 U.S. 66, 72 (1952).

26.  10 N. Harl, Agricultural Law sec. 71.4. (1987), 71-4.

27.  61 Cong. Rec. 2614.

28.   Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905).

29.   Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495 (1922).

30.  The highly concentrated meatpacking industry of the early 20th century was controlled by the industry's “Big Five” operators of Armour, Cudahy, Morris, Swift, and Wilson.

31.  “Annual Report for 1918,” FTC, p. 23, https://www.ftc.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​documents/​reports_​annual/​annual-report-1918/​ar1918_​0.pdf .

32.   Id.

33.  Stafford at 501-502.

34.   United States v. Swift & Co., Equity No. 37623 (Sup. Ct. of D.C. 1920); United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106 (1932).

35.  Id. at 399; see, generally, Michael C. Stumo & Douglas J. O'Brien, “Antitrust Unfairness vs. Equitable Unfairness in Farmer/meat Packer Relationships,” 8 Drake J. Agric. L. 91 (2003).

36.  See 10 N. Harl, Agricultural Law sec. 71.2. (1987).

37.  House Report No. 67-77, at 2 (1921).

38.  House Report No. 67-324, at 3 (1921).

39.  61 Cong. Rec. 1806. When the P&S Act was passed, the FTC was authorized to prohibit only unfair methods of competition. Congress later gave the FTC additional authority to police unfair and deceptive acts or practices. See infra notes 53-57.

40.  Public Law 74-272, 49 Stat. 648, 648 (1935).

41.  H.R. Rep. No. 85-1048 (1957), reprinted in 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5212, 5213 (emphasis added); see also, e.g., id. at 5213 (further observing that protection extends to “unfair, deceptive, unjustly discriminatory” practices by “small” companies in addition to “monopolistic practices.”).

42.  See, e.g., Stafford, 258 U.S. at 513-14; Spencer Livestock, 841 F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Perdue Farms, Inc., 680 F.2d 277, 280 (2d Cir. 1982); Bruhn's Freezer Meats of Chi., Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 438 F.2d 1332, 1336-37 (8th Cir. 1971); Bowman v. USDA, 363 F.2d 81, 85 (5th Cir. 1966); United States v. Donahue Bros., 59 F.2d 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 1932).

43.  See, e.g., In re: Central California Livestock, Inc. d/b/a Machlin Meat Packing Company, 15 Agric. Dec. 97, 110 (1956).

44.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ .

45.   American Airlines, Inc. v. North American Airlines, Inc., 351 U.S. 79, 85 (1956); Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co., 344 U.S. 392, 394-95 (1953); Fed. Trade Comm'n v. R. F. Keppel & Bro., Inc., 291 U.S. 304, 310 (1934).

46.   FTC v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 649 (1931). The Supreme Court later relaxed this holding. FTC v. Raladam Co., 316 U.S. 149 (1942). See Luke Herrine, “The Folklore of Unfairness,” 96 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 431, 465-66, 470-71 (2021).

47.  The Wheeler-Lea Act, ch. 49 sec. 2, 52 Stat. 111 (1938); Stephanie W. Kanwit, 1 Fed. Trade Comm'n. sec. 3:5 (2023-2024).

48.  Charles Wesley Dunn, Wheeler-Lea Act: A Statement of its Legislative Record 411, 418 (1938) (testimony of Ewin Davis, Chair, FTC). The FTC did, however, propose an expansion of its authority to include “unfair acts in commerce” in 1919, before the P&S Act was proposed. High Cost of Living as Affected by Trust and Monopolies, Hearings Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 66th Cong., 1st Sess. 25-26 (1919).

49.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ .

50.   Bruhn's Freezer Meats of Chicago, Inc. v. USDA, 438 F.2d 1332, 1339 (8th Cir. 1971), citing H.R. Rep. No. 67-324 (1921); H.R. Rep. No. 67-77 (1921).

51.  61 Cong. Rec. 1801 (1921), statement of Rep. Haugen; see also Wilson & Co. v. Benson, 286 F.2d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 1961): “The legislative history shows Congress understood the sections of the [Act] under consideration were broader in scope than the antecedent legislation,'” citing 61 Cong. Rec. 1805 (1921).

52.   See Spencer Livestock Comm'n Co. v. USDA, 841 F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir. 1988); Armour & Co. v. United States, 402 F.2d 712 (7th Cir. 1968).

53.  Live Poultry Dealers were added to the Packers and Stockyards Act in 1935 by 49 Stat. 648 (August 14, 1935), and most recently modified in 1987 by 101 Stat. 917, Public Law 100-173 (November 23, 1987). Swine Contractors were added by amendment in 2002, 116 Stat. 134, Public Law 107-171 (May 13, 2002).

54.  The imbalance of market power and size between producers, growers, and concentrated processors is discussed in MacDonald, J. M., Dong, X., & Fuglie, K. (2023). Concentration and competition in U.S. agribusiness (Report No. EIB-256). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://doi.org/​10.32747/​2023.8054022.ers .

55.  Industry concentration is discussed in more detail below in the Regulatory Impact Analysis section; additional four-firm concentration data is provided in table 1 of that section.

56.  USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “2022 Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data,” issued February 2024, tables 38, 24, and 71.

57.   Spencer Livestock Comm'n Co. v. USDA , 841 F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir. 1988), citing H.R. Rep. No. 1048, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1958 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5212, 5213.

58.   7 U.S.C. 192 .

59.   See Michael C. Stumo & Douglas J. O'Brien, “Antitrust Unfairness vs. Equitable Unfairness in Farmer/meat Packer Relationships,” 8 Drake J. Agric. L. 91 (2003); see, also Swift & Co. v. United States , 308 F.2d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1962) (noting that the petitioner claimed that the P&S Act would be violated if its practice was “contrary to good morals because characterized by deception, fraud, had faith or oppression[.]”). See also interpretations of unfair practices in various Federal and State contexts, such as the recent guidance by the U.S. Department of Transportation 85 FR 78707 (2020). Other commentary concurs. See Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth , May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ ; Peter C. Carstensen, “The Packers and Stockyards Act: A History of Failure to Date,” The CPI Antitrust Journal (2) (2010), available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/​assets/​Uploads/​CarstensenAPR-2.pdf ; Herbert Hovenkamp, “Does the Packers and Stockyards Act Require Antitrust Harm?” (Philadelphia: Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law, 2011), available at https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/​faculty_​scholarship/​1862 .

60.   See, e.g., In re Pilgrim's Pride, 728 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2013): “violations of the PSA are not strictly limited to the traditional antitrust realms of price-fixing conspiracies and monopolization”; Swift & Co. v. US , 393 F.3d 247, 253 (7th Cir. 1968): section 202's prohibitions “are broader and more far-reaching than the Sherman Act or even section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act”; Swift & Co. v. US , 308 F.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1962): section 202 is “broader in scope than antecedent legislation such as [the Sherman Act, section 2 of the Clayton Act, section 5 of the FTC Act, and section 3 of the Interstate Commerce Act]”.

61.  See, e.g., Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022; https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ ; Peter C. Carstensen, “The Packers and Stockyards Act: A History of Failure to Date,” The CPI Antitrust Journal (2) (2010), available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/​assets/​Uploads/​CarstensenAPR-2.pdf ; see also Herbert Hovenkamp, “Does the Packers and Stockyards Act Require Antitrust Harm?” (Philadelphia: Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law, 2011), available at https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/​faculty_​scholarship/​1862 .

62.  Peter C. Carstensen, “The Packers & Stockyards Act: A History of Failure to Date,” The CPI Antitrust Journal (April 2010), available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/​assets/​Uploads/​CarstensenAPR-2.pdf ; see also, generally, Leonard, Christopher, “The Meat Racket ” (2014); see also, e.g., C. Robert Taylor, “Legal and Economic Issues with the Courts' Rulings in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., a Buyer Power Case,” American Antitrust Institute Working Paper No. 07-08, Feb. 2007, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/​sol3/​papers.cfm?​abstract_​id=​1103635 (last accessed April 2024). See, e.g., IBP, Inc. v. Glickman , 187 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 1999).

63.  Sec. 308, 7 U.S.C. 209 ; Sept. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 1250, Public Law 94-410; Nov. 23, 1987, 101 Stat. 918, Public Law 100-173.

64.  See, generally, John Shively, “Competition Under the Packers and Stockyards Act: What Now?” 15 Drake J. Agric. L. 419 (Fall 2010).

65.   Wheeler v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 591 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2009) ( en banc ); Been v. O.K. Industries, Inc., 495 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2007); London v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 410 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2005); Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 420 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2005).

66.  Even some decisions that have required competitive injury define it more broadly than what might be required to establish antitrust injury. See e.g., Wheeler, 591 F.3d at 370 n.5 (Jones, J., concurring) (regulation needed “to curb practices that resulted in producers receiving far below the reasonable value of their live poultry”); id. at 370 (“the PSA was intended to prevent the abuse of monopoly”); Been, 495 F.3d at 1234 (manipulation of prices constitutes competitive injury).

67.   London v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 410 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2005).

68.   Armour & Co. v. United States, 402 F.2d 712 (7th Cir. 1968).

69.   E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Fed. Trade Comm'n (Ethyl) , 729 F.2d 128, 136-37 (2d Cir. 1984).

70.   Been v. O.K. Industries, Inc., 495 F.3d 1217, 1232 (10th Cir. 2007). Also, there seems to be no consideration of the fact that price manipulation is an express violation of section 202(d) and 202(e) of the P&S Act.

71.  760 F.2d 211, 214 (8th Cir. 1985).

72.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ .

73.  See, e.g., M & M Poultry v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., No. 2:15-CV-32, 2015 WL 13841400, at *8 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 26, 2015); Triple R Ranch, LLC v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 456 F. Supp. 3d 775, 778 (N.D.W. Va. 2019); Hedrick v. S. Bonaccurso & Sons, Inc., 466 F. Supp. 1025, 1031 (E.D. Pa. 1978).

74.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022; https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ .

75.  See, e.g., Farm Action et al., “Letter to Bruce Summers,” April 5, 2022, available at https://farmaction.us/​wp-content/​uploads/​2022/​04/​Letter-re-Unfair-Practices-in-Violation-of-the-Packers-and-Stockyards-Act.pdf and https://farmaction.us/​2022/​04/​07/​dear-usda-issue-the-packers-and-stockyards-rules-now/​ (last accessed April 2024); Sarah Carden, “The Fall of Antitrust, the Rise of Corporate Power: Impacts of Market Concentration on Farmers and Ranchers,” Farm Action, March 2022, available at https://farmaction.us/​wp-content/​uploads/​2022/​04/​P-S-Act-Report-for-ABA-Farm-Action.pdf ; Hon. Keith Ellison, et al., “Letter to Hon. Tom Vilsack,” December 21, 2021, on file at USDA, referenced in Hon. Thomas Vilsack, “Letter to State Attorneys General Ellison, Hill, and Colleagues,” Sept. 26, 2022, available at https://www.usda.gov/​media/​press-releases/​2023/​07/​19/​usda-launches-historic-partnership-bipartisan-state-attorneys and https://www.usda.gov/​media/​press-releases/​2023/​07/​19/​usda-launches-historic-partnership-bipartisan-state-attorneys (last accessed April 2024); Claire Kelloway and Sarah Miller, “Food and Power: Addressing Monopolization in America's Food System,” Open Markets Institute, Sept. 21, 2021 updated version, at 12, available at https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/​publications/​food-power-addressing-monopolization-americas-food-system (last accessed April 2024); see also John Shively, “Competition Under the Packers and Stockyards Act: What Now?” 15 Drake J. Agric. L. 419 (Fall 2010); C. Robert Taylor, “Legal and Economic Issues with the Courts' Rulings in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., a Buyer Power Case,” American Antitrust Institute Working Paper No. 07-08, Feb. 2007, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/​sol3/​papers.cfm?​abstract_​id=​1103635 (last accessed April 2024); United States Department of Justice, United States Department of Agriculture, (May 2010), Public Workshops Exploring Competition in Agriculture, https://www.justice.gov/​archives/​atr/​events/​public-workshops-agriculture-and-antitrust-enforcement-issues-our-21st-century-economy-10 (“As a state regulator, when I enforce my state's unfair or deceptive practices act on behalf of consumers, I don't have to demonstrate that that deceptive act injured every consumer in the state. I only have to demonstrate that one consumer. I think what we do owe our—we owe our producers at least as much as we owe the individual consumers of our respective states and a fair reading of 202(a) shouldn't require the rancher to demonstrate harm to everyone.” “The only way to protect the cash market is to halt the growth of captive supplies and possibly even roll back practice. As it should be, the language of Section 2(a) and (b) of the Packers & Stockyards Act does not require the finding of harm to the industry. . . How is it that if I strong-arm someone out in the hall I could be put in jail, but if a—but to receive just and due compensation for my hard work and efforts, I have to prove that there is an injury to the industry and not just to myself? That's a pretty ridiculous test to overcome.” “Now, I understand the Packers and Stockers Act is being undermined by this proof to harm to competition. When they're cheating all of these farmers out here, they're getting a monetary advantage in the market. . . And that's the excuse that the Federal judges say that we—you know, that we can't have this law enforced”).

76.  See, e.g., North American Meat Institute Issue Statement on President Biden's Executive Order & USDA's Proposed Changes to Packers & Stockyards Rules, July 9, 2021, available at https://www.meatinstitute.org/​press/​north-american-meat-institute-issues-statement-president-bidens-executive-order-usdas (last accessed April 2024).

77.   Executive Order No. 14036 “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” July 2021, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/​briefing-room/​presidential-actions/​2021/​07/​09/​executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/​ .

78.  Although using different terms, this understanding is consistent with the consensus academic literature. See, e.g., Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ ; Peter C. Carstensen, “The Packers and Stockyards Act: A History of Failure to Date,” The CPI Antitrust Journal (2) (2010), available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/​assets/​Uploads/​CarstensenAPR-2.pdf ; Herbert Hovenkamp, “Does the Packers and Stockyards Act Require Antitrust Harm?” (Philadelphia: Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law, 2011), available at https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/​faculty_​scholarship/​1862 .

79.   Kansas City Live Stock Exchange v. Armour and Company and Fowler Packing Company , Docket No. 1 (August 30, 1922).

80.   Trunz Pork Stores v. Wallace , 70 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1934).

81.   De Jong Packing Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 618 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir. 1980): agreeing that failing to pay for condemned cattle within one business day following sale was an “unfair practice”. The violations in this case occurred in 1972 and 1974. Id. at 1333.

82.   See Wilson & Co. v. Benson , 286 F.2d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 1961).

83.   15 U.S.C. 45(n) .

84.  See Michael Kades, then of Washington Center for Equitable Growth, reaching a similar conclusion in “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” chapter 3, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ ; see also, Peter C. Carstensen, “The Packers and Stockyards Act: A History of Failure to Date,” The CPI Antitrust Journal (2) (2010), available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/​assets/​Uploads/​CarstensenAPR-2.pdf ; see also Herbert Hovenkamp, “Does the Packers and Stockyards Act Require Antitrust Harm?” (Philadelphia: Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law, 2011), available at https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/​faculty_​scholarship/​1862 .

85.  In Re: Rotches Pork Packers, Inc. & David A. Rotches., 46 Agric. Dec. 573, 579 (1987).

86.   In Re: Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc., No. P & S Docket No. D-10-0109, 2010 WL 7088565, at *6 (U.S.D.A. July 20, 2010), aff'd Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 475 F. App'x 438, 444 (3d Cir. 2012).

87.  Courts that examine the history of the P&S Act often overlook that failure to pay in full was an “unfair practice” under the Act for many decades before Congress clarified that delay of a single payment for livestock was an unfair “practice” under the P&S Act in 1976. For example, in In re: Eastern Meats, Inc., 21 Agric. Dec. 134, 141, (1962), the Judicial Officer found “without a doubt” failing to timely pay the full amount agreed for a single shipment of meat was “an unfair and deceptive practice and device” and cited administrative cases. And, in In Re: Mid-W. Veal Distributors, d/b/a Nagle Packing Co., & Milton Nagle, 43 Agric. Dec. 1124, 1138 (U.S.D.A. July 13, 1984) USDA's Judicial Officer noted it had been held consistently in cases arising under both title II and title III of the P&S Act that failure to pay, when due, for livestock constitutes a violation of sections 202(a) and 312(a) of the P&S Act., citing In re Rosenthal, 36 Agric. Dec. 210 (1976); In re San Jose Valley Veal, Inc., 34 Agric. Dec. 966 (1975); In re Sebastopal Meat Company, Inc., 28 Agric. Dec. 435, (1969), aff'd, 440 F.2d 983 (9th Cir. 1971); In re Nolan E. Poovey, Jr., 27 Agric. Dec. 1512 (1968); In re Joe Doctorman & Son, Inc., 28 Agric. Dec. 840 (1969); In re S.M. Jamison, 28 Agric. Dec. 581 (1969); In re Neil Harlan, 25 Agric. Dec. 5 (1966); In re Royce Lehman Moore, 26 Agric. Dec. 230 (1967); In re Augustin Brothers Co, 27 Agric. Dec. 350 (1968); In re R.J. & C.W. Fletcher, Inc., 23 Agric. Dec. 1400 (1964); In re Rosenthal Packing Co., 19 Agric. Dec. 971 (1960); In re Harry Thomas, 35 Agric. Dec. 490 (1976).

88.  In re: Central California Livestock, Inc. d/b/a Machlin Meat Packing Company, 15 Agric. Dec. 97, 110 (1956).

89.  Id.

90.   Secretary of Agriculture v. Scala Packing Company, Inc., Bureau of Animal Industry Docket No. 581 (January 7, 1937).

91.  Purchase of Livestock by Packers on a Carcass Grade, Carcass Weight, or Carcass Grade and Weight Basis, 33 FR 2760 , 2761 (Feb. 9, 1968).

92.   E.g. In Re: Excel Corp., No. P. & S. Docket No. 99-0010, 2003 WL 205562, at *31 (U.S.D.A. Jan. 30, 2003) (finding that producers were likely injured by Respondent's failure to notify hog producers of its undetectable change in lean formula, and regardless, the practice impeded competition); In Re: Stull Meats, Inc., 49 Agric. Dec. 309, 329 (U.S.D.A. Feb. 15, 1990) (finding in a commercial bribery case that “the type of violations alleged and proven in this case are not only unfair to the firm being overcharged for its purchases . . . but also to the competitors . . . who are not in a position to gain entry . . . unless they are willing to make the same illegal inducements to its agent”); c.f. In Re: Cedar Vale Sale Barn, Inc., Doyle Hawkins & Jerry Mullins., 52 Agric. Dec. 546, 554 (1993) (check kiting poses a great risk to the sellers of livestock); In Re: Great Am. Veal, Inc. A Corp., & Thomas Burke, an Individual, 48 Agric. Dec. 183, 198 (U.S.D.A. Jan. 19, 1989) (holding that dissipating the statutory trust “enacted to protect livestock sellers” was unfair).

93.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” chapter 4, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ .

94.  See, e.g., “How to Start a Farm: Beginning Farmers and Ranchers,” available at https://www.farmers.gov/​your-business/​beginning-farmers (last accessed April 2024); Congressional Research Service, “Farm Bill Primer: Beginning and Underserved Producers,” May 2022, available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/​product/​pdf/​IF/​IF12096/​2 .

95.  The Judicial Officer also considered the specific right of first refusal a practice that was likely to harm competition in violation of section 202 of the P&S Act. While the 8th Circuit agreed with the legal statements of the Judicial Officer—specifically that the Act prevents likely harm to competition—the court disagreed with the factual conclusions and reversed. IBP, Inc. v. Glickman, 187 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 1999).

96.   Swift & Co. v. Wallace, 105 F.2d 848, 856 (7th Cir. 1939).

97.   See Armour & Co. v. United States, 402 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1968).

98.   See In re: Arizona Livestock Auction, Inc., 55 Agric. Dec. 1121 (U.S.D.A. Nov. 21, 1996) (finding that the purpose of title III of the Act was “to protect the producer or seller from monetary loss”).

99.   Bowman v. United States Dep't of Agric., 363 F.2d 81, 85 (5th Cir. 1966) (finding the Department's insolvency standard was not an abuse of discretion).

100.  Id.

101.   See In Re: Corn State Meat Co., Inc.; Terrance P. (Terry) Prince, Jr. & James L. Wiggs., 45 Agric. Dec. 995, 1023 (U.S.D.A. May 8, 1986); c.f. In Re: Danny Cobb & Crockett Livestock Sales Co., Inc., 48 Agric. Dec. 234, 234 (U.S.D.A. Feb. 13, 1989) (finding bonds protect against incipient violations); In Re: Paul Rodman & David Rodman, 47 Agric. Dec. 885, 903-04 (U.S.D.A. May 27, 1988) (finding there is a duty to prevent all unlawful acts under the P&S Act, including the potential losses from failing to maintain a custodial account).

102.  For an example of how under-capitalization can force producers to finance the operation of a livestock buyer, see Van Wyk v. Bergland, 570 F.2d 701, 704 (8th Cir. 1978).

103.  See 9 CFR 201.70 ; Swift & Co. v. United States, 393 F.2d 247 (7th Cir. 1968).

104.  A similar analysis would be if a group of packers conspire to force stockyards to sell on the basis of a “subject” sales terms—that is, granting the packer the right to refuse to honor the purchase after a delivery inspection at the packing plant rather than on the basis of an “as is” sales term—then that behavior is likely to interfere with the free exercise of decision making by market participants. See De Jong Packing Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 618 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir. 1980).

105.  Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition section 1 (1995).

106.   See In Re: Arizona Livestock Auction, Inc., 55 Agric. Dec. 1121 (1996) (finding that injury to a cow did not result in any injury the Act was designed to prevent).

107.  61 Cong. Rec. 1805-06.

108.   Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217, 1241 (10th Cir. 2007) (Hartz, J. concurring) (“[I]t would be somewhat surprising if `unfair practices' under the PSA had a narrower meaning than `unfair methods of competition' in the FTCA.”).

109.   Armour and Company v. United States, 402 F.2d 712 (7th Cir. 1968).

110.   E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. F.T.C., 729 F.2d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 1984) (citing examples: FTC v. Texaco, Inc., 393 U.S. 223, 89 S.Ct. 429, 21 L.Ed.2d 394 (1968); Atlantic Refining Co. v. FTC, 381 U.S. 357, 85 S.Ct. 1498, 14 L.Ed.2d 443 (1965); FTC v. Brown Shoe Co., 384 U.S. 316, 86 S.Ct. 1501, 16 L.Ed.2d 587 (1966); FTC v. Beech-Nut Packing Co., 257 U.S. 441, 42 S.Ct. 150, 66 L.Ed. 307 (1922), FTC v. National Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419, 77 S.Ct. 502, 1 L.Ed.2d 438 (1957), FTC v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683, 68 S.Ct. 793, 92 L.Ed. 1010 (1948), Sugar Institute, Inc. v. United States, 297 U.S. 553, 56 S.Ct. 1629, 80 L.Ed. 859 (1935), FTC v. R.F. Keppel & Bro., Inc., 291 U.S. 304, 54 S.Ct. 423, 78 L.Ed. 814 (1934), FTC v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co., 344 U.S. 392, 73 S.Ct. 361, 97 L.Ed. 426 (1953)).

111.   Armour & Co. v. United States, 402 F.2d 712, 722 (7th Cir. 1968); see also In Re: Ozark Cnty. Cattle Co., Inc., et. al., 49 Agric. Dec. 336 (1990); In Re: Corn State Meat Co., Inc.; et. al., 45 Agric. Dec. 995, 1012 (1986).

112.   De Jong Packing Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 618 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir. 1980).

113.   Ethyl, 729 F.2d at 136-37.

114.  See, generally, Merger Guidelines, (2023), U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, https://www.ftc.gov/​system/​files/​ftc_​gov/​pdf/​2023_​merger_​guidelines_​final_​12.18.2023.pdf ; FTC, Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 9 (Nov. 10, 2022).

115.   Daniels v. United States, 242 F.2d 39, 42 (7th Cir. 1957) (“It is the duty of a regulatory agency to prevent potential injury by stopping unlawful practices in their incipiency. Proof of a particular injury is not required.”).

116.  See, generally, Merger Guidelines, (2023), U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, https://www.ftc.gov/​system/​files/​ftc_​gov/​pdf/​2023_​merger_​guidelines_​final_​12.18.2023.pdf ; FTC, Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 9 (Nov. 10, 2022).

117.   Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co., 344 U.S. 392, 394-95 (1953) (noting that “Congress advisedly left the concept [of unfair methods of competition] flexible . . . [and] designed it to supplement and bolster the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act[,] [so as] to stop . . . acts and practices [in their incipiency] which, when full blown, would violate those Acts[,] . . . as well as to condemn as ` “unfair methods of competition” ' existing violations of them”); Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Cement Institute , 333 U.S. 683, 708 (1948) (holding that conduct that falls short of violating the Sherman Act may violate section 5); Fed. Trade Comm'n v. R. F. Keppel & Bro., Inc. , 291 U.S. 304, 310 (1934) (finding that unfair methods of competition not limited to those “which are forbidden at common law or which are likely to grow into violations of the Sherman Act”); c .f. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States , 370 U.S. 294, 346 (1962) (finding section 7 of the Clayton Act also reflects the “mandate of Congress that tendencies toward concentration in industry are to be curbed in their incipiency”).

118.  FTC, Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under sec. 5 of the FTC Act, 9 (Nov. 10, 2022). See, e.g., Yamaha Motor Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 657 F.2d 971 (8th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 915 (1982) (side agreements collateral to an anticompetitive joint-venture agreement); In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., 245 F.Supp. 2d 1343, 1369-70 (N.D. Ga. 2017), aff'd sub nom., Siegel v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 714 F. App'x 986 (11th Cir. 2018), and cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 827 (2019) (invitations to collude); The Vons Co., FTC Complaints and Order, 1987-1993 Transfer Binder, Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 23,200 (Aug. 7, 1992) (series of small acquisitions, none of which were illegal individually).

119.  Michael Kades, “Protecting Livestock Producers and Chicken Growers,” chapter 4, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 5, 2022, https://equitablegrowth.org/​research-paper/​protecting-livestock-producers-and-chicken-growers/​ .

120.  See, e.g., “How to Start a Farm: Beginning Farmers and Ranchers,” available at https://www.farmers.gov/​your-business/​beginning-farmers (last accessed April 2024); Congressional Research Service, “Farm Bill Primer: Beginning and Underserved Producers,” May 2022, available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/​product/​pdf/​IF/​IF12096/​2 .

121.  See, e.g., “Agricultural Competition: A Plan in Support of Fair and Competitive Markets,” USDA's Report to the White House Competition Council, May 2022 (last accessed June 2022), available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​media/​USDAPlan_​EO_​COMPETITION.pdf ; “USDA Agri-Food Supply Chain Assessment: Program and Policy Options for Strengthening Resilience,” available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/​supply- chain (last accessed June 2024); “Competition and Meat Supply Chain Investments: Highlighted Comments from the Request for Information (RFI),” available at https://www.usda.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​documents/​Competition-RFI-Anecdotes-010322.pdf (last accessed June 2024); FACT SHEET: The Biden-Harris Action Plan for a Fairer, More Competitive, and More Resilient Meat and Poultry Supply Chain, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/​briefing-room/​statements-releases/​2022/​01/​03/​fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-action-plan-for-a-fairer-more-competitive-and-more-resilient-meat-and-poultry-supply-chain/​ (last accessed June 2024).

122.   In Re: ITT Cont'l Baking Co., 44 Agric. Dec. 748, 772 (1985); see also Stumo & O'Brien, Antitrust Unfairness, 8 Drake J. Agric. L. at 111.

123.   See 9 CFR 201.69 and 201.70 .

124.   See 9 CFR 201.67 .

125.   C.f. Swift & Co. v. Wallace, 105 F.2d 848, 856 (7th Cir. 1939).

126.   See In re: Central California Livestock, at 110. As explained above, cases like Central California Livestock are typical of the Department's findings with respect to harms to competition.

127.  Stumo & O'Brien, Antitrust Unfairness at 111.

128.   See, e.g., Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217, 1229 (10th Cir. 2007).

129.   29 FR 1796 , Feb. 6, 1964.

130.   In Re: Tyson Farms, Inc., 71 Agric. Dec. 1160, 1164 (2012).

131.  See section 203 of the P&S Act, which grants the Secretary the authority to order respondents to cease and desist and pay civil penalties ( 7 U.S.C. 193 ).

132.   7 U.S.C. 209 .

133.   In re: Larry W. Peterman, d/b/a Meat Masters., 42 Agric. Dec. 1848, 1868 (1983) (injury to individual consumers); In re: ITT Cont'l Baking Co., 44 Agric. Dec. 748, 772 (1985) (injury to competitors, packers and the retailer); In re: Excel Corp., No. P. & S. Docket No. 99-0010., 2003 WL 205562 U.S.D.A. Jan. 30, 2003) (injury to producers); In Re: Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc., No. P & S Docket No. D-10-0109, 2010 WL 7088565 (U.S.D.A. July 20, 2010), aff'd Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 475 F. App'x 438, 444 (3d Cir. 2012) (injury to consumers).

134.   15 U.S.C. 18 .

135.  See, e.g., Phila. Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. at 363 (1963) (Stating that a merger resulting in a market share of 30% still “presents a threat” and causes “undue concentration”). United States v. First Nat'l Bank of Lexington, 376 U.S. 665 (1964) (Stating that “the elimination of significant competition between [merging parties]” violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act: “It [can be] enough that the two . . . compete[ ]. That their competition [is] not insubstantial and that the combination [would] put an end to it”). Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 229-30 (1993) (Stating that “excessive concentration[ ] and the oligopolistic price coordination it portends may be the injury to competition the Act prohibits”). Marine Bancorporation, 418 U.S. at 623-624 (Suggesting that acquisition of “perceived potential competition may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly”).

136.  Azzam, Azzadine and Anderson, Dale. May 1996. “Assessing Competition in Meatpacking, Economic History, Theory, and Evidence.” USDA, GIPSA. https://www.gipsa.usda.gov/​psp/​publication/​con_​tech%20report/​rr96-6.pdf .

137.  Source: 24 FR 3183 , Apr. 24, 1959.

138.  Source: USDA, “World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates,” WASDE-642, November 9, 2023.

139.  Hadachek, Jeffrey, Meilin Ma, and Richard J. Sexton. 2023. “Market Structure and Resilience of Food Supply Chains under Extreme Events.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1-24. https://doi.org/​10.1111/​ajae.12393 .

140.  Ibid.

141.  Ibid.

142.  USDA, “World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates,” WASDE-642, November 9, 2023.

143.  Estimates are available at U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, available https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​special-requests/​oesm22all.zip (accessed 7/14/2023).

144.  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—March 2023, released June 16, 2023, USDL-23-1305, table 1, p. 4. https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​pdf/​ecec.pdf (accessed 7/14/2023).

145.  For brevity, all beef and veal packers will be collectively referred to as beef packers and all lamb, sheep, and goat packers will be collectively referred to as lamb packers.

146.  90 live poultry dealers × $29.27 per hour × 20 hours = $52,686.

147.  90 live poultry dealers × $86.83 per hour × 40 hours = $312,588.

148.  90 live poultry dealers × $93.68 per hour × 5 hours = $42,156.

149.  90 live poultry dealers × $147.19 per hour × 40 hours = $529,884.

150.  Firm level cost for live poultry dealers is the sum of costs across professions: $52,686 (administrative assistants) + $312,588 (managers) + $42,156 (IT system managers) + $529,884 (attorneys).

151.  Firm level cost for beef packers: (261 beef packers × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 20 hours) + (261 beef packers × $86.83 per hour for managers × 40 hours) + (261 beef packers × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 5 hours) + (261 beef packers $147.19 per hour attorney time × 40 hours).

152.  Total firm level cost to pork markets: $2,041,262 (pork packers) + $6,884,051 (swine contractors) = $8,925,312. Firm level cost for pork packers: (196 pork packers × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 20 hours) + (196 pork packers × $86.83 per hour for managers × 40 hours) + (196 pork packers × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 5 hours) + (196 pork packers $147.19 per hour attorney time × 40 hours). Firm level cost for swine contractors: (661 swine contractors × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 20 hours) + (661 swine contractors × $86.83 per hour for managers × 40 hours) + (661 swine contractors × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 5 hours) + (661 swine contractors × $147.19 per hour attorney time × 40 hours).

153.  Firm level cost for lamb packers: (139 lamb packers × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 20 hours) + (139 lamb packers × $86.83 per hour for managers × 40 hours) + (139 lamb packers × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 5 hours) + (139 lamb packers $147.19 per hour attorney time × 40 hours).

154.  USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “2022 Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data,” issued February 2024, table 24.

155.  An estimated 10 marketing agreements per pork packing plant × 196 pork packers.

156.  1,829 feedlots over 1,000 head (2022 Census of Agriculture, table 13) × an estimated 61% (the number of feedlots utilizing formula pricing).

157.  Total contract level costs for poultry dealers, $4,113,544 = (23,047 poultry dealer contracts × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 0.50 hours) + (23,047 poultry dealer contracts × $86.83 per hour for managers × 0.50 hours) + (23,047 poultry dealer contracts × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 0.50 hours) + (23,047 poultry dealer contracts × $147.19 per hour attorney time × 0.50 hours).

158.  Total contract level costs for beef packers, $199,134 = (1,116 beef packer contracts × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 0.50 hours) + (1,116 beef packer contracts × $86.83 per hour for managers × 0.50 hours) + (1,116 beef packer contracts × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 0.50 hours) + (1,099 beef packer contracts × $147.19 per hour attorney time × 0.50 hours).

159.  Total contract level costs for pork packers, $349,833 = (1,960 pork packer contracts × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 0.50 hours) + (1,960 pork packer contracts × $86.83 per hour for managers × 0.50 hours) + (1,960 pork packer contracts × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 0.50 hours) + (1,960 pork packer contracts × $147.19 per hour attorney time × 0.50 hours).

160.  Total contract level costs for swine contractor, $1,440,660 = (8,094 swine contractors contracts × $29.27 per hour for administrative assistants × 0.50 hours) + (8,094 swine contractors contracts × $86.83 per hour for managers × 0.50 hours) + (8,094 swine contractors contracts × $93.68 per hour for IT specialists × 0.50 hours) + (8,094 swine contractors contracts × $147.19 per hour attorney time × 0.50 hours).

161.  Total contract level costs, $6,107,170 = $4,113,544 million for poultry dealers + $199,134 for beef packers + $349,833 for pork packers + $1,440,660 for swine contractors.

162.  U.S. General Accountability Office, “U.S. Agriculture: Retail Food Prices Grew Faster Than the Prices Farmers Received for Agricultural Commodities, but Economic Research Has Not Established That Concentration Has Affected These Trends,” GAO-09-746R, June 2009.

163.  Poultry dealer firm level costs: $47,417 (administrative assistants) + $281,329 (managers) + $37,940 (IT support) + $476,896 (legal).

164.  Beef packer firm level costs: $137,510 (administrative assistants) + $815,855 (managers) + $110,027 (IT support) + $1,382,997 (legal).

165.  Pork packer firm level costs: $103,265 (administrative assistants) + $612,672 (managers) + $82,626 (IT support) + $1,038,573 (legal). Swine contractor firm level costs: $348,254 (administrative assistants) + $2,066,207 (managers) + $278,651 (IT support) + $3,502,533 (legal).

166.  Lamb packer firm level costs: $73,234 (administrative assistants) + $434,497 (managers) + $58,597 (IT support) + $736,539 (legal).

167.  Total firm level costs: $0.84 million (poultry dealers) + $2.45 million (beef packers) + $8.03 million (pork packers and swine contractors) + $1.30 (lamb packers) = $11.82 million (total).

168.  Poultry dealer contract level costs: $303,564 (administrative assistants) + $900,527 (managers) + $971,569 (IT support) + $1,526,530 (legal).

169.  Beef packer contract level costs: $14,695 (administrative assistants) + $43,594 (managers) + $47,033 (IT support) + $73,898 (legal).

170.  Pork packer firm level costs: $25,816 (administrative assistants) + $76,584 (managers) + $82,626 (IT support) + $129,822 (legal). Swine contractor firm level costs: $106,610 (administrative assistants) + $316,261 (managers) + $341,211 (IT support) + $536,110 (legal).

171.  Total contract level costs: $3.70 million (poultry dealers) + $0.18 million (beef packers) + $1.62 million (pork packers and swine contractors) = $5.50 million (total).

172.  Azzam, Azzadine and Anderson, Dale, May 1996, “Assessing Competition in Meatpacking, Economic History, Theory, and Evidence,” USDA, GIPSA, https://www.gipsa.usda.gov/​psp/​publication/​con_​tech%20report/​rr96-6.pdf .

173.  Source: 24 FR 3183 , Apr. 24, 1959.

174.  U.S. Small Business Administration. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. Effective August 19, 2019. “The SBA Issues a Final Rule to Adopt NAICS 2017 for Small Business Size (last accessed 8/9/2022).” Available at https://www.sba.gov/​article/​2018/​feb/​27/​sba-issues-final-rule-adopt-naics-2017-small-business-size-standards .

175.  USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “2022 Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data,” issued February 2024, table 24.

176.  Firm level cost for poultry growing arrangements with small firms = 3.2 percent × $937,314.

177.  Firm level cost for small beef packers = 17.4 percent × $2,718,211.

178.  Firm level cost for small pork packers = 11.3 percent × $2,041,262.

179.  Firm level cost for small swine contractors = 8.9 percent × $5,988,395.

180.  Total firm level costs across small firms in livestock and poultry industries, $7,738,048 = $572,803 (live poultry dealer) + $2,655,723 (beef packer) + $1,926,701 (pork packer) + $1,135,191 (swine contractors) + $1,447,629 (lamb packer).

181.  Contract level cost for poultry growing arrangements with small firms = 3.2 percent × $4,113,544.

182.  Contract level cost for small beef packers = 17.4 percent × $196,098.

183.  Contract level cost for small pork packers = 11.3 percent × $349,833.

184.  Contract level cost for small swine contractors = 8.9 percent × $1,527,298.

185.  Total contract level costs across small firms in livestock and poultry industries, $334,001 = $131,186 (poultry dealers) + $34,180 (beef packer) + $39,531 (pork packers) + $135,929 (swine contractors).

[ FR Doc. 2024-14042 Filed 6-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information

Chemical Science

Unlocking the chemical environment of nitrogen in perovskite-type oxides †.

* Corresponding authors

a Institute of Multidisciplinary Research for Advanced Materials, Tohoku University, 2-1-1 Katahira, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

b Advanced Institute for Materials Research (WPI-AIMR), Tohoku University, 2-1-1 Katahira, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan

c School of Environmental Science and Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Metal Matrix Composites, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, P. R. China

d Kyushu Synchrotron Light Research Center, 8-7 Yayoigaoka, Tosu, Saga, Japan

Nitrogen (N) doping of perovskite-type oxides is an effective method for enhancing their photocatalytic performance. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the doped N species are essential for a deeper understanding of the catalytic activity enhancement mechanism. However, examining the N environment in perovskite-type oxides, particularly in the bulk, using conventional analytical techniques, such as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), is challenging. In this study, we propose a new analytical technique, advanced temperature-programmed desorption (TPD) up to 1600 °C, to complement the conventional methods. TPD can quantify all N species in bulk oxides. Moreover, it facilitates chemical speciation of N environments, such as substitutional and interstitial N species. This is verified by XPS, CHN elemental analysis, X-ray absorption spectroscopy, and in situ diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier-transform spectroscopy. This study demonstrates the feasibility of advanced TPD as a new analytical method that offers comprehensive information on the N species within N-doped oxide materials at the bulk level.

Supplementary files

• Supplementary information PDF (1805K)

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions.

Unlocking the chemical environment of nitrogen in perovskite-type oxides

S. Shimizu, T. Yoshii, G. Nishikawa, J. Wang, S. Yin, E. Kobayashi and H. Nishihara, Chem. Sci. , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D4SC01850H

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications, without requesting further permission from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.

To request permission to reproduce material from this article in a commercial publication , please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party commercial publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements