Research Recommendations - Examples and Writing Guide

Muhammad Hassan

Research Guide

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing Guide

27,046 Views

Published on: January 7, 2024

by Muhammad Hassan

Updated on: June 29, 2026

Table of Contents

Research recommendations are specific, evidence-based suggestions explaining what researchers, practitioners, organizations, or policymakers should do next because of a study’s findings. Strong recommendations identify an appropriate stakeholder, propose a realistic action or research direction, explain the supporting evidence, acknowledge uncertainty, and indicate how the action or future study could be implemented or evaluated.

Introduction

A study does not automatically become useful simply because it produces findings. Readers must also understand what those findings mean and, where the evidence permits, what should happen next.

The recommendations section creates this connection. It converts the study’s results, interpretations, and limitations into practical actions or clearly defined priorities for further investigation. In a dissertation, recommendations may help future researchers design a stronger study. In applied research, they may guide a school, hospital, company, public agency, or community organization. In policy research, they may identify a change that decision-makers should consider.

This guide explains:

What research recommendations are.
How they differ from implications and conclusions.
The main types of recommendations.
How to develop them from findings.
How to match their strength to the evidence.
How to write recommendations for different research designs.
How to use templates, digital tools, and artificial intelligence responsibly.

Key Takeaways

Every recommendation should be traceable to a finding, implication, limitation, or well-supported evidence gap.

A recommendation should identify who should act, what they should do, and why.

Practical recommendations and future-research recommendations require different information.

The strength of the wording must match the study design, evidence quality, context, and uncertainty.

Feasibility, ethics, equity, resources, and evaluation should be considered before a recommendation is finalized.

“More research is needed” is not sufficient unless the missing research is described clearly.

What Are Research Recommendations?

Research recommendations are proposals for action or further inquiry that arise from a study’s evidence and interpretation. They answer the question: What should be done next?

A recommendation may advise:

A practitioner to change a process.
An organization to introduce or evaluate a program.
A policymaker to reconsider a rule or funding priority.
An educator to revise training or curriculum.
A researcher to test a specific unresolved question.
A funder to support a high-priority evidence gap.

Research recommendations should not be personal opinions added at the end of a paper. They should form the final part of a visible reasoning process:

Research question → findings → interpretation → implication → recommendation

In applied studies, this process may continue:

Recommendation → implementation plan → evaluation measure

What Is the Purpose of Recommendations in Research?

The purpose of research recommendations is to convert evidence into an appropriate next step. Depending on the study, that step may involve practice, policy, education, organizational improvement, methodology, or future investigation.

Effective recommendations can:

Show the practical or academic value of the findings.
Help stakeholders make informed decisions.
Identify problems that require action.
Define unanswered research questions.
Suggest improvements to research methods.
Explain how an intervention or policy might be tested.
Prevent future researchers from repeating avoidable weaknesses.
Establish priorities when several possible actions exist.

Recommendations do not need to be dramatic. A limited but defensible recommendation is more useful than an ambitious recommendation that the evidence cannot support.

Research Recommendations Compared With Related Sections

Recommendations are often confused with findings, conclusions, implications, and limitations. These elements are connected, but they serve different purposes.

Element	Main question answered	Typical content	Example
Finding	What did the study observe?	Result of analysis	Students who attended the workshops reported greater confidence using the software.
Conclusion	What overall answer does the study provide?	Synthesis of major findings	The workshops were associated with improved confidence among participants.
Implication	What might the finding mean?	Significance for theory, practice, policy, or research	Structured training may reduce barriers to software adoption.
Recommendation	What should be done next?	A proposed action or investigation	The university should pilot the workshop in two additional departments and evaluate participation, confidence, and software use.
Limitation	What restricts interpretation?	Design, sample, measurement, or context constraint	Participants volunteered for the workshop, so they may have been more motivated than nonparticipants.

Implications vs. Recommendations

An implication explains the significance or possible consequence of a finding. A recommendation proposes an action based on that interpretation.

For example:

Implication: First-year students may require more structured support when learning citation software.
Recommendation: The university library should offer a short citation-software workshop during first-year orientation and evaluate attendance, confidence, and subsequent use.

The implication is interpretive. The recommendation is directive and identifies an actor and action.

Conclusions vs. Recommendations

A conclusion answers the research question by synthesizing the findings. A recommendation moves beyond that answer and proposes a justified next step.

Do not use the recommendations section to introduce findings that were not reported earlier. The recommendation must rest on the study’s established evidence.

Limitations vs. Recommendations

A limitation identifies a constraint. A future-research recommendation explains how a later study could address that constraint.

Weak:

The study had a small sample. Future research is recommended.

Stronger:

Because the sample was limited to 34 teachers from one urban district, a multi-site study should examine whether the same themes appear among primary and secondary teachers in urban and rural districts.

The stronger version identifies the population, context, and purpose of the proposed research.

Types of Research Recommendations

Research recommendations can be organized by purpose or stakeholder. The most useful categories are practical, policy, methodological, educational or organizational, and future-research recommendations.

1. Practical Recommendations

Practical recommendations propose changes to professional activities, services, processes, or everyday practice.

Example:

Based on participants’ repeated difficulty locating emergency procedures, laboratory managers should place a standardized one-page emergency guide beside each laboratory exit and assess staff awareness after implementation.

A practical recommendation should normally specify:

The responsible practitioner or organization.
The proposed action.
The setting.
The expected purpose.
A way to monitor the result.

2. Policy Recommendations

Policy recommendations propose changes to laws, regulations, institutional rules, funding decisions, or public programs.

Example:

The local education authority should consider revising its device-lending policy so that students without home internet access can borrow both a laptop and a mobile hotspot.

Policy recommendations require particular caution. A single study may identify a policy problem without providing enough evidence for a mandatory system-wide change. Appropriate wording may therefore include:

should consider
should pilot
should review
should consult on
should commission an evaluation of

3. Methodological Recommendations

Methodological recommendations propose improvements to future study designs, measurements, sampling procedures, analytical methods, or reporting practices.

Example:

Future studies should measure both self-reported and objectively recorded platform use because self-report alone may not accurately represent the frequency or duration of engagement.

These recommendations are especially useful when a study identifies:

An unreliable instrument.
Incomplete outcome measures.
Selection bias.
Insufficient follow-up.
Poorly defined variables.
Inadequate comparison groups.
Missing contextual information.
Reporting problems.

4. Educational and Organizational Recommendations

These recommendations concern training, curriculum, professional development, staffing, communication, leadership, or organizational systems.

Example:

Program administrators should provide supervisors with a standardized feedback guide and a short calibration session before the next assessment cycle.

The recommendation should explain what organizational problem the change is intended to address.

5. Recommendations for Future Research

Future-research recommendations identify an unanswered question and propose a useful way to investigate it. They should be more specific than “further studies are needed.”

Brown et al. (2006) proposed the EPICOT framework for formulating research recommendations:

E — Evidence: What existing evidence creates the need for the study?
P — Population: Who or what should be studied?
I — Intervention or indicator: What exposure, intervention, phenomenon, or approach should be examined?
C — Comparison: What alternative or comparison is relevant?
O — Outcomes: What should be measured or understood?
T — Time: What duration or follow-up period is appropriate?

Not every discipline uses interventions or formal comparison groups. Qualitative researchers can adapt the structure by identifying the participants, phenomenon, context, methodological approach, and intended contribution.

Example:

Future research should compare the effects of synchronous and asynchronous peer feedback on revision quality among first-year university students over one academic semester, using both rubric scores and student interviews.

Where Do Recommendations Go in a Research Paper?

Recommendations usually appear near the end of a research document. Their exact placement depends on the discipline, publication type, and institutional requirements.

Document type	Common placement
Journal article	End of the discussion or conclusion
Undergraduate research paper	Conclusion or a short recommendations subsection
Master’s thesis	Final discussion or conclusion chapter
Doctoral dissertation	Dedicated section in the discussion or final chapter
Applied research report	Separate recommendations section
Policy brief	Executive summary and main recommendation section
Program evaluation	Findings followed by recommendations and implementation considerations
Systematic review	Implications for practice and implications for research, where permitted by the review framework

Always follow the university, department, journal, or client’s required structure. Some theoretical, descriptive, or exploratory studies may need only cautious implications rather than strong prescriptions.

The Evidence-to-Recommendation Chain

A strong recommendation should not appear suddenly. It should be the final link in a transparent chain of reasoning.

Step 1: Finding

State what the data showed.

Interviews indicated that new employees received inconsistent instructions from different supervisors.

Step 2: Interpretation

Explain what the finding may represent.

The inconsistency appears to result partly from the absence of a shared onboarding procedure.

Step 3: Implication

Explain why the finding matters.

Without a common procedure, new employees may receive incomplete or contradictory information.

Step 4: Stakeholder

Identify who is able to respond.

Human-resources managers and departmental supervisors.

Step 5: Action

Specify the proposed response.

Develop and pilot a shared onboarding checklist.

Step 6: Rationale

Connect the action to the evidence.

The checklist would address the inconsistent instruction reported across departments.

Step 7: Feasibility and safeguards

Consider resources, acceptability, ethics, and barriers.

The checklist should be reviewed by supervisors and recent employees before adoption and should supplement rather than replace role-specific training.

Step 8: Evaluation

Explain how the action could be assessed.

Compare completion rates, new-employee understanding, and reported instruction gaps before and after the pilot.

Complete recommendation

Human-resources managers should work with departmental supervisors and recent employees to develop and pilot a shared onboarding checklist. The checklist should cover essential organization-wide information while allowing departments to add role-specific requirements. Its usefulness should be evaluated through completion records, employee feedback, and a pre–post assessment of reported instruction gaps.

How to Write Research Recommendations

1. Revisit the Research Question and Objectives

Begin by reviewing what the study was designed to investigate. A recommendation should address the original problem, an important finding, a justified implication, or a limitation that materially affects knowledge.

Ask:

Which research question does this recommendation relate to?
Which finding supports it?
Is it within the scope of the study?
Does it address an important rather than minor result?

2. Identify the Findings That Require Action or Further Study

Not every result needs a recommendation. Select findings that are:

Relevant to the research problem.
Supported by the analysis.
Important to stakeholders.
Actionable or researchable.
Consistent enough to justify attention.
Not already fully addressed by existing practice or evidence.

Unexpected findings may generate recommendations, but they should be presented cautiously if they were not part of the original analysis plan.

3. Assess the Strength and Limits of the Evidence

Before selecting a verb such as implement, adopt, or mandate, consider:

Study design.
Sample size and representativeness.
Measurement quality.
Risk of bias.
Consistency of findings.
Alternative explanations.
Transferability to other settings.
Certainty of the broader evidence.
Potential benefits, harms, and costs.

A correlational finding may justify further investigation or a pilot, but it usually does not establish that an intervention will cause the desired outcome.

4. Identify the Appropriate Stakeholder

Name the person or group with the authority, expertise, or responsibility to act.

Possible stakeholders include:

Researchers.
Teachers.
Clinicians.
School leaders.
Employers.
Professional associations.
Community organizations.
Technology developers.
Funding bodies.
Government agencies.
Policymakers.

Avoid vague actors such as “people,” “society,” “the authorities,” or “someone.”

5. State a Specific Action or Research Direction

Use an action verb that can be understood and assessed.

Useful verbs include:

assess
compare
consult
develop
evaluate
examine
implement
pilot
prioritize
replicate
revise
standardize
test
validate

Weak verbs or phrases include:

deal with
do something
improve the situation
pay attention to
more research is needed

6. Explain the Rationale

A reader should be able to see exactly why the recommendation follows from the evidence.

A useful sentence pattern is:

Because the study found [finding], [stakeholder] should [action] in order to [purpose].

For a cautious recommendation:

The findings suggest that [stakeholder] should consider piloting [action], with evaluation of [outcomes], before wider implementation.

For future research:

Because [evidence gap or limitation], future studies should [specific design or investigation] among [population/context] and measure [outcomes].

7. Consider Feasibility, Ethics, Equity, and Risks

A recommendation is not strong merely because it is specific. It must also be responsible.

Consider:

What resources would be required?
Who might benefit or be disadvantaged?
Is the action acceptable to affected stakeholders?
Are there privacy, safety, or consent concerns?
Could the recommendation produce unintended effects?
Would it work equally well across different groups or settings?
Does implementation require consultation or a pilot?
Is a less burdensome alternative available?

For high-stakes recommendations, stakeholder consultation and independent review may be necessary.

8. Add an Implementation or Evaluation Measure

Where appropriate, indicate how progress or effectiveness could be assessed.

Possible indicators include:

Adoption or completion rates.
Knowledge or skill assessments.
User satisfaction.
Error frequency.
Service access.
Costs.
Equity of participation.
Behavioral outcomes.
Qualitative feedback.
Long-term outcomes.

A recommendation does not always need a numerical target. It should, however, be clear enough that readers can recognize whether the recommended action occurred and whether it helped.

Research Recommendation Template

Use the following template to develop each recommendation.

Full template

Supporting finding:
What did the study find?

Interpretation or implication:
Why does the finding matter?

Target stakeholder:
Who can act?

Recommended action:
What should that stakeholder do?

Context or population:
Where and for whom should it be done?

Rationale:
How does the action respond to the finding?

Feasibility, ethics, or limitations:
What constraints or safeguards should be considered?

Evaluation:
How should implementation or effectiveness be assessed?

One-paragraph formula

Based on the finding that [finding], [stakeholder] should [specific action] for [population or setting]. This action is recommended because [rationale]. Before wider adoption, [feasibility, consultation, ethical safeguard, or pilot condition] should be addressed. Its implementation should be assessed using [indicators or outcomes].

Future-research formula

Existing evidence remains uncertain regarding [gap]. Future research should examine [specific question] among [population/context] using [appropriate design or method]. The study should compare or explore [intervention, exposure, phenomenon, or comparison] and assess [outcomes] over [time period, if relevant].

Strong and Weak Research Recommendation Examples

Example 1: Education

Weak recommendation

Schools should improve online learning.

Problems:

No stakeholder is clearly identified.
“Improve” is not defined.
The finding is missing.
The action and evaluation method are unclear.

Stronger recommendation

Because students reported difficulty obtaining timely feedback during online modules, course coordinators should pilot a weekly structured feedback session in two introductory courses. The pilot should be evaluated through attendance, response time, student feedback, and assignment-completion patterns before broader adoption.

Example 2: Public Health

Weak recommendation

The government must introduce a national program.

Problems:

The evidence threshold is unknown.
The responsible government body is not specified.
The program is undefined.
Costs, harms, feasibility, and evaluation are ignored.

Stronger recommendation

The regional public-health authority should consider piloting the outreach approach in districts with similar access barriers. The pilot should be co-designed with community representatives and evaluated for reach, acceptability, cost, and unintended exclusion before any decision about wider implementation.

Example 3: Business Research

Weak recommendation

Companies should allow remote work because it increases productivity.

Problems:

It assumes causation.
It generalizes to all companies.
It ignores job type and organizational context.
It does not define remote work or productivity.

Stronger recommendation

In organizations with roles comparable to those studied, managers should consider piloting a hybrid-work arrangement rather than assuming that one model will suit all employees. The pilot should track task completion, collaboration, employee experience, turnover intentions, and role-specific constraints.

Example 4: Future Research

Weak recommendation

More research should be conducted on social media.

Stronger recommendation

Future longitudinal research should examine how changes in short-form video use relate to sleep timing and academic engagement among first-year university students. Studies should use repeated measures and distinguish passive viewing, active posting, and study-related use.

Examples by Research Methodology

The following examples are hypothetical and illustrate wording rather than reporting real study results.

Quantitative Research Recommendation

Hypothetical finding: Participation in a voluntary statistics workshop was associated with higher assessment scores.