what type of research method did dr. money use

John Money Gender Experiment: Reimer Twins

Julia Simkus

Editor at Simply Psychology

BA (Hons) Psychology, Princeton University

Julia Simkus is a graduate of Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. She is currently studying for a Master's Degree in Counseling for Mental Health and Wellness in September 2023. Julia's research has been published in peer reviewed journals.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

The John Money Experiment involved David Reimer, a twin boy raised as a girl following a botched circumcision. Money asserted gender was primarily learned, not innate.

However, David struggled with his female identity and transitioned back to male in adolescence. The case challenged Money’s theory, highlighting the influence of biological sex on gender identity.

• David Reimer was born in 1965; he had a MZ twin brother. When he was 8 months old his penis was accidentally cut off during surgery.
• His parents contacted John Money, a psychologist who was developing a theory of gender neutrality. His theory claimed that a child would take the gender identity he/she was raised with rather than the gender identity corresponding to the biological sex.
• David’s parents brought him up as a girl and Money wrote extensively about this case claiming it supported his theory. However, Brenda as he was named was suffering from severe psychological and emotional difficulties and in her teens, when she found out what had happened, she reverted back to being a boy.
• This case study supports the influence of testosterone on gender development as it shows that David’s brain development was influenced by the presence of this hormone and its effects on gender identity was stronger that the influence of social factors.

What Did John Money Do To The Twins

David Reimer was an identical twin boy born in Canada in 1965. When he was 8 months old, his penis was irreparably damaged during a botched circumcision.

John Money, a psychologist from Johns Hopkins University, had a prominent reputation in the field of sexual development and gender identity.

David’s parents took David to see Dr. Money at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, where he advised that David be “sex reassigned” as a girl through surgical, hormonal, and psychological treatments.

John Money believed that gender identity is primarily learned through one’s upbringing (nurture) as opposed to one’s inborn traits (nature).

He proposed that gender identity could be changed through behavioral interventions, and he advocated that gender reassignment was the solution for treating any child with intersex traits or atypical sex anatomies.

Dr. John Money argued that it’s possible to habilitate a baby with a defective penis more effectively as a girl than a boy.

At the age of 22 months, David underwent extensive surgery in which his testes and penis were surgically removed and rudimentary female genitals were constructed.

David’s parents raised him as a female and gave him the name Brenda (this name was chosen to be similar to his birth name, Bruce). David was given estrogen during adolescence to promote the development of breasts.

He was forced to wear dresses and was directed to engage in typical female norms, such as playing with dolls and mingling with other girls.

Throughout his childhood, David was never informed that he was biologically male and that he was an experimental subject in a controversial investigation to bolster Money’s belief in the theory of gender neutrality – that nurture, not nature, determines gender identity and sexual orientation.

David’s twin brother, Brian, served as the ideal control because the brothers had the same genetic makeup, but one was raised as a girl and the other as a boy. Money continued to see David and Brian for consultations and checkups annually.

During these check-ups, Money would force the twins to rehearse sexual acts and inspect one another’s genitals. On some occasions, Money would even photograph the twins doing these exercises. Money claimed that childhood sexual rehearsal play was important for healthy childhood sexual exploration.

David also recalls receiving anger and verbal abuse from Money if they resisted participation.

Money (1972) reported on Reimer’s progress as the “John/Joan case” to keep the identity of David anonymous. Money described David’s transition as successful.

He claimed that David behaved like a little girl and did not demonstrate any of the boyish mannerisms of his twin brother Brian. Money would publish this data to reinforce his theories on gender fluidity and to justify that gender identity is primarily learned.

In reality, though, David was never happy as a girl. He rejected his female identity and experienced severe gender dysphoria . He would complain to his parents and teachers that he felt like a boy and would refuse to wear dresses or play with dolls.

He was severely bullied in school and experienced suicidal depression throughout adolescence. Upon learning about the truth about his birth and sex of rearing from his father at the age of 15, David assumed a male gender identity, calling himself David.

David Reimer underwent treatments to reverse the assignment such as testosterone injections and surgeries to remove his breasts and reconstruct a penis.

David married a woman named Jane at 22 years and adopted three children.

Dr. Milton Diamond, a psychologist and sexologist at the University of Hawaii and a longtime academic rival of John Money, met with David to discuss his story in the mid-1990s.

Diamond (1997) brought David’s experiences to international attention by reporting the true outcome of David’s case to prevent physicians from making similar decisions when treating other infants. Diamond helped debunk Money’s theory that gender identity could be completely learned through intervention.

David continued to suffer from psychological trauma throughout adulthood due to Money’s experiments and his harrowing childhood experiences. David endured unemployment, the death of his twin brother Brian, and marital difficulties.

At the age of thirty-eight, David committed suicide.

David’s case became the subject of multiple books, magazine articles, and documentaries. He brought to attention to the complications of gender identity and called into question the ethicality of sex reassignment of infants and children.

Originally, Money’s view of gender malleability dominated the field as his initial report on David was that the reassignment had been a success. However, this view was disproved once the truth about David came to light.

His case led to a decline in the number of sex reassignment surgeries for unambiguous XY male infants with a micropenis and other congenital malformations and brought into question the malleability of gender and sex.

At present, however, the clinical literature is still deeply divided on the best way to manage cases of intersex infants.

Colapinto, J. (2000). As nature made him: The boy who was raised as a girl. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Colapinto, J. (2018). As nature made him: The boy who was raised as a girl. Langara College.

Diamond, M., & Sigmundson, H. K. (1997). Sex reassignment at birth: Long-term review and clinical implications . Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 151(3), 298-304.

Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1972). Man & Woman, Boy & Girl : The Differentiation and Dimorphism of Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Money, J., & Tucker, P. (1975). Sexual signatures: On being a man or a woman.

Money, J. (1994). The concept of gender identity disorder in childhood and adolescence after 39 years . Journal of sex & marital therapy, 20(3), 163-177.

David Reimer and John Money Gender Reassignment Controversy: The John/Joan Case

In the mid-1960s, psychologist John Money encouraged the gender reassignment of David Reimer, who was born a biological male but suffered irreparable damage to his penis as an infant. Born in 1965 as Bruce Reimer, his penis was irreparably damaged during infancy due to a failed circumcision. After encouragement from Money, Reimer’s parents decided to raise Reimer as a girl. Reimer underwent surgery as an infant to construct rudimentary female genitals, and was given female hormones during puberty. During childhood, Reimer was never told he was biologically male and regularly visited Money, who tracked the progress of his gender reassignment. Reimer unknowingly acted as an experimental subject in Money’s controversial investigation, which he called the John/Joan case. The case provided results that were used to justify thousands of sex reassignment surgeries for cases of children with reproductive abnormalities. Despite his upbringing, Reimer rejected the female identity as a young teenager and began living as a male. He suffered severe depression throughout his life, which culminated in his suicide at thirty-eight years old. Reimer, and his public statements about the trauma of his transition, brought attention to gender identity and called into question the sex reassignment of infants and children.

Bruce Peter Reimer was born on 22 August 1965 in Winnipeg, Ontario, to Janet and Ron Reimer. At six months of age, both Reimer and his identical twin, Brian, were diagnosed with phimosis, a condition in which the foreskin of the penis cannot retract, inhibiting regular urination. On 27 April 1966, Reimer underwent circumcision, a common procedure in which a physician surgically removes the foreskin of the penis. Usually, physicians performing circumcisions use a scalpel or other sharp instrument to remove foreskin. However, Reimer’s physician used the unconventional technique of cauterization, or burning to cause tissue death. Reimer’s circumcision failed. Reimer’s brother did not undergo circumcision and his phimosis healed naturally. While the true extent of Reimer’s penile damage was unclear, the overwhelming majority of biographers and journalists maintained that it was either totally severed or otherwise damaged beyond the possibility of function.

In 1967, Reimer’s parents sought the help of John Money, a psychologist and sexologist who worked at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. In the mid-twentieth century, Money helped establish views on the psychology of gender identities and roles. In his academic work, Money argued in favor of the increasingly mainstream idea that gender was a societal construct, malleable from an early age. He stated that being raised as a female was in Reimer’s interest, and recommended sexual reassignment surgery. At the time, infants born with abnormal or intersex genitalia commonly received such interventions.

Following their consultation with Money, Reimer’s parents decided to raise Reimer as a girl. Physicians at the Johns Hopkins Hospital removed Reimer’s testes and damaged penis, and constructed vestigial vulvae and a vaginal canal in their place. The physicians also opened a small hole in Reimer’s lower abdomen for urination. Following his gender reassignment surgery, Reimer was given the first name Brenda, and his parents raised him as a girl. He received estrogen during adolescence to promote the development of breasts. Throughout his childhood, Reimer was not informed about his male biology.

Throughout his childhood, Reimer received annual checkups from Money. His twin brother was also part of Money’s research on sexual development and gender in children. As identical twins growing up in the same family, the Reimer brothers were what Money considered ideal case subjects for a psychology study on gender. Reimer was the first documented case of sex reassignment of a child born developmentally normal, while Reimer’s brother was a control subject who shared Reimer’s genetic makeup, intrauterine space, and household.

During the twin’s psychiatric visits with Money, and as part of his research, Reimer and his twin brother were directed to inspect one another’s genitals and engage in behavior resembling sexual intercourse. Reimer claimed that much of Money’s treatment involved the forced reenactment of sexual positions and motions with his brother. In some exercises, the brothers rehearsed missionary positions with thrusting motions, which Money justified as the rehearsal of healthy childhood sexual exploration. In a Rolling Stone interview, Reimer recalled that at least once, Money photographed those exercises. Money also made the brothers inspect one another’s pubic areas. Reimer stated that Money observed those exercises both alone and with as many as six colleagues. Reimer recounted anger and verbal abuse from Money if he or his brother resisted orders, in contrast to the calm and scientific demeanor Money presented to their parents. Reimer and his brother underwent Money’s treatments at preschool and grade school age. Money described Reimer’s transition as successful, and claimed that Reimer’s girlish behavior stood in stark contrast to his brother’s boyishness. Money reported on Reimer’s case as the John/Joan case, leaving out Reimer’s real name. For over a decade, Reimer and his brother unknowingly provided data that, according to biographers and the Intersex Society of North America, was used to reinforce Money’s theories on gender fluidity and provided justification for thousands of sex reassignment surgeries for children with abnormal genitals.

Contrary to Money’s notes, Reimer reports that as a child he experienced severe gender dysphoria, a condition in which someone experiences distress as a result of their assigned gender. Reimer reported that he did not identify as a girl and resented Money’s visits for treatment. At the age of thirteen, Reimer threatened to commit suicide if his parents took him to Money on the next annual visit. Bullied by peers in school for his masculine traits, Reimer claimed that despite receiving female hormones, wearing dresses, and having his interests directed toward typically female norms, he always felt that he was a boy. In 1980, at the age of fifteen, Reimer’s father told him the truth about his birth and the subsequent procedures. Following that revelation, Reimer assumed a male identity, taking the first name David. By age twenty-one, Reimer had received testosterone therapy and surgeries to remove his breasts and reconstruct a penis. He married Jane Fontaine, a single mother of three, on 22 September 1990.

In adulthood, Reimer reported that he suffered psychological trauma due to Money’s experiments, which Money had used to justify sexual reassignment surgery for children with intersex or damaged genitals since the 1970s. In the mid-1990s, Reimer met Milton Diamond, a psychologist at the University of Hawaii, in Honolulu, Hawaii, and an academic rival of Money. Reimer participated in a follow-up study conducted by Diamond, in which Diamond cataloged the failures of Reimer’s transition.

In 1997, Reimer began speaking publicly about his experiences, beginning with his participation in Diamond’s study. Reimer’s first interview appeared in the December 1997 issue of Rolling Stone magazine. In interviews, and a later book about his experience, Reimer described his interactions with Money as torturous and abusive. Accordingly, Reimer claimed he developed a lifelong distrust of hospitals and medical professionals.

With those reports, Reimer caused a multifaceted controversy over Money’s methods, honesty in data reporting, and the general ethics of sex reassignment surgeries on infants and children. Reimer’s description of his childhood conflicted with the scientific consensus about sex reassignment at the time. According to NOVA , Money led scientists to believe that the John/Joan case demonstrated an unreservedly successful sex transition. Reimer’s parents later blamed Money’s methods and alleged surreptitiousness for the psychological illnesses of their sons, although the notes of a former graduate student in Money’s lab indicated that Reimer’s parents dishonestly represented the transition’s success to Money and his coworkers. Reimer was further alleged by supporters of Money to have incorrectly recalled the details of his treatment. On Reimer’s case, Money publicly dismissed his criticism as anti-feminist and anti-trans bias, but, according to his colleagues, was personally ashamed of the failure.

In his early twenties, Reimer attempted to commit suicide twice. According to Reimer, his adult family life was strained by marital problems and employment difficulty. Reimer’s brother, who suffered from depression and schizophrenia, died from an antidepressant drug overdose in July of 2002. On 2 May 2004, Reimer’s wife told him that she wanted a divorce. Two days later, at the age of thirty-eight, Reimer committed suicide by firearm.

Reimer, Money, and the case became subjects of numerous books and documentaries following the exposé. Reimer also became somewhat iconic in popular culture, being directly referenced or alluded to in the television shows Chicago Hope , Law & Order , and Mental . The BBC series Horizon covered his story in two episodes, “The Boy Who Was Turned into a Girl” (2000) and “Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis” (2004). Canadian rock group The Weakerthans wrote “Hymn of the Medical Oddity” about Reimer, and the New York-based Ensemble Studio Theatre production Boy was based on Reimer’s life.

• Carey, Benedict. “John William Money, 84, Sexual Identity Researcher, Dies.” New York Times , 11 July 2006.
• Colapinto, John. "The True Story of John/Joan." Rolling Stone 11 (1997): 54–73.
• Colapinto, John. As Nature Made Him: The Boy who was Raised as a Girl . New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000.
• Colapinto, John. "Gender Gap—What were the real reasons behind David Reimer’s suicide?" Slate (2004).
• Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis , documentary, written by Sanjida O’Connell (BBC, 2004), Film.
• The Boy Who Was Turned Into a Girl , documentary, directed by Andrew Cohen (BBC, 2000.), Film.
• “Who was David Reimer (also, sadly, known as John/Joan)?” Intersex Society of North America . http://www.isna.org/faq/reimer (Accessed October 31, 2017).

How to cite

Articles rights and graphics.

Copyright Arizona Board of Regents Licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)  

Last modified

Share this page.

• Sign up and Get Listed

Outside of US & canada

Be found at the exact moment they are searching. Sign up and Get Listed

• For Professionals
• Worksheets/Resources
• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Marriage Counselor
• Find a Child Counselor
• Find a Support Group
• Find a Psychologist
• If You Are in Crisis
• Self-Esteem
• Sex Addiction
• Relationships
• Child and Adolescent Issues
• Eating Disorders
• How to Find the Right Therapist
• Explore Therapy
• Issues Treated
• Modes of Therapy
• Types of Therapy
• Famous Psychologists
• Psychotropic Medication
• What Is Therapy?
• How to Help a Loved One
• How Much Does Therapy Cost?
• How to Become a Therapist
• Signs of Healthy Therapy
• Warning Signs in Therapy
• The GoodTherapy Blog
• PsychPedia A-Z
• Dear GoodTherapy
• Share Your Story
• Therapy News
• Marketing Your Therapy Website
• Private Practice Checklist
• Private Practice Business Plan
• Practice Management Software for Therapists
• Rules and Ethics of Online Therapy for Therapists
• CE Courses for Therapists
• HIPAA Basics for Therapists
• How to Send Appointment Reminders that Work
• More Professional Resources
• List Your Practice
• List a Treatment Center
• Earn CE Credit Hours
• Student Membership
• Online Continuing Education
• Marketing Webinars
• GoodTherapy’s Vision
• Partner or Advertise

• Learn About Therapy >

John Money (1921-2006)

John Money was a psychologist and sexologist who researched gender identity and sexual preferences and coined the terms ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender role.’

Professional Life

John Money was born July 8, 1921 in Morrinsville, New Zealand. He taught philosophy and psychology as a junior lecturer at the University of Otago before relocating to the United States to pursue graduate studies. Money received his PhD from Harvard University in 1952. He became a professor of medical psychology and pediatrics at John Hopkins University, where he was heavily involved with the Sexual Behaviors Unit, which studied sex reassignment surgery.

Money devoted much of his research to sexual preferences, sexual orientation , and gender and sex differences. He was the recipient of many awards throughout his career, including the American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Award for the applications of psychology in 1985; the Masters and Johnson Fourth Annual Award, Society for Sex Therapy in 1988; and an award for his contributions to sexology research from the International Academy of Sex Research in 1991. The Kinsey Institute offers an annual John Money Fellowship for research in sexology.

Money was married briefly in the 1950s. He passed away in Maryland in 2006 from complications related to Parkinson's disease.

Contribution to Psychology

John Money’s work continues to be referenced in the fields of gender and sex research. Money coined the terms “gender role” and “gender identity.” He emphasized that one’s gender role—traits associated with one’s public presentation of gender—had to be learned. For example, a woman who wears a dress and high heels is publicly displaying a culturally accepted female gender role, which is a learned behavior. Gender identity, on the other hand, illustrates one’s internal experience of sexuality . Money was one of the first scientists to acknowledge that one’s biological sex may not correspond with his or her gender identity.

Money urged researchers to move away from a strict dichotomy between heterosexuality and homosexuality. He developed the concept of the lovemap to characterize a person's idealized partner and sexual preferences. There are heterosexual and homosexual lovemaps, as well as lovemaps associated with sexual preferences and kinks. For example, Money developed paraphilic, klismaphilic, and zoophilic lovemaps—sexual preferences for and preoccupations with atypical or taboo practices, enemas, and animals, respectively.

Money studied pedophilia , in particular, and he identified a distinction between love-based attraction to children and sadistic pedophilia. Sadistic pedophiles, according to Money, abuse and sometimes even kill their victims. Affectional pedophilia, by contrast, was due to eroticized parental love, and Money emphasized that this type of pedophilia had little to do with sex. Some critics claim that Money was tolerant of pedophilia, though others have welcomed his research as a better way for understanding inappropriate sexual attractions.

Sex Reassignment Controversy

Because Money believed that much of gendered behavior was arbitrary and learned rather than the product of biological drives, he was interested in the effects of sex reassignment surgery. In the 1960s, the son of Janet and Ronald Reimer experienced a botched circumcision that left him with a severely mangled penis. When John Money was consulted, he suggested that the boy be raised as a girl, and the child underwent sex reassignment surgery to remove his penis and testicles and create a rudimentary vulva.

Money used the case as evidence that gender is learned and not innate, demonstrating that the child had fully adapted to a female role as Brenda. However, Reimer claims he always felt more like a boy while growing up; in fact, as soon as the truth was revealed to Brenda as a teen, Brenda began to identify as male and changed his name to David. David Reimer later committed suicide at age 38.

Many researchers have pointed to the case as evidence that gender is at least partially biologically determined, and intersex activists have used the case to point to the damage that genital surgery can cause to children. The dramatic interventions into Reimer's life have been heavily criticized on all sides of the political spectrum.

References:

• Carey, B. (2006, July 11). John William Money, 84, sexual identity researcher, dies.  The New York Times . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/us/11money.html
• Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis. (n.d.).  BBC News . Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml
• John Money. (2006).  Contemporary Authors Online . Retrieved from http://www.gale.cengage.com/InContext/bio.htm

People Are Reading

• Dialectical Dilemmas and How ACT Models Can Help Guide Treatment
• How Emotionally Intelligent People Use Negative Emotions to Their Advantage
• Political Differences May Shorten Thanksgiving Visits
• Is ‘13 Reasons Why’ Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?
• Time-Management Hacks to Be More Efficient and Procrastinate Less

Join GoodTherapy!

Mental health professionals who meet our membership requirements can take advantage of benefits such as:

• Client referrals
• Continuing education credits
• Publication and media opportunities
• Marketing resources and webinars
• Special discounts

Notice to users

John Money, 84; Doctor Pioneered Study of Gender Identity in 1950s

• Copy Link URL Copied!

Dr. John Money, a leading sex researcher who pioneered the study of gender identity and helped establish Johns Hopkins Hospital as the first one in the United States to perform adult sex-change operations, has died. He was 84.

The controversial scholar, who coined the term “gender role,” died Friday at St. Joseph Medical Center in Baltimore of complications from Parkinson’s disease.

As director of the Psychohormonal Research Unit at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Money did groundbreaking research. He developed hormonal treatment to improve self-control of sex offenders and dedicated research to the virtually unexplored topic of infants born with ambiguous sex organs.

“People never thought about that. Before, you had male animals and female animals, and that was it,” said Dr. Gregory K. Lehne, an assistant professor of medical psychology at Hopkins and a protege of Money.

“But he taught us gender is much more significant than having two sexes,” Lehne said. “He identified what it means to be male and what it means to be female, and what it means to be in-between.”

Money’s theories also challenged taboos of 1950s-era sexuality, establishing the notion of gender roles and gender identity -- terms that helped shape modern gender studies.

His most memorable and criticized work was advocating sex-change operations for patients confused over their gender -- a position that was denounced by some colleagues who favored counseling instead of surgery. In 1979, Hopkins announced that it no longer would perform the operations.

Money’s belief that gender could be assigned to a child before age 3 played out in a radical experiment that became devastating for him and the child on whom it was performed.

Canadian parents of twin boys sought Money’s advice in 1967 after one of their sons had a botched circumcision. Money advised them that with hormones and sex-change surgery, the boy could be raised as a girl.

But by the time Brenda was a teenager, it became clear that the plan wasn’t working. Brenda became known as a boy, David Reimer, who later was the subject of the 2000 book “As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl,” by John Colapinto. In the book, Reimer condemned the experiment and spoke of his anguish. He committed suicide in 2004.

“I think it devastated” Money, Lehne said. “The controversy led to him being kind of withdrawn and somewhat bitter after seeing himself as misinterpreted and not being able to do anything about it.”

Money led an eccentric lifestyle, friends said. He bought his clothes from secondhand stores and rarely threw away anything that he thought could be reused. He was married but quickly divorced in the 1950s, and had no children.

Eileen Higham, a clinical psychologist who worked for Money for several years in the 1970s, said: “As a person, I found him an outstanding intellect but not easy to get along with. I think he was widely misunderstood because he did not fit into the mainstream.”

Born in New Zealand in 1921, Money moved to the United States in 1947 to study at the Psychiatric Institute of the University of Pittsburgh.

He left Pittsburgh for Harvard University, where he earned a doctorate in 1952.

In Baltimore, he lived within walking distance of the Johns Hopkins medical campus for more than 40 years. Money’s house had an eclectic collection of anthropological art he had amassed from traveling around the world, including a stint studying aboriginal communities.

Much of Money’s collection now sits in a gallery in the town of Gore, New Zealand, in a wing named after him.

A collection of Money’s professional writings is housed at the library of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University.

More to Read

The secretive life — and stunning downfall — of Sinaloa cartel boss ‘El Mayo’ Zambada

Aug. 1, 2024

Why Mexico was in the dark about the arrest of top Sinaloa cartel leaders

Americans released in prisoner swap with Russia are back on U.S. soil, welcomed by Biden and Harris

Sign up for Essential California

The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Electoral politics become a subtext in dramatic prisoner swap with Russia

World & Nation

Rights group says security forces have killed 9 as Nigerians protest over hunger, hardship

Rain-related disasters have killed more than 250 in a deadly week across Asia

Aug. 2, 2024

Kamala Harris secures enough delegate votes for 2024 nomination, Democratic committee chair says

Click to learn how you can help us defend the right to conduct sex research!

John Money, Ph.D.

Dr. John William Money (July 8, 1921–July 7, 2006), internationally known for his work in psychoendocrinology and developmental sexology, defined the concepts of gender role and identity.

Dr. Money's gifts to the Kinsey Institute include his archives which comprise the John Money Collection , and funds to establish the Scholars of Sexology Fellowship to support graduate students and young scholars.

About Dr. Money

Born in Morrinsville, New Zealand, John William Money emigrated to the United States in 1947 and received his Ph.D from Harvard University in 1952. In 1966, Dr. Money founded the Gender Identity Clinic at Johns Hopkins University and started an extensive research program on the psychohormonal treatment of paraphilias and on sex reassignment. Money formulated, defined, and coined the term "gender role" and later expanded it to gender-identity/role (G-I/R). In 1961, he proposed the hypothesis that androgen is the libido hormone for both sexes.

Extending his research from the clinic to clinical history, Dr. Money wrote about the 18th century origins and present consequences of antisexualism in  The Destroying Angel: Sex, Fitness, and Food in the Legacy of Degeneracy Theory, Graham Crackers, Kellogg's Corn Flakes, and American Health History  (1985).  Venuses Penuses: Sexology, Sexosophy, and Exigency Theory  (1986) is an anthology of his theoretically significant writings. His publications also cover the philosophy and methodology of science in the practice of clinical psychoendocrinology and sexology, including Unspeakable Monsters in All Our Lives: The Complete Interviewer and Clinical Biographer ,  Exigency Theory and Sexology , and many other monographs.

The John Money Collection

The Kinsey Institute Library houses John Money's lifelong work, including:

• Professional correspondence (1950-2004)
• Lectures, presentations, and audiovisual materials (1960s-2004)
• Articles and clippings (1973-2000), including thousands of reprints and pamphlets on a broad range of sex education and research topics
• Scientific journals and erotic magazines (1940s-2000)
• Manuscripts and publications (complete holdings)
• Scientific, erotic and pornographic journals and magazines (1949-1985)
• Conference programs and papers, photo albums, and information, and materials relating to sex research organizations and conferences

Visit the Kinsey Institute Library Catalog to search through the John Money Collection online.

• Support Kinsey

Love is more than an emotion. It is essential to our individual and collective well-being. Your support will help the Kinsey Institute advance research and education in the science of love and give a diverse field of researchers the resources they need to make new discoveries.

Connect with Kinsey

Site navigation.

• Collections + library
• Publications
• Education + outreach
• News + events

Related links

• Subscribe to our newsletter
• Search our library catalog
• Download the Kinsey Reporter app

Kinsey Institute

• Phone: (812) 855-7686
• Email: [email protected]
• Lindley Hall 305, 150 S Woodlawn Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405

Kinsey Institute Library & Special Collections

• Phone: (812) 855-3058
• Email: [email protected]

Dr. John Money Discovered

By Elizabeth Newton ~ The vast collections of the National Library of Medicine encompass a startling variety of topics and materials. I recently spent two months interning in the Historical Audiovisuals program of the library’s History of Medicine Division, researching and writing film abstracts, taking inventory in the film vault, and examining audiocassette, phonograph, and slide collections whose contents needed documentation. In this work, I learned that it is not uncommon to find unprocessed, undescribed material in archival collections, and part of the archivist’s job is to identify, arrange, and describe it.

“I have a kind of image in my mind of, five to seven thousand years or more ago, a conclave of priestly rulers who were extraordinarily clever. They came out of their conclave, having discovered the principle that the way to gain power over their people was to make them guilty about the functioning of the body with regard to sex. The power to make people guilty is also the power to make them conform.” Dr. John Money, 1971.

A couple of documents in the NLM box indicated that the material was transferred to NLM in the mid-1990s from the University of Pittsburgh. Inside the box was a variety of medical slides and pamphlets, and also a transcript of a Money lecture at Johns Hopkins University with the provocative title “Pornography in the Home,” accompanied by 118 slides. A published version of the lecture appeared in1973 in Contemporary Sexual Behavior: Critical Issues in the 1970s based on the proceedings of the sixty-first annual meeting of the American Psychopathological Association .  It appears there was a sound recording of the lecture as well, but the audio was not in the box. Despite its startling title, the February 17, 1971 lecture was not solely about pornography, but about the importance of frank sex education in the home and in school settings. Sex education, or its lack in many cases, is still a contentious topic in the United States today.

In his lecture, Dr. Money addressed contemporary issues and problems in sex education, with possible solutions. While he was primarily focused on the matter of visual imagery in sex education, he addressed other issues, which, 45 years later, still ring true, such as the absence of the concept of love in sex education courses.

“The verdict of history, so far as the 19th century is concerned, is that the seed of absurdity housed the plant of reasonable change.” The Destroying Angel, John Money (75)

Money further explored the history of this persistent phenomenon of anti-sexualism in America in his book, The Destroying Angel . When one is consistently punished or silenced for asking questions about or exhibiting a natural drive, problems arise. Growing up in Mississippi many decades after Money’s critiques were published, I have first-hand experience with sex education courses that were seriously lacking in substance, and the correlating social issues. Mississippi currently has the second highest rates of teen pregnancy and gonorrhea in the U.S., as well as one of the most conservative sex-education policies. According to Mississippi House Bill 494, as of 2016 the state requires that school districts choose from one of two sex education programs: abstinence plus or abstinence only.  While public schools are, in fact, required to teach sex education courses, they hardly scrape the surface of human sexuality. For example, in the abstinence plus program, the teacher may discuss birth control and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS, but can in no way provide demonstrations on how to effectively use condoms. In Money’s Destroying Angel , he argued that rather than being protected, “children are victimized by lack of education on explicit sex and pornography. They are deprived not only of the actual knowledge but also of the opportunity to learn the moral principles that apply to…sex…in their own lives”.

During my time at NLM, I developed a strong interest in Dr. Money and his contributions to sex education. Controversies both thoughtfully acknowledged and set aside for the moment, it seems that one of his genuine goals was to help people to become more open-minded and better understand those with sexual tendencies that are not within the “norm” of society. I think it is important to note the difficulties that come with exploring a field of medicine with such a strong cultural taboo. John Money had a complex mind, and he held extremely progressive, even shocking, ideas for the time period in which he was working. I hope to continue my research on Dr. Money and the history of human sexuality—an area I likely would not have known anything about had I not been assigned to explore, describe, and better understand one of the NLM’s “hidden collections.”

“One becomes better able to help others by achieving a position, and I want to weigh this word very carefully, of nonjudgementalism.” John Money

Circulate this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
• Pingback: Weekly Postings | The MARquee

Failed to mention his experiments we complete failures.

The author egregiously fails to mention that Money’s experiments were essentially equivalent to some of Joseph Menegele’s. The damage to the lives of countless boys is a tragedy of monumental proportion. It’s vastly greater than a mere “controversy,” as this article suggests.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from Circulating Now from the NLM Historical Collections

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Losing Money: a controversial pioneer in gender studies

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

By Gwendolyn Ann Smith

I had an interesting thing happen to me the other day: I found myself almost agreeing with Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute. You see, early in July of this year, Dr. John Money passed away. In many ways he did pioneering work around gender identity, and the school he was affiliated with, John Hopkins, was a ground breaker when it came to trangender-related care in the post-war era. Of course, Mr. Knight takes Dr. Money to task, and attacks one of the most controversial parts of Dr. Money's work: the piece that, had the outcome remained the same as it has been for decades, Dr. Money's passing would be little more than a footnote. It was the 1960s when Dr. Money met his most well-known patient. A young boy named David — one of a pair of twin boys — was put in his case: this boy had suffered a horrific accident during circumcision, and had lost a substantial part of his genitalia. Dr. Money's "treatment" was for David to be castrated, and for his parents to raise him as a female. Dr. Money's argument being that gender was a social construct, and David would do quite well as a girl and a woman if he was simply raised as such. In relatively early studies of his star patient, Dr. Money was glad to report that David apparently took to his new gender role with ease, helping to prove that gender was indeed a social construct. This study would be used by may for decades, and served as a basis for how many still view gender identity. It was also all terribly wrong. David Reimer did not socialize as well as Dr. Money would have liked you to believe. In the book "As Nature Made Him: The Boy who was Raised as a Girl," author John Colapinto takes us inside Davie Reimer's life, laying bare a person who never accepted his new gender, and was never truly accepted within it by others. David Reimer did not continue to live as a woman: he transitioned back to male, and live as a man until taking his life a handful of years ago, a sad coda to this tragic tale. Yet to the end, Dr. Money seemed at least partially willing to believe that he was in the right with Mr. Reimer. So, Bob Knight lambastes Dr. Money, and I have to agree. Dr. Money's work was shoddy at best, and criminal at worst. Yet I can't completely agree with Mr. Knight. You see, in attacking Dr. Money, Knight attempts to use it to show how the "Gender Identity Movement" has a "faulty foundation." It seems to me that Dr. Money's downfall proves quite the opposite. A year or two before David Reimer went public, I sat with a close friend of mine, and we briefly touched upon Dr. Money's findings. Basically put, we could not shore up this idea of gender as a socially constructed item with our own experiences as transgender women. If it was all simply social, we pondered, why would any of us feel any need to physically alter our bodies? Why not just live our preferred social role and be happy? It seemed as if our own experience contradicted Dr. Money, in a slightly similar fashion to Mr. Reimer: none of us were so easily socialized into gender roles that did not fit ourselves, in spite of being brought up to believe that we should be the gender everyone told us we were. Dr. Money is gone, but there seem plenty willing to take his place, those who seem to be willing to put their own arrogance in the way of honest work in understanding the ins and outs of gender identity. So few really make an attempt to ask a transgender person – or even a non-transgender male like David Reimer – what they think it's all about. In the end though, Dr. Money remains dead, as does David Reimer. Only one of those deaths is tragic, and only one contains the real lessons of gender.

Muna and the Power of Queer Representation at Pitchfork Music Festival

I saw the indie pop band Muna perform live for the first time on my 22nd birthday. I had been a fan for years, and they were opening for Phoebe Bridgers at The [...]

JD Vance Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Couch

There comes a time in every man’s life when he has to defend himself against accusations of couch fucking. And now is JD Vance’s time.If you [...]

Disgraced Felon Donald Trump Is the Worst Candidate Regardless of Who He Runs Against

I am writing this mere hours after learning that President Joe Biden has stepped back from the presidential race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris.I got [...]

Michigan Rep. Neil Friske Arrest Shows Hypocrisy of 'Traditional Values' Politicians

It is a heuristic of American politics that those who raise their voices loudest in defense of “traditional American values” or a retrograde [...]

Jim Obergefell Reflects on Fate of Marriage Equality on 9th Anniversary of Landmark Supreme Court Ruling

Our nation marked nine years of marriage equality on June 26, 2024. As one of more than 30 plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed same-sex [...]

Texas Supreme Court: Transgender People Do/Should Not Exist

The Texas Supreme Court just ruled that blocking parents from providing gender-affirming care to their children is just fine.“The Texas Supreme Court [...]

Where Are They Now? Catching Up with Sean Kosofsky, Former Policy and Political Director at Michigan's Triangle Foundation

Our "Where Are They Now?" series will get you up-to-date on the lives of LGBTQ+ community advocates who have contributed to Michigan with years of tireless [...]

Vice President Pete? Buttigieg Makes His Case to Become Kamala’s Running Mate

Kamala Harris’s whirlwind campaign is in full whirl, with excitement building around who will become the candidate’s pick for vice president. While [...]

The Mothers and Fathers of Braun Court Say Goodbye to a Space That Belonged to All of Us

In many ways, recent news about the future of Ann Arbor’s storied Braun Court was expected. At some point in the not-so-distant future, the seven [...]

Black Trans Women Leaders Share Love, Strength at Detroit Conference

The 28 women who gathered in Detroit from across the country for Black Trans Circles (BTC) came to the leadership conference in early July for education [...]

Whitmer Signs Law Banning Gay, Trans ‘Panic’ Defenses

On July 23, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed into law a bill prohibiting LGBTQ+ “panic” legal defenses in Michigan. The law, which will go into effect [...]

Leading Michigan LGBTQ+ and Ally Officials React to Kamala Harris' Presidential Run

On Sunday, President Joe Biden released a letter to the American people detailing his decision to step aside and no longer seek reelection. Moments later, he [...]

From the Pride Source Marketplace

Anew Life Prosthetics and Orthotics

Backstreet at large multiplex, metro comfort, coughlin jewelers, corktown health.

Dr. John Money, pioneer in sexual identity, dies

Dr. John Money, a psychologist and sex researcher who coined the terms “gender identity” and “gender role” and was a pioneer in studies of sexual identity, has died. He was 84.

Money died Friday at St. Joseph Medical Center in Towson, said Vivienne Stearns-Elliott, a hospital spokeswoman. Money’s niece, Sally Hopkins, said Sunday her uncle died of complications from Parkinson’s disease.

Money was born in New Zealand and immigrated to the United States in 1947. He conducted research for about 50 years at Johns Hopkins University, where he was a professor of medical psychology.

Money believed a person’s gender identity was determined by an interaction between biological factors and upbringing. That represented a break from past thinking, in which gender identity was largely believed to be caused only by biological factors.

“He really developed that entire field of study,” said Dr. Gregory K. Lehne, a Money protege and an assistant professor of medical psychology at Johns Hopkins. “Without him, that whole field of study might not have existed.”

Money advised parents on what sex they should raise hermaphrodites — people born with characteristics of both sexes — to be. He also worked with people who were born with normal sex organs but did not identify with the gender they had been raised to be.

“He pioneered the concepts related to this and the psychological aspects of sex reassignment,” Lehne said.

Lehne said Money appeared to enjoy the controversy his work raised because it provoked people to think in different ways about gender.

Money was involved in a highly publicized case of a boy who was raised as a girl after suffering a seared penis while being circumcised in 1966.

David Reimer was raised as “Brenda” after Money advised his parents to remove the rest of his male genitalia and recommended female hormone treatment.

Reimer was 15 when he learned his true identity and rejected further treatment as a girl. He committed suicide in 2004 at the age of 38 after failed investments drove him into poverty.

Lehne said Money did not talk publicly about the case and Hopkins said her uncle did so out of respect for the family.

“He had total sympathy and distress over the situation the family was in,” she said.

Money was married but quickly divorced in the 1950s. He had no children and is survived by eight nieces and nephews and other relatives, Hopkins said.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

John William Money, 84, Sexual Identity Researcher, Dies

By Benedict Carey

• July 11, 2006

John William Money, who helped found the field of sexual identity studies, died Friday in Towson, Md. He was 84.

The cause was complications of Parkinson's disease, said Dr. Money's niece Sally Hopkins.

A psychologist at Johns Hopkins University for over 50 years, Dr. Money brought a measure of scientific compassion to a field that through the 1950's considered cases of sexual ambiguity as oddities, glitches in the natural order of biologically determined sexuality.

In papers on infants born with ambiguous genitalia and in later studies, Dr. Money challenged those assumptions, providing a systematic theory for understanding how sexual identity developed. He argued that social and environmental cues interacted with a child's genes and hormones to shape whether the person identified as male or female.

"He was the first scientist to provide a language to describe the psychological dimensions of human sexual identity; no such language had existed before," said Dr. Kenneth J. Zucker, psychologist in chief at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.

Early in his career, Dr. Money coined the terms "gender identity," to describe the internal experience of sexuality, and "gender role," to refer to social expectations of male and female behavior. The two concepts still drive much research into sexual identity.

He was among the first scientists to study the psychological experience of sexual confusion and to grasp possible ways to relieve suffering. He was an early proponent of sex reassignment surgery for men and women who believed that their biologically given sex was at odds with their sexual identity.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Interlibrary Loan and Scan & Deliver
• Course Reserves
• Purchase Request
• Collection Development & Maintenance
• Current Negotiations
• Ask a Librarian
• Instructor Support
• Library How-To
• Research Guides
• Research Support
• Study Rooms
• Research Rooms
• Partner Spaces
• Loanable Equipment
• Print, Scan, Copy
• 3D Printers
• Poster Printing
• OSULP Leadership
• Strategic Plan

Scholarly Articles: How can I tell?

• Journal Information
• Literature Review
• Author and affiliation
• Introduction
• Specialized Vocabulary

Methodology

• Research sponsors
• Peer-review

The methodology section or methods section tells you how the author(s) went about doing their research. It should let you know a) what method they used to gather data (survey, interviews, experiments, etc.), why they chose this method, and what the limitations are to this method.

The methodology section should be detailed enough that another researcher could replicate the study described. When you read the methodology or methods section:

• What kind of research method did the authors use? Is it an appropriate method for the type of study they are conducting?
• How did the authors get their tests subjects? What criteria did they use?
• What are the contexts of the study that may have affected the results (e.g. environmental conditions, lab conditions, timing questions, etc.)
• Is the sample size representative of the larger population (i.e., was it big enough?)
• Are the data collection instruments and procedures likely to have measured all the important characteristics with reasonable accuracy?
• Does the data analysis appear to have been done with care, and were appropriate analytical techniques used? 

A good researcher will always let you know about the limitations of his or her research.

• << Previous: Specialized Vocabulary
• Next: Results >>
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 3:26 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/ScholarlyArticle

Contact Info

121 The Valley Library Corvallis OR 97331–4501

Phone: 541-737-3331

Services for Persons with Disabilities

In the Valley Library

• Oregon State University Press
• Special Collections and Archives Research Center
• Undergrad Research & Writing Studio
• Graduate Student Commons
• Tutoring Services
• Northwest Art Collection

Digital Projects

• Oregon Explorer
• Oregon Digital
• ScholarsArchive@OSU
• Digital Publishing Initiatives
• Atlas of the Pacific Northwest
• Marilyn Potts Guin Library  
• Cascades Campus Library
• McDowell Library of Vet Medicine

How To Choose Your Research Methodology

Qualitative vs quantitative vs mixed methods.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA). Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Without a doubt, one of the most common questions we receive at Grad Coach is “ How do I choose the right methodology for my research? ”. It’s easy to see why – with so many options on the research design table, it’s easy to get intimidated, especially with all the complex lingo!

In this post, we’ll explain the three overarching types of research – qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods – and how you can go about choosing the best methodological approach for your research.

Overview: Choosing Your Methodology

Understanding the options – Qualitative research – Quantitative research – Mixed methods-based research

Choosing a research methodology – Nature of the research – Research area norms – Practicalities

1. Understanding the options

Before we jump into the question of how to choose a research methodology, it’s useful to take a step back to understand the three overarching types of research – qualitative , quantitative and mixed methods -based research. Each of these options takes a different methodological approach.

Qualitative research utilises data that is not numbers-based. In other words, qualitative research focuses on words , descriptions , concepts or ideas – while quantitative research makes use of numbers and statistics. Qualitative research investigates the “softer side” of things to explore and describe, while quantitative research focuses on the “hard numbers”, to measure differences between variables and the relationships between them.

Importantly, qualitative research methods are typically used to explore and gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of a situation – to draw a rich picture . In contrast to this, quantitative methods are usually used to confirm or test hypotheses . In other words, they have distinctly different purposes. The table below highlights a few of the key differences between qualitative and quantitative research – you can learn more about the differences here.

• Uses an inductive approach
• Is used to build theories
• Takes a subjective approach
• Adopts an open and flexible approach
• The researcher is close to the respondents
• Interviews and focus groups are oftentimes used to collect word-based data.
• Generally, draws on small sample sizes
• Uses qualitative data analysis techniques (e.g. content analysis , thematic analysis , etc)
• Uses a deductive approach
• Is used to test theories
• Takes an objective approach
• Adopts a closed, highly planned approach
• The research is disconnected from respondents
• Surveys or laboratory equipment are often used to collect number-based data.
• Generally, requires large sample sizes
• Uses statistical analysis techniques to make sense of the data

Mixed methods -based research, as you’d expect, attempts to bring these two types of research together, drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data. Quite often, mixed methods-based studies will use qualitative research to explore a situation and develop a potential model of understanding (this is called a conceptual framework), and then go on to use quantitative methods to test that model empirically.

In other words, while qualitative and quantitative methods (and the philosophies that underpin them) are completely different, they are not at odds with each other. It’s not a competition of qualitative vs quantitative. On the contrary, they can be used together to develop a high-quality piece of research. Of course, this is easier said than done, so we usually recommend that first-time researchers stick to a single approach , unless the nature of their study truly warrants a mixed-methods approach.

The key takeaway here, and the reason we started by looking at the three options, is that it’s important to understand that each methodological approach has a different purpose – for example, to explore and understand situations (qualitative), to test and measure (quantitative) or to do both. They’re not simply alternative tools for the same job. 

Right – now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s look at how you can go about choosing the right methodology for your research.

2. How to choose a research methodology

To choose the right research methodology for your dissertation or thesis, you need to consider three important factors . Based on these three factors, you can decide on your overarching approach – qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. Once you’ve made that decision, you can flesh out the finer details of your methodology, such as the sampling , data collection methods and analysis techniques (we discuss these separately in other posts ).

The three factors you need to consider are:

• The nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions
• The methodological approaches taken in the existing literature
• Practicalities and constraints

Let’s take a look at each of these.

Factor #1: The nature of your research

As I mentioned earlier, each type of research (and therefore, research methodology), whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed, has a different purpose and helps solve a different type of question. So, it’s logical that the key deciding factor in terms of which research methodology you adopt is the nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions .

But, what types of research exist?

Broadly speaking, research can fall into one of three categories:

• Exploratory – getting a better understanding of an issue and potentially developing a theory regarding it
• Confirmatory – confirming a potential theory or hypothesis by testing it empirically
• A mix of both – building a potential theory or hypothesis and then testing it

As a rule of thumb, exploratory research tends to adopt a qualitative approach , whereas confirmatory research tends to use quantitative methods . This isn’t set in stone, but it’s a very useful heuristic. Naturally then, research that combines a mix of both, or is seeking to develop a theory from the ground up and then test that theory, would utilize a mixed-methods approach.

Let’s look at an example in action.

If your research aims were to understand the perspectives of war veterans regarding certain political matters, you’d likely adopt a qualitative methodology, making use of interviews to collect data and one or more qualitative data analysis methods to make sense of the data.

If, on the other hand, your research aims involved testing a set of hypotheses regarding the link between political leaning and income levels, you’d likely adopt a quantitative methodology, using numbers-based data from a survey to measure the links between variables and/or constructs .

So, the first (and most important thing) thing you need to consider when deciding which methodological approach to use for your research project is the nature of your research aims , objectives and research questions. Specifically, you need to assess whether your research leans in an exploratory or confirmatory direction or involves a mix of both.

The importance of achieving solid alignment between these three factors and your methodology can’t be overstated. If they’re misaligned, you’re going to be forcing a square peg into a round hole. In other words, you’ll be using the wrong tool for the job, and your research will become a disjointed mess.

If your research is a mix of both exploratory and confirmatory, but you have a tight word count limit, you may need to consider trimming down the scope a little and focusing on one or the other. One methodology executed well has a far better chance of earning marks than a poorly executed mixed methods approach. So, don’t try to be a hero, unless there is a very strong underpinning logic.

Need a helping hand?

Factor #2: The disciplinary norms

Choosing the right methodology for your research also involves looking at the approaches used by other researchers in the field, and studies with similar research aims and objectives to yours. Oftentimes, within a discipline, there is a common methodological approach (or set of approaches) used in studies. While this doesn’t mean you should follow the herd “just because”, you should at least consider these approaches and evaluate their merit within your context.

A major benefit of reviewing the research methodologies used by similar studies in your field is that you can often piggyback on the data collection techniques that other (more experienced) researchers have developed. For example, if you’re undertaking a quantitative study, you can often find tried and tested survey scales with high Cronbach’s alphas. These are usually included in the appendices of journal articles, so you don’t even have to contact the original authors. By using these, you’ll save a lot of time and ensure that your study stands on the proverbial “shoulders of giants” by using high-quality measurement instruments .

Of course, when reviewing existing literature, keep point #1 front of mind. In other words, your methodology needs to align with your research aims, objectives and questions. Don’t fall into the trap of adopting the methodological “norm” of other studies just because it’s popular. Only adopt that which is relevant to your research.

Factor #3: Practicalities

When choosing a research methodology, there will always be a tension between doing what’s theoretically best (i.e., the most scientifically rigorous research design ) and doing what’s practical , given your constraints . This is the nature of doing research and there are always trade-offs, as with anything else.

But what constraints, you ask?

When you’re evaluating your methodological options, you need to consider the following constraints:

• Data access
• Equipment and software
• Your knowledge and skills

Let’s look at each of these.

Constraint #1: Data access

The first practical constraint you need to consider is your access to data . If you’re going to be undertaking primary research , you need to think critically about the sample of respondents you realistically have access to. For example, if you plan to use in-person interviews , you need to ask yourself how many people you’ll need to interview, whether they’ll be agreeable to being interviewed, where they’re located, and so on.

If you’re wanting to undertake a quantitative approach using surveys to collect data, you’ll need to consider how many responses you’ll require to achieve statistically significant results. For many statistical tests, a sample of a few hundred respondents is typically needed to develop convincing conclusions.

So, think carefully about what data you’ll need access to, how much data you’ll need and how you’ll collect it. The last thing you want is to spend a huge amount of time on your research only to find that you can’t get access to the required data.

Constraint #2: Time

The next constraint is time. If you’re undertaking research as part of a PhD, you may have a fairly open-ended time limit, but this is unlikely to be the case for undergrad and Masters-level projects. So, pay attention to your timeline, as the data collection and analysis components of different methodologies have a major impact on time requirements . Also, keep in mind that these stages of the research often take a lot longer than originally anticipated.

Another practical implication of time limits is that it will directly impact which time horizon you can use – i.e. longitudinal vs cross-sectional . For example, if you’ve got a 6-month limit for your entire research project, it’s quite unlikely that you’ll be able to adopt a longitudinal time horizon. 

Constraint #3: Money

As with so many things, money is another important constraint you’ll need to consider when deciding on your research methodology. While some research designs will cost near zero to execute, others may require a substantial budget .

Some of the costs that may arise include:

• Software costs – e.g. survey hosting services, analysis software, etc.
• Promotion costs – e.g. advertising a survey to attract respondents
• Incentive costs – e.g. providing a prize or cash payment incentive to attract respondents
• Equipment rental costs – e.g. recording equipment, lab equipment, etc.
• Travel costs
• Food & beverages

These are just a handful of costs that can creep into your research budget. Like most projects, the actual costs tend to be higher than the estimates, so be sure to err on the conservative side and expect the unexpected. It’s critically important that you’re honest with yourself about these costs, or you could end up getting stuck midway through your project because you’ve run out of money.

Constraint #4: Equipment & software

Another practical consideration is the hardware and/or software you’ll need in order to undertake your research. Of course, this variable will depend on the type of data you’re collecting and analysing. For example, you may need lab equipment to analyse substances, or you may need specific analysis software to analyse statistical data. So, be sure to think about what hardware and/or software you’ll need for each potential methodological approach, and whether you have access to these.

Constraint #5: Your knowledge and skillset

The final practical constraint is a big one. Naturally, the research process involves a lot of learning and development along the way, so you will accrue knowledge and skills as you progress. However, when considering your methodological options, you should still consider your current position on the ladder.

Some of the questions you should ask yourself are:

• Am I more of a “numbers person” or a “words person”?
• How much do I know about the analysis methods I’ll potentially use (e.g. statistical analysis)?
• How much do I know about the software and/or hardware that I’ll potentially use?
• How excited am I to learn new research skills and gain new knowledge?
• How much time do I have to learn the things I need to learn?

Answering these questions honestly will provide you with another set of criteria against which you can evaluate the research methodology options you’ve shortlisted.

So, as you can see, there is a wide range of practicalities and constraints that you need to take into account when you’re deciding on a research methodology. These practicalities create a tension between the “ideal” methodology and the methodology that you can realistically pull off. This is perfectly normal, and it’s your job to find the option that presents the best set of trade-offs.

Recap: Choosing a methodology

In this post, we’ve discussed how to go about choosing a research methodology. The three major deciding factors we looked at were:

• Exploratory
• Confirmatory
• Combination
• Research area norms
• Hardware and software
• Your knowledge and skillset

If you have any questions, feel free to leave a comment below. If you’d like a helping hand with your research methodology, check out our 1-on-1 research coaching service , or book a free consultation with a friendly Grad Coach.

Psst... there’s more!

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

Very useful and informative especially for beginners

Nice article! I’m a beginner in the field of cybersecurity research. I am a Telecom and Network Engineer and Also aiming for PhD scholarship.

I find the article very informative especially for my decitation it has been helpful and an eye opener.

Hi I am Anna ,

I am a PHD candidate in the area of cyber security, maybe we can link up

The Examples shows by you, for sure they are really direct me and others to knows and practices the Research Design and prepration.

I found the post very informative and practical.

I struggle so much with designs of the research for sure!

I’m the process of constructing my research design and I want to know if the data analysis I plan to present in my thesis defense proposal possibly change especially after I gathered the data already.

Thank you so much this site is such a life saver. How I wish 1-1 coaching is available in our country but sadly it’s not.

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

Research Methods | Definitions, Types, Examples

Research methods are specific procedures for collecting and analyzing data. Developing your research methods is an integral part of your research design . When planning your methods, there are two key decisions you will make.

First, decide how you will collect data . Your methods depend on what type of data you need to answer your research question :

• Qualitative vs. quantitative : Will your data take the form of words or numbers?
• Primary vs. secondary : Will you collect original data yourself, or will you use data that has already been collected by someone else?
• Descriptive vs. experimental : Will you take measurements of something as it is, or will you perform an experiment?

Second, decide how you will analyze the data .

• For quantitative data, you can use statistical analysis methods to test relationships between variables.
• For qualitative data, you can use methods such as thematic analysis to interpret patterns and meanings in the data.

Table of contents

Methods for collecting data, examples of data collection methods, methods for analyzing data, examples of data analysis methods, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research methods.

Data is the information that you collect for the purposes of answering your research question . The type of data you need depends on the aims of your research.

Qualitative vs. quantitative data

Your choice of qualitative or quantitative data collection depends on the type of knowledge you want to develop.

For questions about ideas, experiences and meanings, or to study something that can’t be described numerically, collect qualitative data .

If you want to develop a more mechanistic understanding of a topic, or your research involves hypothesis testing , collect quantitative data .

You can also take a mixed methods approach , where you use both qualitative and quantitative research methods.

Primary vs. secondary research

Primary research is any original data that you collect yourself for the purposes of answering your research question (e.g. through surveys , observations and experiments ). Secondary research is data that has already been collected by other researchers (e.g. in a government census or previous scientific studies).

If you are exploring a novel research question, you’ll probably need to collect primary data . But if you want to synthesize existing knowledge, analyze historical trends, or identify patterns on a large scale, secondary data might be a better choice.

Descriptive vs. experimental data

In descriptive research , you collect data about your study subject without intervening. The validity of your research will depend on your sampling method .

In experimental research , you systematically intervene in a process and measure the outcome. The validity of your research will depend on your experimental design .

To conduct an experiment, you need to be able to vary your independent variable , precisely measure your dependent variable, and control for confounding variables . If it’s practically and ethically possible, this method is the best choice for answering questions about cause and effect.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Your data analysis methods will depend on the type of data you collect and how you prepare it for analysis.

Data can often be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. For example, survey responses could be analyzed qualitatively by studying the meanings of responses or quantitatively by studying the frequencies of responses.

Qualitative analysis methods

Qualitative analysis is used to understand words, ideas, and experiences. You can use it to interpret data that was collected:

• From open-ended surveys and interviews , literature reviews , case studies , ethnographies , and other sources that use text rather than numbers.
• Using non-probability sampling methods .

Qualitative analysis tends to be quite flexible and relies on the researcher’s judgement, so you have to reflect carefully on your choices and assumptions and be careful to avoid research bias .

Quantitative analysis methods

Quantitative analysis uses numbers and statistics to understand frequencies, averages and correlations (in descriptive studies) or cause-and-effect relationships (in experiments).

You can use quantitative analysis to interpret data that was collected either:

• During an experiment .
• Using probability sampling methods .

Because the data is collected and analyzed in a statistically valid way, the results of quantitative analysis can be easily standardized and shared among researchers.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

• Chi square test of independence
• Statistical power
• Descriptive statistics
• Degrees of freedom
• Pearson correlation
• Null hypothesis
• Double-blind study
• Case-control study
• Research ethics
• Data collection
• Hypothesis testing
• Structured interviews

Research bias

• Hawthorne effect
• Unconscious bias
• Recall bias
• Halo effect
• Self-serving bias
• Information bias

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

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

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

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

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

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

• If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts and meanings, use qualitative methods .
• If you want to analyze a large amount of readily-available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how it is generated, collect primary data.
• If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

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

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

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples.

• What Is a Research Design | Types, Guide & Examples
• Data Collection | Definition, Methods & Examples

More interesting articles

• Between-Subjects Design | Examples, Pros, & Cons
• Cluster Sampling | A Simple Step-by-Step Guide with Examples
• Confounding Variables | Definition, Examples & Controls
• Construct Validity | Definition, Types, & Examples
• Content Analysis | Guide, Methods & Examples
• Control Groups and Treatment Groups | Uses & Examples
• Control Variables | What Are They & Why Do They Matter?
• Correlation vs. Causation | Difference, Designs & Examples
• Correlational Research | When & How to Use
• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples
• Cross-Sectional Study | Definition, Uses & Examples
• Descriptive Research | Definition, Types, Methods & Examples
• Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples
• Explanatory and Response Variables | Definitions & Examples
• Explanatory Research | Definition, Guide, & Examples
• Exploratory Research | Definition, Guide, & Examples
• External Validity | Definition, Types, Threats & Examples
• Extraneous Variables | Examples, Types & Controls
• Guide to Experimental Design | Overview, Steps, & Examples
• How Do You Incorporate an Interview into a Dissertation? | Tips
• How to Do Thematic Analysis | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples
• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates
• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples
• Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria | Examples & Definition
• Independent vs. Dependent Variables | Definition & Examples
• Inductive Reasoning | Types, Examples, Explanation
• Inductive vs. Deductive Research Approach | Steps & Examples
• Internal Validity in Research | Definition, Threats, & Examples
• Internal vs. External Validity | Understanding Differences & Threats
• Longitudinal Study | Definition, Approaches & Examples
• Mediator vs. Moderator Variables | Differences & Examples
• Mixed Methods Research | Definition, Guide & Examples
• Multistage Sampling | Introductory Guide & Examples
• Naturalistic Observation | Definition, Guide & Examples
• Operationalization | A Guide with Examples, Pros & Cons
• Population vs. Sample | Definitions, Differences & Examples
• Primary Research | Definition, Types, & Examples
• Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods
• Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples
• Questionnaire Design | Methods, Question Types & Examples
• Random Assignment in Experiments | Introduction & Examples
• Random vs. Systematic Error | Definition & Examples
• Reliability vs. Validity in Research | Difference, Types and Examples
• Reproducibility vs Replicability | Difference & Examples
• Reproducibility vs. Replicability | Difference & Examples
• Sampling Methods | Types, Techniques & Examples
• Semi-Structured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples
• Simple Random Sampling | Definition, Steps & Examples
• Single, Double, & Triple Blind Study | Definition & Examples
• Stratified Sampling | Definition, Guide & Examples
• Structured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples
• Survey Research | Definition, Examples & Methods
• Systematic Review | Definition, Example, & Guide
• Systematic Sampling | A Step-by-Step Guide with Examples
• Textual Analysis | Guide, 3 Approaches & Examples
• The 4 Types of Reliability in Research | Definitions & Examples
• The 4 Types of Validity in Research | Definitions & Examples
• Transcribing an Interview | 5 Steps & Transcription Software
• Triangulation in Research | Guide, Types, Examples
• Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples
• Types of Research Designs Compared | Guide & Examples
• Types of Variables in Research & Statistics | Examples
• Unstructured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples
• What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods
• What Is a Case-Control Study? | Definition & Examples
• What Is a Cohort Study? | Definition & Examples
• What Is a Conceptual Framework? | Tips & Examples
• What Is a Controlled Experiment? | Definitions & Examples
• What Is a Double-Barreled Question?
• What Is a Focus Group? | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples
• What Is a Likert Scale? | Guide & Examples
• What Is a Prospective Cohort Study? | Definition & Examples
• What Is a Retrospective Cohort Study? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples
• What Is an Observational Study? | Guide & Examples
• What Is Concurrent Validity? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Content Validity? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Convenience Sampling? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Convergent Validity? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Criterion Validity? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Data Cleansing? | Definition, Guide & Examples
• What Is Deductive Reasoning? | Explanation & Examples
• What Is Discriminant Validity? | Definition & Example
• What Is Ecological Validity? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Ethnography? | Definition, Guide & Examples
• What Is Face Validity? | Guide, Definition & Examples
• What Is Non-Probability Sampling? | Types & Examples
• What Is Participant Observation? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples
• What Is Predictive Validity? | Examples & Definition
• What Is Probability Sampling? | Types & Examples
• What Is Purposive Sampling? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Qualitative Observation? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples
• What Is Quantitative Observation? | Definition & Examples
• What Is Quantitative Research? | Definition, Uses & Methods

Get unlimited documents corrected

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is research methodology?

The basics of research methodology

Why do you need a research methodology, what needs to be included, why do you need to document your research method, what are the different types of research instruments, qualitative / quantitative / mixed research methodologies, how do you choose the best research methodology for you, frequently asked questions about research methodology, related articles.

When you’re working on your first piece of academic research, there are many different things to focus on, and it can be overwhelming to stay on top of everything. This is especially true of budding or inexperienced researchers.

If you’ve never put together a research proposal before or find yourself in a position where you need to explain your research methodology decisions, there are a few things you need to be aware of.

Once you understand the ins and outs, handling academic research in the future will be less intimidating. We break down the basics below:

A research methodology encompasses the way in which you intend to carry out your research. This includes how you plan to tackle things like collection methods, statistical analysis, participant observations, and more.

You can think of your research methodology as being a formula. One part will be how you plan on putting your research into practice, and another will be why you feel this is the best way to approach it. Your research methodology is ultimately a methodological and systematic plan to resolve your research problem.

In short, you are explaining how you will take your idea and turn it into a study, which in turn will produce valid and reliable results that are in accordance with the aims and objectives of your research. This is true whether your paper plans to make use of qualitative methods or quantitative methods.

The purpose of a research methodology is to explain the reasoning behind your approach to your research - you'll need to support your collection methods, methods of analysis, and other key points of your work.

Think of it like writing a plan or an outline for you what you intend to do.

When carrying out research, it can be easy to go off-track or depart from your standard methodology.

Tip: Having a methodology keeps you accountable and on track with your original aims and objectives, and gives you a suitable and sound plan to keep your project manageable, smooth, and effective.

With all that said, how do you write out your standard approach to a research methodology?

As a general plan, your methodology should include the following information:

• Your research method.  You need to state whether you plan to use quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis, or mixed-method research methods. This will often be determined by what you hope to achieve with your research.
• Explain your reasoning. Why are you taking this methodological approach? Why is this particular methodology the best way to answer your research problem and achieve your objectives?
• Explain your instruments.  This will mainly be about your collection methods. There are varying instruments to use such as interviews, physical surveys, questionnaires, for example. Your methodology will need to detail your reasoning in choosing a particular instrument for your research.
• What will you do with your results?  How are you going to analyze the data once you have gathered it?
• Advise your reader.  If there is anything in your research methodology that your reader might be unfamiliar with, you should explain it in more detail. For example, you should give any background information to your methods that might be relevant or provide your reasoning if you are conducting your research in a non-standard way.
• How will your sampling process go?  What will your sampling procedure be and why? For example, if you will collect data by carrying out semi-structured or unstructured interviews, how will you choose your interviewees and how will you conduct the interviews themselves?
• Any practical limitations?  You should discuss any limitations you foresee being an issue when you’re carrying out your research.

In any dissertation, thesis, or academic journal, you will always find a chapter dedicated to explaining the research methodology of the person who carried out the study, also referred to as the methodology section of the work.

A good research methodology will explain what you are going to do and why, while a poor methodology will lead to a messy or disorganized approach.

You should also be able to justify in this section your reasoning for why you intend to carry out your research in a particular way, especially if it might be a particularly unique method.

Having a sound methodology in place can also help you with the following:

• When another researcher at a later date wishes to try and replicate your research, they will need your explanations and guidelines.
• In the event that you receive any criticism or questioning on the research you carried out at a later point, you will be able to refer back to it and succinctly explain the how and why of your approach.
• It provides you with a plan to follow throughout your research. When you are drafting your methodology approach, you need to be sure that the method you are using is the right one for your goal. This will help you with both explaining and understanding your method.
• It affords you the opportunity to document from the outset what you intend to achieve with your research, from start to finish.

A research instrument is a tool you will use to help you collect, measure and analyze the data you use as part of your research.

The choice of research instrument will usually be yours to make as the researcher and will be whichever best suits your methodology.

There are many different research instruments you can use in collecting data for your research.

Generally, they can be grouped as follows:

• Interviews (either as a group or one-on-one). You can carry out interviews in many different ways. For example, your interview can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. The difference between them is how formal the set of questions is that is asked of the interviewee. In a group interview, you may choose to ask the interviewees to give you their opinions or perceptions on certain topics.
• Surveys (online or in-person). In survey research, you are posing questions in which you ask for a response from the person taking the survey. You may wish to have either free-answer questions such as essay-style questions, or you may wish to use closed questions such as multiple choice. You may even wish to make the survey a mixture of both.
• Focus Groups.  Similar to the group interview above, you may wish to ask a focus group to discuss a particular topic or opinion while you make a note of the answers given.
• Observations.  This is a good research instrument to use if you are looking into human behaviors. Different ways of researching this include studying the spontaneous behavior of participants in their everyday life, or something more structured. A structured observation is research conducted at a set time and place where researchers observe behavior as planned and agreed upon with participants.

These are the most common ways of carrying out research, but it is really dependent on your needs as a researcher and what approach you think is best to take.

It is also possible to combine a number of research instruments if this is necessary and appropriate in answering your research problem.

There are three different types of methodologies, and they are distinguished by whether they focus on words, numbers, or both.

➡️ Want to learn more about the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and how to use both methods? Check out our guide for that!

If you've done your due diligence, you'll have an idea of which methodology approach is best suited to your research.

It’s likely that you will have carried out considerable reading and homework before you reach this point and you may have taken inspiration from other similar studies that have yielded good results.

Still, it is important to consider different options before setting your research in stone. Exploring different options available will help you to explain why the choice you ultimately make is preferable to other methods.

If proving your research problem requires you to gather large volumes of numerical data to test hypotheses, a quantitative research method is likely to provide you with the most usable results.

If instead you’re looking to try and learn more about people, and their perception of events, your methodology is more exploratory in nature and would therefore probably be better served using a qualitative research methodology.

It helps to always bring things back to the question: what do I want to achieve with my research?

Once you have conducted your research, you need to analyze it. Here are some helpful guides for qualitative data analysis:

➡️  How to do a content analysis

➡️  How to do a thematic analysis

➡️  How to do a rhetorical analysis

Research methodology refers to the techniques used to find and analyze information for a study, ensuring that the results are valid, reliable and that they address the research objective.

Data can typically be organized into four different categories or methods: observational, experimental, simulation, and derived.

Writing a methodology section is a process of introducing your methods and instruments, discussing your analysis, providing more background information, addressing your research limitations, and more.

Your research methodology section will need a clear research question and proposed research approach. You'll need to add a background, introduce your research question, write your methodology and add the works you cited during your data collecting phase.

The research methodology section of your study will indicate how valid your findings are and how well-informed your paper is. It also assists future researchers planning to use the same methodology, who want to cite your study or replicate it.