The Role of Technical Research in Engineering

As an engineer in training, developing strong research skills is one of the most important steps you can take toward becoming an effective problem-solver. Engineering isn’t just about applying formulas. It’s also about investigating real-world challenges, exploring possible solutions, and making well-informed decisions based on evidence. To do this, you need to know how to gather reliable information, analyze data, synthesize findings, and come up with convincing recommendations based on your work.

Gathering Reliable Information 

Gathering reliable information ensures that your analysis is based on accurate, relevant, and up-to-date evidence—the foundation for decisions that withstand scrutiny. Consider the following tips as you prepare to gather sources:

Start with a clear research question. The first step is to clearly define the problem you’re trying to solve, and then clearly articulate this in a research question. The wording is extremely important because you use these words—along with their synonyms—to limit your search to the most relevant and useful sources. A poorly articulated research question will almost certainly lead to time lost on unrelated information.

Identify precise search terms: Once you have a clear research question, the next step is to identify the keywords that will help you find relevant information. Start by highlighting the main concepts in your research question, then list synonyms, related terms, and variations in spelling or phrasing. These search terms will form the foundation of your online searches and database queries.

Imagine that your research question is the following:

This research question includes the following four key elements: (1) smartphone use, (2) sleep quality, (3) cognitive performance, and (4) engineering students.

Combine search terms: After selecting your keywords, you can refine your search by combining them with AND, OR, or NOT within the search field of the library catalogue or academic database.

• AND narrows your results by retrieving only sources that include all the specified terms (e.g., aerodynamics AND wind tunnels).
• OR broadens your results by including sources that contain any of the listed terms (e.g., unmanned aerial vehicles OR drones).
• NOT excludes certain terms from your search results. Applying these functions in field searches—such as titles, abstracts, authors, or subject headings—can make your searches faster and more relevant.

Table 12.1 Combining Search Terms and Their Synonyms

Focusing on sources at the intersection of key concepts narrows search results, while using different combinations of terms helps you gather information most relevant to the themes you want to develop in your arguments.

Use reliable and credible sources. Prioritize peer-reviewed journal articles, academic books, government reports, technical standards, and publications from professional engineering organizations (like IEEE or ASME). These sources are typically reviewed for accuracy and quality.

Search in academic databases. Use databases like IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, or others that are accessible through the university’s library portal. Sources from these platforms are more reliable than general web searches and give you access to high-quality technical and scientific work. Depending on your needs, you might also consider white papers, technical reports, or patents from engineering firms or government agencies. These can give insight into current technologies, gaps in the market, and practical applications. Case studies can be useful to explore how similar problems have been solved in real-world settings and to determine what has or hasn’t worked in the past.

Read abstracts to evaluate sources. While gathering materials for your research, you do not need to read every research paper in full right away. Instead, focus on the abstracts—brief summaries of purposes, methods, and key findings—to determine whether the purpose and scope of a study align with your research focus. This will save time and help you filter out less relevant works. For more information, refer to the section Understanding the Structure of Abstracts in this chapter.

Evaluate for bias and relevance. Ask yourself, “Who produced this source, and why? Is it objective? Is it directly related to the research problem?”

Stay current. Technology changes fast. As a general rule, try to use sources published within the last 5 years, especially if your research problem relates to emerging fields like AI, renewable energy, or aerospace.

Take organized notes and track your sources. Record citation details (e.g., in APA or IEEE format) as you go. This saves time later and reduces the risk of missing or incorrect citations in your final document. Record key points, technical data, and useful visuals. Keep track of where each piece of information came from—you’ll need this for citations to back up your work with evidence.
By following these tips, you’ll build a strong foundation of evidence that shows that you deeply understand the technical, practical, and social dimensions of the problem you’re trying to solve.

Note: A spreadsheet can be an invaluable tool for organizing and managing information from sources during the search—especially when working on complex problems or group projects. Use the column headings in the spreadsheet to record title, author, publication date, type of source (e.g., journal article, report, website), and where you found it. This helps you keep everything in one place and easily compare sources. You can also use columns to note important points from each source—such as main findings, useful data, relevant quotes, or technical methods. Use a tagging system to identify how each source meets your specific needs. For example, you could tag them as supporting or advising against the application of a specific technology.

Understanding the Structure of Abstracts

Abstracts provide a condensed version of a longer piece of writing, so they are useful when searching for relevant source materials. They share some key characteristics:

• They are a concise summary of a specific type of work, often academic (a research paper or thesis).
• They are brief, usually a single paragraph.
• They focus on the purpose, method, findings, and conclusions of the work.
• They prioritize the research question, thesis, and major findings.
• They may include keywords to help with information retrieval.
• They are objective and factual, without personal opinions.

Two Types of Abstracts

There are two types of abstracts: descriptive and informative.

Descriptive abstracts: These summarize a report’s structure but not its substance, including specific findings or recommendations. They resemble a paragraph-form table of contents, often mentioning the title, author, purpose, problem, and scope. They describe major topics but omit specific details. These abstracts are typically short, around 50 words.

Informative abstracts: They summarize the report’s substance, not just its structure. They condense key points, while removing extra details, examples, and numbers. They typically don’t include the title or author in the opening lines, as this information is already available in the document being summarized.

Most abstracts for research papers are informative, providing readers with a clear overview of the study’s purpose, methodology, and findings. Some abstracts also include a brief background before stating the purpose, as shown in the following example from [1].

This is a well-written abstract because it enables readers to quickly and easily locate the information they need. While most abstracts do not use headings for each section, they should still include the essential elements: purpose, methods, results, and conclusion. A brief background may also be added if required by the journal format.

Summarizing and Paraphrasing Sources

When you read an abstract and find it relevant to your research focus, make sure to record it. Once all your sources are recorded and organized, the next step is to summarize and paraphrase them. Summarizing involves identifying the main ideas from your sources and presenting them in your own words. Don’t attempt to summarize all information in the sources. Abstracts can again be very useful because they already provide a condensed overview of an entire study, pointing to the most important points.

Generally, when reading an abstract, you might look for these three key elements:

• The purpose of the study
• The method used
• The key findings

When summarizing a research article, paying particular attention to these three components may save you time. The purpose tells you why the study was conducted and whether it directly connects to your research question. The method helps you evaluate the quality and reliability of the research. The findings present results and conclusions that may support or challenge your argument.

Let’s apply this to an example. The following summary is based on information extracted from the abstract of [1]. Because the abstract is well-structured, it’s easy to find information you need for a summary. An initial attempt at summarizing might be as follows:

However, if you copy exact words from the source or its abstract without rephrasing them and providing proper credit, it is considered plagiarism. To avoid this, it is best to paraphrase. Paraphrasing goes beyond summarizing by restating specific information or ideas from a source in your own words while preserving the original meaning. This is especially valuable when incorporating technical details or specific data points into your research. The passage below provides a paraphrased version of the key ideas from the abstract.

As you can see from this paragraph, good paraphrasing shows that you understand the source and allows you to integrate the information more smoothly into your writing.

Synthesizing Sources

Synthesizing sources involves combining information from multiple texts to develop new insights and strengthen your arguments. It is different from simply summarizing each source individually. The goal is to weave ideas together, showing how sources support your points and where they align or disagree. To make these relationships clear, use connectors such as “whereas,” “similarly,” “in contrast,” “however,” and “on the other hand.” The following example illustrates this process.

By showing how different pieces of evidence work together, you can build a more complete picture of your research topic. By doing so, you may also strengthen your arguments and increase your credibility as a researcher.

Citing and Referencing Sources

In-text citations are references placed within your writing to identify the source of specific information drawn from external works. Even when summarizing or paraphrasing, it is essential to (1) include in-text citations and (2) list the sources in your reference section. Depending on the citation style, in-text citations may appear immediately before or after the idea, fact, statistic, image, or even single word taken from another source. The following examples illustrate this practice.

or

In addition to providing in-text citations, you must include each source in a reference list at the end of your work. The reference list provides complete bibliographic details, allowing readers to locate and verify your sources. This two-part system ensures that proper credit is given to original authors and upholds the integrity of your research. To do this effectively, always track which ideas come from which sources, even when summarizing or paraphrasing. This not only guarantees accurate citation but also strengthens the credibility of your work by clearly distinguishing your ideas from those of others.

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

While a bibliography is a list of sources or works cited in a study, an annotated bibliography lists sources along with brief paragraphs that summarize and evaluate them. It explains the content of each source and how it contributes to your research. The process of crafting an annotated bibliography helps you better understand your materials and shows readers how each source supports your work.

Your annotation may include a summary, an evaluation, and a note on the source’s relevance to your research. Depending on your purposes, you might include one or all of these components.

To summarize, consider:

• What is the purpose of the study?
• What are the main arguments?

To evaluate, consider:

• Is it a useful or credible source?
• Is the information reliable and objective?

To assess relevance, consider:

• How does it shape your argument?
• How will you use it in your research project?

Let’s look at an example to see how these elements come together in a clear and helpful annotation:

Writing a Review of Library Sources

Once you find relevant, non-biased, and current sources for your research question and categorize them according to their themes, the next step involves structuring the review. A well-structured review has four essential parts: title, introduction, discussion, and conclusion.

Informative Titles

The title serves as your reader’s first impression and establishes the foundation for their understanding. An effective title clearly identifies the focus of your report while reflecting the core topic you are investigating. A vague, too general, too detailed, too informal, or unprofessional title may confuse the reader or fail to clearly communicate the focus and purpose of your report. Let’s read the following titles to see what to avoid:

This title is too broad and vague. It doesn’t indicate what kind of technology, what area of engineering, or what aspect is being reviewed.

This title is overly long and specific. It overwhelms the reader and makes it difficult to grasp the focus quickly.

Informal language like “cool” undermines the credibility of the paper and doesn’t reflect an academic tone.

This title misrepresents the content. Titles must accurately reflect the scope and focus of the review. Therefore, you might consider crafting a title that is brief yet precise. This offers readers immediate insight into what your review will explore.

This title immediately conveys the topic, target population, and document type to the reader.

The Introduction

The introduction sets the stage for your entire review and shows readers how you will analyze the topic. It works best when you clearly explain the problem you’re researching, define any important terms your readers might not know, and state the purpose of your report.

A strong introduction defines the main topic or problem and explains its significance. You can also give readers a brief overview of how your discussion will be organized so that they know what to expect. Including a clear statement of purpose helps readers follow your analysis and understand the goals of your review.

The Discussion

The discussion forms the analytical heart of your review, where your critical thinking and synthesis skills become most evident. In this section, you organize and synthesize your sources based on how they help explain or solve the problem you’re researching. Group similar studies or findings together so your readers can see how each contributes to your understanding of the topic. For example, in the review titled User-Related and Technology-Related Vulnerabilities in Smart Homes: A Review of Library Sources, the sources are organized under two main themes: user-related vulnerabilities and technology-related vulnerabilities in smart homes.

When developing your arguments, it can be helpful to organize your writing into paragraphs to keep your ideas focused. Ideally, each paragraph should cover just one main point. You might also find it useful to further group the sources within each paragraph. Once your sources are organized under main headings (such as user-related vulnerabilities and technology-related vulnerabilities in smart homes, as in the example), you can discuss each point in its own paragraph for clarity. To illustrate, in the example review, the first paragraph under User-Related Vulnerabilities in Smart Homes focuses on poor authentication practices, the second on limited user awareness, and the third on lack of control over third-party data risks. Similarly, under Technology-Related Vulnerabilities in Smart Homes the first paragraph focuses on poor structural design choices in smart‑home systems, the second on poor maintenance of device firmware, and the third on absence of regulatory frameworks for smart‑home cybersecurity.

A good way to begin each paragraph is with a topic sentence that clearly states the main idea or point of argument. This sentence usually connects to how your sources contribute to understanding the research problem. Think of it as a mini-summary that guides the reader on what to expect. For instance, if your paragraph is about poor structural design choices in smart-home systems, you could start with, “Structural design choices in smart-home systems also create significant risks.” This sets the focus, and the rest of the paragraph should provide evidence from your sources to support that idea.

Once you have introduced your topic, the next step involves supporting your main idea with evidence from multiple sources through effective synthesis. This process requires more than simply presenting basic factual information to inform the reader or providing summaries of what each study found. Instead, you weave together findings from different sources to build a compelling argument that supports your claim. Effective synthesis demonstrates how studies relate to one another and to your research problem, highlighting areas of agreement, disagreement, or complementarity.

The paragraph is weak because it simply lists facts without supporting a clear argument. No evidence or studies are provided, just general information. It lacks synthesis, which makes it a disconnected summary rather than a meaningful discussion.

The paragraph is weak because it simply lists study details without connecting the findings or explaining their significance. There’s no analysis or synthesis of how these dimensions interact or how they support the main idea of the paragraph.

The paragraph is also weak because it merely summarizes each study individually without drawing any meaningful connections between them. It lacks deeper analysis, synthesis, and insight into how the studies relate to one another or contribute to a broader argument. Instead of building toward a clear conclusion, it ends with a vague generalization that fails to support a focused claim.

This is a better example because it starts with a clear topic sentence, uses evidence from multiple studies, and shows how their findings connect. Instead of just listing results, it explains what they mean together: that weak authentication habits remain a critical vulnerability in smart homes.

Remember: when supporting your arguments with evidence, synthesis means moving beyond individual summaries of sources. Instead, critically evaluate how each source contributes to your overall argument. Look for points of alignment and divergence, and consider what these patterns reveal about your research problem. Rather than treating each study as an isolated finding, show how the collective evidence builds a fuller understanding of your topic.

Notice how the good example paragraph demonstrates this approach. It starts with a clear topic sentence that highlights the main issue—poor authentication practices in smart homes. From there, it weaves together evidence from two studies, showing how everyday habits like leaving default passwords or reusing them across accounts can open the door to serious security risks. Instead of just listing what each study found, the paragraph connects the findings to show the bigger picture: weak authentication consistently undermines smart-home security. It also explains why this matters, pointing out that even strong device features can’t protect users if their behavior leaves systems exposed. In the end, the paragraph doesn’t just summarize research; it uses the evidence to build a strong argument about why authentication remains such a critical vulnerability.

The Conclusion

The conclusion summarizes the key points of your literature review without introducing new arguments or ideas. Start by paraphrasing your introduction’s purpose statement, rephrasing it to reflect what the review has accomplished.  This reminds readers of your original goals and signals your intent to wrap up your key arguments. If your introduction examined common cybersecurity problems in smart homes, focusing on risks from user behavior and from technology, your conclusion might state, “This review examined cybersecurity risks in smart home environments, focusing on vulnerabilities resulting from both user behavior and system design.”

Next, summarize the key themes and patterns that emerged from your source synthesis. Consider what the collective evidence reveals about your research problem and how studies work together to build understanding.

Finally, identify any unanswered questions that future research should address. Point out areas where literature remains incomplete or contradictory. You might also suggest directions for future research or recommend actions for practitioners.