future to research

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Virtual Tour
Staff Directory
En Español

To achieve its goal of turning discovery into health and to maintain its role as the world's premier biomedical research agency, NIH must support the best scientific ideas and brightest scientific minds. That means looking to the future and ensuring that we have a strong and diverse workforce to catalyze discoveries in all fields of biomedicine including emergent areas like data science.

tomorrow-science.jpg

Tomorrow’s Scientists

Part of the NIH mission is supporting the next generation of scientists, funding thousands of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows across the United States.

diversity-nih.jpg

Innovation Through Diversity

Enhancing diversity in the NIH-funded workforce is urgent, given shifting U.S. demographics and the need to draw insights from all corners of America.

« Previous: A Healthy Mind Next: Transformative Technologies »

This page last reviewed on November 16, 2023

Connect with Us

More Social Media from NIH

The future of research revealed

Researchers lay bare the challenges and opportunities they face in a post-covid world.

The research ecosystem has been undergoing rapid and profound change, accelerated by COVID-19. This transformation is being fueled by many factors, including advances in technology, funding challenges and opportunities, political uncertainty, and new pressures on women in research.

At Elsevier, we have been working with the global research community to better understand these changes and what the world of research might look like in the future. The results were published today in Elsevier’s new Research Futures Report 2.0 . The report is free to read and download.

Commenting on the report, Elsevier Research Director Adrian Mulligan said:

The report builds on a previous Research Futures study in 2019 , carried out with the global research agency Ipsos MORI to gather predictions from funders, publishers, technology experts and researchers on what research might look like in 10 years’ time.

The aim of the Research Futures project is to gather the views and opinions of researchers across the world to help us better understand the challenges and opportunities they face. Elsevier will use these insights to look at steps we could take to better support the research community in the future.

One point is clear: we can best prepare for the future by working together.

Publishing moves faster, with more open knowledge.

The Research Futures Report 2.0 shows that the past two years have driven progress in both speed and openness in the communication of research. Around two-thirds (67%) of researchers globally now consider preprints a valued source of communication, up from 43% before the pandemic — a shift likely driven by the increased role of preprints in finding ways to tackle COVID-19.

While preprints are becoming more popular, they have not benefited from the pivotal role of peer review or had any additional value added to them by publishers. For example, 94% of version-of-record articles published in Elsevier journals have content changes made during the editorial process, and 13% of submissions go through major changes, according to 2021 Elsevier data. Also, 54% of respondents said they planned to publish open access, 6% higher than in 2019.

Funding is harder, but new opportunities emerge.

Despite COVID spotlighting the importance of research, funding continues to be a major challenge for researchers, with half (50%) stating there is insufficient funding available in their field. Just one in four (24%) researchers believe there is enough funding for their work; worryingly, this figure has declined from nearly one in three (30%) in 2020. Researchers cite fewer funding sources, increased competition, changing priorities and the diversion of funds to COVID-19 related fields.

Looking ahead, researchers expect more money for research to become available from businesses, with 41% believing that corporate funding for research will increase. Government funding has also increased as a proportion of research budgets since 2019, which has led to a growth of funding across various subjects. For example, Materials Science research has seen the biggest growth in funding satisfaction in 2021, with 35% saying available funding is sufficient — almost triple the percentage (12%) who were satisfied with funding levels in 2020.

Women in research face new pressures — and adapt.

While women in research were faster to adapt during the pandemic, they still face unique challenges. Elsevier’s research shows that they are:

Expecting to collaborate more than they did before the pandemic: 64% expect to increase work with researchers across different scientific disciplines, up from 49% in 2020.
Embracing technology faster than their male counterparts: 53% of women scientists think the use of technology in research will accelerate over the next 2 to 5 years versus 46% for men.
More likely to have shared their research with the wider public than men: 60% of women versus 55% of men have shared their research publicly.

Women reported having less time to do research during lockdowns, which could slow or hamper their future career prospects. 62% reported they were finding it difficult to find a good work-life balance during the pandemic, compared to just 50% of male researchers — a trend which could have significant negative long-term effects on the careers of women in research.

Researchers are collaborating more.

As teaching, publishing and funding accelerate and increase the pressure on researchers, how they work has changed — and not necessarily for the worse. Researchers are collaborating more. Just over half (52%) state that they are sharing more research data now than 2 to 3 years ago, and the number of researchers who say they are collaborating more than in the past has grown to 63% from 48% pre-pandemic.

The gains are across geographies and disciplines. Researchers in Computer Science have seen the biggest rise, with 76% agreeing that there is more collaboration involved in their projects than previously — a substantial rise from the 41% who agreed pre-pandemic.

More researchers are embracing AI.

AI has been embraced more than ever during the past two years, though some caution remains. 16% of researchers are extensive users of AI in their research, and while high take-up in Computer Sciences skews that number (64% of computer scientists are heavy users), attitudes across a number of specialties have grown more positive. In Materials Science, which covers the structure and properties of materials and the discovery of new materials and how they are made, 18% are now likely to be extensive users of AI in their research, up from zero a year ago; in Chemistry, the number has grown from 2% to 19% and, in Maths, from 4% to 13% since 2020.

Attitudes towards the use of AI in peer review is perhaps where we have seen the greatest shift in attitude: 21% of researchers agree they would read papers peer reviewed by AI — a 5-percentage point increase from 2019. Those age 55 and under are the most willing to read AI-reviewed articles (21%), while those age 56 and over have increased their willingness compared to a year ago (19%, up from 14% last year). At the same time, most researchers surveyed continue to object to AI peer review, with almost two in three unwilling to read such articles (58 percent) — a similar proportion as in 2020.

Project Methodology

In total, over 2,000 researchers responded to two separate global surveys: 1,173 researchers responded in July-August 2021 and 1,066 in July 2020. Responses have been weighted to be representative of the global researcher population by country (UNESCO/OECD data). Base sizes shown in this report are unweighted unless otherwise stated. The full methodology is available in the report.

Contributors

Adrian Mulligan is Research Director for Customer Insights at Elsevier. He has more than 20 years' experience in STM publishing, much of that time spent in research. He oversees research programs used to drive action in the business and to help shape Elsevier strategy. The Customer Insights team works in partnership with external groups to deepen understanding of the scholarly landscape across the industry. He has presented on a range of research-related topics at various conferences, including STM, ESOF, AAP, SSP, APE and ALPSP. Mulligan's background is in archaeology; he has a BA Honours degree and a master's of science from the University of Leicester . He also has a diploma in Market Research from the Market Research Society .

New dataset offers unique insights into peer review

Join the #confidenceinresearch discussion on linkedin.

Submit your COVID-19 Pandemic Research
Research Leap Manual on Academic Writing
Conduct Your Survey Easily
Research Tools for Primary and Secondary Research
Useful and Reliable Article Sources for Researchers
Tips on writing a Research Paper
Stuck on Your Thesis Statement?
Out of the Box
How to Organize the Format of Your Writing
Argumentative Versus Persuasive. Comparing the 2 Types of Academic Writing Styles
Very Quick Academic Writing Tips and Advices
Top 4 Quick Useful Tips for Your Introduction
Have You Chosen the Right Topic for Your Research Paper?
Follow These Easy 8 Steps to Write an Effective Paper
7 Errors in your thesis statement
How do I even Write an Academic Paper?
Useful Tips for Successful Academic Writing

Collaborative Governance in Government Administration in the Field of State Security Along the Republic of Indonesia (RI)-Malaysia Border Area

It service management system practices in kenya, introduction economic and psychological well-being during covid-19 pandemic in albania, a need for sustainability.

Designing a Framework for Assessing Agripreneurship Action for the Green Scheme Irrigation Projects, Namibia
The Potential Utilisation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Enterprises
Case Study – Developing a National Research and Evidence Base for The Health and Wellbeing Chapter of The Welsh Government’s 2023 Innovation Strategy for Wales
The Impacts of Technology Innovation on Customer Satisfaction, Employee and Leadership Commitment in CSR Practice
Current Developments on the Chinese Real Estate Market
Slide Share

The future of research: Emerging trends and new directions in scientific inquiry

The world of research is constantly evolving, and staying on top of emerging trends is crucial for advancing scientific inquiry. With the rapid development of technology and the increasing focus on interdisciplinary research, the future of research is filled with exciting opportunities and new directions.

In this article, we will explore the future of research, including emerging trends and new directions in scientific inquiry. We will examine the impact of technological advancements, interdisciplinary research, and other factors that are shaping the future of research.

One of the most significant trends shaping the future of research is the rapid development of technology. From big data analytics to machine learning and artificial intelligence, technology is changing the way we conduct research and opening up new avenues for scientific inquiry. With the ability to process vast amounts of data in real-time, researchers can gain insights into complex problems that were once impossible to solve.

Another important trend in the future of research is the increasing focus on interdisciplinary research. As the boundaries between different fields of study become more fluid, interdisciplinary research is becoming essential for addressing complex problems that require diverse perspectives and expertise. By combining the insights and methods of different fields, researchers can generate new insights and solutions that would not be possible with a single-discipline approach.

One emerging trend in research is the use of virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) to enhance scientific inquiry. VR/AR technologies have the potential to transform the way we conduct experiments, visualize data, and collaborate with other researchers. For example, VR/AR simulations can allow researchers to explore complex data sets in three dimensions, enabling them to identify patterns and relationships that would be difficult to discern in two-dimensional representations.

Another emerging trend in research is the use of open science practices. Open science involves making research data, methods, and findings freely available to the public, facilitating collaboration and transparency in the scientific community. Open science practices can help to accelerate the pace of research by enabling researchers to build on each other’s work more easily and reducing the potential for duplication of effort.

The future of research is also marked by scientific innovation, with new technologies and approaches being developed to address some of the world’s most pressing problems. For example, gene editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 have the potential to revolutionize medicine by allowing scientists to edit DNA and cure genetic diseases. Similarly, nanotechnology has the potential to create new materials with unprecedented properties, leading to advances in fields like energy, electronics, and medicine.

One new direction in research is the focus on sustainability and the environment. With climate change and other environmental issues becoming increasingly urgent, researchers are turning their attention to developing sustainable solutions to the world’s problems. This includes everything from developing new materials and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to developing sustainable agricultural practices that can feed the world’s growing population without damaging the environment.

Another new direction in research is the focus on mental health and wellbeing. With mental health issues becoming increasingly prevalent, researchers are exploring new approaches to understanding and treating mental illness. This includes everything from developing new therapies and medications to exploring the role of lifestyle factors like diet, exercise, and sleep in mental health.

In conclusion, the future of research is filled with exciting opportunities and new directions. By staying on top of emerging trends, embracing interdisciplinary research, and harnessing the power of technological innovation, researchers can make significant contributions to scientific inquiry and address some of the world’s most pressing problems.

Helping you turn great ideas into real world outcomes

Envisioning the future of research

To help you fulfill your goals in a landscape of increasing competition and complexity, Web of Science TM is building advanced resources and tools designed to accelerate the pace of discovery, increase the transparency and visibility of open research, better support strategic funding and investment decisions, and facilitate wider and deeper collaborations across the research community.

Listen to our podcast series to learn more about trends impacting the global research landscape, and how the Web of Science can help you successfully navigate them. We’ll release a new episode here each week, beginning mid-October, 2020.

How open science is transforming the future of research

Dr. Nandita Quaderi, Web of Science Editor-in-Chief, discusses the drivers behind open research and shares our plans for expanding the content types available in the Web of Science to help you save time navigating the complex open research ecosystem.

Listen to the podcast

The changing nature of international collaboration

Dr. Jonathan Adams, Chief Scientist at the Institute for Scientific Information, shares insights into the current collaborations landscape drawn from his decades of experience analyzing patterns of global collaboration across academic, government and corporate institutions.

Meeting researchers at their point of need to accelerate discovery

Dr. Rob Poolman, Vice President of the Web of Science Product Platform, and Nina Chang, Web of Science Product Manager, discuss how the global pandemic has impacted researchers at all career stages, and how we’re investing to create the most powerful Web of Science platform yet to deliver what you need when you need it, wherever you are.

Demonstrating real-world outcomes and the future of research evaluation

Dr. Martin Szomszor, Director of the Institute for Scientific Information, and Josh Schnell, Consultancy Director, discuss current challenges research evaluators face, share insights into best practices for measuring the real-world outcomes of research, and talk about new indicators and predictive methodologies on the horizon.

The Future of Qualitative Research

First Online: 29 September 2022

Cite this chapter

Robert E. White ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8045-164X 3 &
Karyn Cooper 4

1257 Accesses

1 Citations

At this point, it appears that we have reached the final chapter of this volume. As we have worked our way through the various chapters and have investigated numerous qualitative methodologies, it has always been uppermost in the minds of the authors to offer as complete and concise an explanation as possible. However, the world of qualitative research is anything but complete and, at the same time, is definitely not concise. Confusions, commonalities and customizations appear to be the order of the day. And, here we find ourselves at the final chapter.

We are all interpretive bricoleurs stuck in the present working against the past as we move into the future. N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln ( 2000 )

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Altheide, D. (1987). Reflections: Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10 (1), 65–77.

Article Google Scholar

Bauman, Z. (1997). Postmodernity and its discontents . Polity Press.

Google Scholar

Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid times: Living in an age of uncertainty . Polity Press.

Bauman, Z. (2019). Thinking sociologically (3rd ed.). Wiley.

Bennett, P., Slater, J., & Wall, P. ( 2010 ). A2 media studies: The essential introduction . Routledge.

Blumenreich, M. (2004). Avoiding the pitfalls of ‘conventional’ narrative research: Using poststructural theory to guide the creation of narratives of children with HIV. Qualitative research, 4 (1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794104041108

Bogdan, & Biklen. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods . Allyn & Bacon.

Bold, C. (2012). Using narrative in research . SAGE.

Book Google Scholar

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles . Sage.

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles . Sage.

Brink, P. J., & Wood, M. J. (1978). Basic steps in planning nursing research: From question to proposal . Duxbury Press.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). “Clear as mud:” Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

Cardinal, L. (2001). What is an Indigenous perspective? Canadian Journal of Native Education , 25 (20), 180–182.

Carrington, S., & Iyer, R. (2011). Service-Learning within higher education: rhizomatic interconnections between university and the real world. Australian Journal of Teacher Education , 36 (6), 1–14. Retrieved November 27, 2020, from: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1579&context=ajte

Castellano, M. B. (2004). Ethics of Aboriginal research. International Journal of Indigenous Health, 1 (1), 98–114.

Chambers, C. (1999). A topography for Canadian curriculum theory. Canadian Journal of Education, 24 (2), 137–150.

Charney, R. (2017). Rhizomatic learning and adapting: A case study exploring an interprofessional team’s lived experiences . Dissertations & theses. 382. Retrieved November 25, 2020, from http://aura.antioch.edu/etds/382

Cheng, C.-Y., Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. (2008). Connecting the dots within: Creative performance and identity integration. Psychological Science, 19 (11), 1177–1183.

Cooper, S., & Endacott, R. (2007). Generic qualitative research: A design for qualitative research in emergency care? Emergency Medical Journal, 24 (12), 816–819.

Cooper, K., & White, R. E. (2012). Qualitative research in the postmodern era: Contexts of qualitative research . Springer.

Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1999). Doing qualitative research . Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research . Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (1st ed., pp. 209–240). Sage.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia . University of Minnesota.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research (1st ed.). Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage.

Dickens, C. (2008). Bleak house . Oxford University Press.

Donald, D. (2009). Forts, curriculum, and Indigenous Métissage: Imagining adecolonization of Aboriginal-Canadian realations in educational contexts. First Nations Perspectives, 2 (1), 1–24.

Donald, D. (2012). Indigenous Métissage: A decolonizing research sensibility. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25 (5), 533–555.

Eisner, E. W., & Peshkin, A. (1990). Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate . Teachers College Press.

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62 (1), 107–115.

Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. Sage Open Publications, 4 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633

Feyeraband, P. (1978). Science in a free society . Verso.

Gannon, S. (2006). The (im)possibilities of writing the self-writing: French poststructural theory and autoethnography. Critical Studies: Critical Methodologies, 6 (4), 474–495.

Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretation of cultures . Basic Books.

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays of education, the arts, and social change . Jossey-Bass.

Guerin, C. (2013). Rhizomatic research cultures, writing groups and academic researcher identities. International Journal of Doctoral Studies , 8 , 137–150. Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume8/IJDSv8p137-150Guerin0400.pdf

Gutiérrez, K. D. (2016). Designing resilient ecologies: Social design experiments and a new social imagination. Educational Researcher, 45 (3), 187–196.

Hammersley, M. (2004). Teaching Qualitative Method: As craft, profession, or bricolage? Retrieved September 23, 2019, from https://martynhammersley.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/teaching-qualitative-methodology-finalfff1.pdf

Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The meaning of style . Routledge.

Honan, E. , & Sellers, M. (2011). So how does it work? Rhizomatic methodologies . Retrieved, November 24, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43479719_So_how_does_it_work_-_Rhizomatic_methodologies

Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277–1288.

Humphreys, C. (2013). Rhizomatic writing and pedagogy: Deleuze & Guattari and Heidegger. Journal of Educational Thought, 46 (3), 191–295.

Irwin, R. L., Beer, R., Springgay, S., Grauer, K., Xiong, G., & Bickel, B. (2006). The rhizomatic relations of a/r/tography. Studies in Art Education, 48 (1), 70–88.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2), 112–133.

Kellner, D. (1999). Theorizing McDonaldization: A multiperspectivist approach. In B. Smart (Ed.), Resisting McDonaldization (pp. 186–206). Sage.

Chapter Google Scholar

Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Describing the bricolage: Conceptualizing a new rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 7 (6), 679–692.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2004a). Questions of disciplinarity/interdisciplinarity in a changing world. In J. L. Kincheloe & K. S. Berry (Eds.), Rigour and complexity in educational research: Conceptualizing the bricolage (pp. 50–81). Open University Press.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2004b). Redefining rigour and complexity in research. In J. L. Kincheloe & K. S. Berry (Eds.), Rigour and complexity in educational research: Conceptualizing the bricolage (pp. 23–49). Open University Press.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical constructivism primer . P. Lang.

Kincheloe, J., & Berry, K. (2004). Rigour and complexity in educational research: Conceptualizing the bricolage . Open University Press.

Kirkevold, M., & Bergland, Å. (2007). The quality of qualitative data: Issues to consider when interviewing participants who have difficulties providing detailed accounts of their experiences. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health & Well-being, 2 (2), 68–75.

Ko, D., & Bal, A. (2019). Rhizomatic research design in a smooth space of learning: Rupturing, connecting and generating. Critical Education, 10 (17), 1–20.

Kuhl, D. E. (2014). Voices count: Employing a critical narrative research bricolage for insights into dyscalculia . Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository, 2149. Retrieved August 28, 2019, from https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3612&context=etd

Levin, T. H. (2017). Studying teacher collaboration: Preparing for and conducting interviews on sensitive topics with reluctant interviewees . Sage.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind . University of Chicago Press.

Lincoln, Y. S. (2012). Foreword. In K. Cooper & R. E. White (Eds.), Qualitative research in the postmodern era: Contexts of qualitative research . Springer.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Sage.

Masny, D. (2014). Disrupting ethnography through rhizoanalysis. Qualitative Research in Education, 3 (3), 345–363.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception . Routledge.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach . Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study: Applications in education . Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.

Morgan, D. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research, 3 (1), 112–121.

National Institutes of Health Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences. (2018). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences (2nd ed.). US Department of Health and Human Services.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Reilly, M. A. (2014). To enter stone, be water: Situating literacy coaching as rhizomatic. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30 (3), 293–295.

Rogers, M. (2012). Contextualizing theories and practices of bricolage research. The Qualitative Report, 17 (48), 1–17.

Sanchez-Burks, J., Karlesky, M. J., & Lee, F. (2015). Psychological bricolage: Integrating social identity to produce creative solutions. In C. E. Shalley, M. A. Hitt, & J. Zhou (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 93–102). Oxford University Press.

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23 (4), 334–340.

Sherman, B. (2018). Cultivating the rhizome: Coaching (through) assemblage . Conference paper. AERA. April 12, 2018.

Silverman, D. (1997). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice . Sage.

St. Pierre, E. A. (2011). Post qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative inquiry (4th ed., pp. 611–635). Sage.

St. Pierre, E. A. (2017). Deleuze and Guattari’s language for new empirical inquiry. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 49 (11), 1080–1089.

Strom, K. J., & Martin, A. D. (2017). Becoming-teacher: A rhizomatic look at first-year teaching . Sense Publishers.

Thorne, S., Kirkham, S. R., & MacDonald-Emes, J. (1997). Interpretive description: A noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Research in Nursing & Health, 20 (2), 169–177.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (2015). Final report . Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Turkle, S. (1997). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet . Touchstone.

Weick, K. E. (1993). Organizational redesign as improvisation. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving performance (pp. 346–379). Oxford University Press.

Wibberley, C. (2016). Bricolage research methods. In E. A. Glasper & C. Rees (Eds.), Nursing and health care research at a glance (pp. 106–107). Wiley Blackwell.

Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches . Sage.

Wood, M. J., & Ross-Kerr, J. C. (2011). Basic steps in planning nursing research: From question to proposal (7th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Yardley, A. (2008). Piecing together: A methodological bricolage. Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 9 (2), Art. 31. Retrieved, August 28, 2019, from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0802315

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS, Canada

Robert E. White

OISE, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Karyn Cooper

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert E. White .

Describing the Bricolage: Conceptualizing a New Rigor in Qualitative Research

Joe L. Kincheloe

City University of New York Graduate Center/Brooklyn College

Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Conceptualizing a New Rigor in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 7 (6), 679-692.

Picking up on Norman Denzin’s and Yvonna Lincoln’s articulation of the concept of bricolage, the essay describes a critical notion of this research orientation. As an interdisciplinary approach, bricolage avoids both the superficiality of methodological breadth and the parochialism of unidisciplinary approaches. The notion of the bricolage advocated here recognizes the dialectical nature of the disciplinary and interdisciplinary relationship and promotes a synergistic interaction between the two concepts. In this context, the bricolage is concerned not only with divergent methods of inquiry but with diverse theoretical and philosophical understandings of the various elements encountered in the act of research. The insights garnered here move researchers to a better conceptual grasp of the complexity of the research act—a cognizance often missed in mainstream versions of qualitative research. In particular, critical bricoleurs employ historiographical, philosophical, and social theoretical lenses to gain a more complex understanding of the intricacies of research design.

As a preface to this essay, I want to express what an honor it is for me to deliver the Egon Guba Lecture. I consider Egon one of the most important figures in research in the 20th and 21st centuries and consider his career the best model I know for a life of rigorous, innovative scholarship in education. Every idea expressed in this essay is tied to concepts Egon developed over the past few decades. If they are insufficiently developed, it is an expression of my limitations, not his. In this spirit, I dedicate this lecture to Egon Guba and his innovative scholarship and pedagogy.

My desire to write this essay and ultimately a more comprehensive work on bricolage comes from two sources. The first involves my fascination with Denzin and Lincoln’s (2000) use of the term in their work on research methods over the past decade. From my perspective, no concept better captures the possibility of the future of qualitative research. When I first encountered the term in their work, I knew that I would have to devote much effort to specifying the notion and pushing it to the next conceptual level. Secondly, coupled with this recognition of the power of bricolage was the experience several of my doctoral students brought back from their job interviews. Prepped and ready to answer in detail questions about their methods and research agendas, my students spoke of their theoretical embrace and methodological employment of the bricolage. Much too often for our comfort, search committee members responded quite negatively: “bricolage, oh I know what that is; that’s when you really don’t know anything about research but have a lot to say about it.” Much to our dismay, the use of the concept persuaded such committee members not to employ the students. I had no choice, I had to respond.

Yvonna Lincoln and Norm Denzin (2000) used the term in the spirit of Claude Levi-Strauss (1966) and his lengthy discussion of it in The Savage Mind . The French word, bricoleur , describes a handyman or handywoman who makes use of the tools available to complete a task. Some connotations of the term involve trickery and cunning and remind me of the chicanery of Hermes, in particular his ambiguity concerning the messages of the gods. If hermeneutics came to connote the ambiguity and slipperiness of textual meaning, then bricolage can also imply the fictive and imaginative elements of the presentation of all formal research. Indeed, as cultural studies of science have indicated, all scientific inquiry is jerryrigged to a degree; science, as we all know by now, is not nearly as clean, simple, and procedural as scientists would have us believe. Maybe this is an admission many in our field would wish to keep in the closet. Maybe at a tacit level this is what many search com- mittee members were reacting to when my doctoral students discussed it so openly, enthusiastically, and unabashedly.

Bricolage in the Cosmos of Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity

My umbrage at the denigration of bricolage by my students’ interlocutors should in no way be taken as disrespect for those who question the value of the concept. For those of us committed to theorizing and implementing such an approach to research, there are some profound questions that need to be answered as we plot our course. As we think in terms of using multiple methods and perspectives in our research and attempt to synthesize contemporary developments in social theory, epistemology, and interpretation, we must consider the critiques of many diverse scholars. At the core of the deployment of bricolage in the discourse of research rests the question of disciplinarity/interdisciplinarity. Bricolage, of course, signifies interdisciplinarity—a concept that serves as a magnet for controversy in the contemporary academy. Researching this article, I listened to several colleagues maintain that if one is focused on getting tenure he or she should eschew interdisciplinarity; if one is interested in only doing good research, she or he should embrace it.

Implicit in the critique of interdisciplinarity and thus of bricolage as its manifestation in research is the assumption that interdisciplinarity is by nature superficial. Superficiality results when scholars, researchers, and students fail to devote sufficient time to understanding the disciplinary fields and knowledge bases from which particular modes of research emanate. Many maintain that such an effort leads not only to superficiality but madness. Attempting to know so much, the bricoleur not only knows nothing well but also goes crazy in the misguided process (Friedman, 1998; McLeod, 2000; Palmer, 1996). My assertion in this article respects these questions and concerns but argues that given the social, cultural, epistemological, and paradigmatic upheavals and alterations of the past few decades, rigorous researchers may no longer enjoy the luxury of choosing whether to embrace the bricolage (Friedman, 1998; McLeod, 2000).

The Great Implosion: Dealing with the Debris of Disciplinarity

Once understanding of the limits of objective science and its universal knowledge escaped from the genie’s bottle, there was no going back. Despite the best efforts to recover “what was lost” in the implosion of social science, too many researchers understand its socially constructed nature, its value- laden products that operate under the flag of objectivity, its avoidance of contextual specificities that subvert the stability of its structures, and its fragmenting impulse that moves it to fold its methodologies and the knowledge they produce neatly into disciplinary drawers. My argument here is that we must operate in the ruins of the temple, in a postapocalyptic social, cultural, psychological, and educational science where certainty and stability have long departed for parts unknown.

In the best sense of Levi-Straus’s (1966) concept, the research bricoleurs pick up the pieces of what’s left and paste them together as best they can. The critics are probably correct, such a daunting task cannot be accomplished in the time span of a doctoral program; but the process can be named and the dimensions of a lifetime scholarly pursuit can be in part delineated. Our transcendence of the old regime’s reductionism and our understanding of the complexity of the research task demand the lifetime effort. It is this lifetime commitment to study, clarify, sophisticate, and add to the bricolage that this article advocates.

As bricoleurs recognize the limitations of a single method, the discursive strictures of one disciplinary approach, what is missed by traditional practices of validation, the historicity of certified modes of knowledge production, the inseparability of knower and known, and the complexity and hetero- geneity of all human experience, they understand the necessity of new forms of rigor in the research process. To account for their cognizance of such complexity bricoleurs seek a rigor that alerts them to new ontological insights. In this ontological context, they can no longer accept the status of an object of inquiry as a thing-in-itself. Any social, cultural, psychological, or pedagogical object of inquiry is inseparable from its context, the language used to describe it, its historical situatedness in a larger ongoing process, and the socially and culturally constructed interpretations of its meaning(s) as an entity in the world (Morawski, 1997).

Rigor in the Ruins

Thus, bricolage is concerned not only with multiple methods of inquiry but with diverse theoretical and philosophical notions of the various elements encountered in the research act. Bricoleurs understand that the ways these dynamics are addressed—whether overtly or tacitly—exerts profound influence on the nature of the knowledge produced by researchers. Thus, these aspects of research possess important lived world political consequences, as they shape the ways we come to view the social cosmos and operate within it (Blommaert, 1997). In this context, Douglas Kellner’s (1995) notion of a “multiperspectival cultural studies” is helpful, as it draws on numerous textual and critical strategies to “interpret, criticize, and deconstruct” the cultural artifacts under observation.

Employing Nietzsche’s notion of perspectivism to ground his version of a multimethodological research strategy, Kellner (1995) maintains that any single research perspective is laden with assumptions, blindnesses, and limitations. To avoid one-sided reductionism, he contends that researchers must learn a variety of ways of seeing and interpreting in the pursuit of knowledge. The more perspectival variety a researcher employs, Kellner concludes, the more dimensions and consequences of a text will be illuminated. Kellner’s multiperspectivism resonates with Denzin and Lincoln’s (2000) bricolage and its concept of “blurred genres.” To better “interpret, criticize, and deconstruct,” Denzin and Lincoln call for bricoleurs to employ “hermeneutics, structuralism, semiotics, phenomenology, cultural studies, and feminism” (p. 3). Embedded in Kellner’s (1995) and Denzin and Lincoln’s (2000) calls is the proto-articulation of a new rigor—certainly in research but with implications for scholarship and pedagogy in general.

This rigor in the ruins of traditional disciplinarity connects a particular concept—in contemporary education, for example, the call for educational standards—to the epistemological, ontological, cultural, social, political, economic, psychological, and pedagogical domains for the purpose of multiperspectival analysis. In the second edition of their Handbook of Qualitative Research , Denzin and Lincoln (2000) maintain that this process has already taken place to some extent; they referred to it as a two-way methodological Diaspora where humanists migrated to the social sciences and social scientists to the humanities. Ethnographic methodologists snuggled up with textual analysts; in this context the miscegenation of the empirical and the interpretive produced the bricoleur love child.

Thus, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, disciplinary demarcations no longer shape in the manner they once did in the way scholars look at the world. Indeed, disciplinary boundaries have less and less to do with the way scholars group themselves and build intellectual communities. Furthermore, what we refer to as the traditional disciplines in the first decade of the 21st century are anything but fixed, uniform, and monolithic structures. It is not uncommon for contemporary scholars in a particular discipline to report that they find more commonalities with individuals in different fields of study than they do with colleagues in their own disciplines. We occupy a scholarly world with faded disciplinary boundary lines. Thus, the point need not be made that bricolage should take place—it already has and is continuing. The research work needed in this context involves opening an elastic conversa- tion about the ways such a bricolage can be rigorously developed. Such cultivation should not take place in pursuit of some form of proceduralization but an effort to better understand the beast and to realize its profound possibilities (Friedman, 1998; Palmer, 1996; Young & Yarbrough, 1993).

Bricolage and the Dialectical View of Disciplinarity

Questions of disciplinarity permeate efforts to theorize the research bricolage. Exploring such inquiries, one notes a consistent division between disciplinarians and interdisciplinarians: Disciplinarians maintain that interdisciplinary approaches to analysis and research result in superficiality; interdisciplinary proponents argue that disciplinarity produces naïve overspecialization. The vision of the bricolage promoted here recognizes the dialectical nature of this disciplinary and interdisciplinary relationship and calls for a synergistic interaction between the two concepts. Before one can engage successfully in the bricolage, it is important to develop a rigorous understanding of the ways traditional disciplines have operated. I maintain the best way to do this is to study the workings of a particular discipline. In the context of becoming a bricoleur, such a study would not take place in the traditional manner where scholars learned to accept the conventions of a particular discipline as a natural way of producing knowledge and viewing a particular aspect of the world.

Instead, such a disciplinary study would be conducted more like a Foucauldian genealogy where scholars would study the social construction of the discipline’s knowledge bases, epistemologies, and knowledge production methodologies. As scholars analyzed the historical origins of the field, they would trace the emergence of various schools of thought, conflicts within the discipline, and the nature and effects of paradigmatic changes. In this genealogical context they would explore the discipline as a discursive system of regulatory power with its propensity to impound knowledge within arbitrary and exclusive boundaries. In this context, scholars would come to understand the ideological dimensions of the discipline and the ways knowledge is produced for the purposes of supporting various power blocs.

It is not contradictory, I assert, to argue in a dialectical spirit that at the same time this genealogical analysis is taking place, the bricoleur would also be studying positive features of the discipline. Even though the discipline operates in a power-saturated and regulatory manner, disciplinarians have often developed important models for engaging in a methodical, persistent, and well-coordinated process of knowledge production. Obviously, there are examples not only of genius within these domains but of great triumphs of scholarly breakthroughs leading to improvements in the human condition. The diverse understanding of these types of disciplinary practices empowers the bricoleur to ask compelling questions of other disciplines he or she will encounter. Such smart questions will facilitate the researcher’s capacity to make use of positive contributions of disciplines while avoiding disciplinary parochialism and domination.

As bricoleurs pursue this dialectic of disciplinarity, gaining a deep knowledge of the literature and conversations within a field, they would concurrently examine both the etymology and the critique of what many refer to as the disciplines’ arbitrary demarcations for arranging knowledge and structuring research. In a critical context, the bricoleur would develop a power literacy to facilitate his or her understanding of the nature and effects of the web of power relations underlying a discipline’s official research methodologies. Here bricoleurs would trace the ways these power dynamics shaped the knowledge produced within the disciplinary research tradition. Learning multiple lessons from their in-depth study of the discipline in particular and disciplinarity in general, the bricoleur becomes an expert on the relationships connecting cultural context, meaning making, power, and oppression within disciplinary boundaries. Their rigorous understanding of these dynamics possibly makes them more aware of the influence of such factors on the everyday practices of the discipline than those who have traditionally operated as scholars within the discipline (Freidman, 1998; Lutz, Jones, & Kendall, 1997; Morawski, 1997).

Questioning the Social Construction of Interdisciplinarity

Thus, bricoleurs operating within this dialectic of disciplinarity gain an in- depth understanding of the “process of disciplinarity,” adeptly avoiding any superficiality that might result from their interdisciplinary pursuits. At the same time, such researchers possess the insight to avoid complicity in colonized knowledge production designed to regulate and discipline. Such subtle expertise illustrates an appreciation of the complexity of knowledge work to which bricolage aspires. Understanding disciplinary processes and models of expertise while recognizing the elitist dimensions of dominant cultural knowledge technologies involves a nuanced discernment of the double-edged sword of disciplinarity. Concurrently, bricoleurs subject interdisciplinary to the same rigorous perusal. Accordingly, bricoleurs understand that interdisciplinarity is as much a social construction as disciplinarity. Just because bricolage is about interdisciplinarity, bricoleurs must not release the notion from the same form of power analysis used to explore disciplinarity.

In addition, bricoleurs must clarify what is meant by interdisciplinarity. A fuzzy concept at best, interdisciplinarity generally refers to a process where disciplinary boundaries are crossed and the analytical frames of more than one discipline are employed by the researcher. Surveying the use of the term, it quickly becomes apparent that little attention has been paid to what exactly interdisciplinarity implies for researchers. Some uses of the concept assume the deployment of numerous disciplinary methodologies in a study where disciplinary distinctions are maintained; other uses imply an integrated melding of disciplinary perspectives into a new methodological synthesis. Advocates of bricolage must consider the diverse approaches that take place in the name of interdisciplinarity and their implications for constructing the bricolage.

In light of the disciplinary implosion that has taken place over the past few decades and the “no going back” stance previously delineated, I feel no compulsion to preserve the disciplines in some pure, uncorrupted state of nature. Although there is much to learn from their histories, the stages of disciplinary emergence, growth and development, alteration, and devolution and decline, the complex view of bricolage I am presenting embraces a deep form of interdisciplinarity. A deep interdisciplinarity seeks to modify the disciplines and the view of research brought to the negotiating table constructed by the bricolage. Everyone leaves the table informed by the dialogue in a way that idiosyncratically influences the research methods they subsequently employ.

The point of the interaction is not standardized agreement as to some reductionistic notion of “the proper interdisciplinary research method” but awareness of the diverse tools in the researcher’s toolbox. The form such deep interdisciplinarity may take is shaped by the object of inquiry in question. Thus, in the bricolage, the context in which research takes place always affects the nature of the deep interdisciplinarity employed. In the spirit of the dialectic of disciplinarity, the ways these context-driven articulations of interdisciplinarity are constructed must be examined in light of the power literacy previously mentioned (Freidman, 1998; Blommaert, 1997; Pryse, 1998; Young & Yarbrough, 1993).

Bricolage as Deep Interdisciplinarity: The Synergy of Multiple Perspectives

With these disciplinary concerns in the front of our mind, I will now focus attention on the intellectual power of the bricolage. It does not seem a conceptual stretch to argue that there is a synergy that emerges in the use of different methodological and interpretive perspectives in the analysis of an artifact. Historians, for example, who are conversant with the insights of hermeneutics, will produce richer interpretations of the historical processes they encounter in their research. In the deep interdisciplinarity of the bricolage the historian takes concepts from hermeneutics and combines them with historiographical methods. What is produced is something new, a new form of hermeneutical historiography or historical hermeneutics. Whatever its name, the methodology could not have been predicted by examining historiography and hermeneutics separately, outside of the context of the historical processes under examination (Varenne, 1996). The possibilities offered by such interdisciplinary synergies are limitless.

An ethnographer who is conversant with social theory and its recent history is better equipped to transcend certain forms of formulaic ethnography that are reduced by the so-called “observational constraint” on the methodology. Using the x-ray vision of contemporary social-theoretically informed strategies of discourse analysis, poststructural psychoanalysis, and ideology-critique, the ethnographer gains the ability to see beyond the literalness of the observed. In this maneuver, the ethnographer-as-bricoleur moves to a deeper level of data analysis as he or she sees “what’s not there” in physical presence, what is not discernible by the ethnographic eye. Synergized by the interaction of ethnography and the social theoretical discourses, the resulting bricolage provides a new angle of analysis, a multidimensional perspective on a cultural phenomenon (Dicks & Mason, 1998; Foster, 1997).

Carefully exploring the relationships connecting the object of inquiry to the contexts in which it exists, the researcher constructs the most useful bricolage his or her wide knowledge of research strategies can provide. The strict disciplinarian operating in a reductionistic framework chained to the prearranged procedures of a monological way of seeing is less likely to produce frame-shattering research than the synergized bricoleur. The process at work in the bricolage involves learning from difference. Researchers employing multiple research methods are often not chained to the same assumptions as individuals operating within a particular discipline. As they study the methods of diverse disciplines, they are forced to compare not only methods but also differing epistemologies and social theoretical assumptions. Such diversity frames research orientations as particular socially constructed perspectives—not sacrosanct pathways to the truth. All methods are subject to questioning and analysis, especially in light of so many other strategies designed for similar purposes (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Lester, 1997; Thomas, 1998).

This defamiliarization process highlights the power of the confrontation with difference to expand the researcher’s interpretive horizons. Bricolage does not simply tolerate difference but cultivates it as a spark to researcher creativity. Here rests a central contribution of the deep interdisciplinarity of the bricolage: As researchers draw together divergent forms of research, they gain the unique insight of multiple perspectives. Thus, a complex understanding of research and knowledge production prepares bricoleurs to address the complexities of the social, cultural, psychological, and educational domains. Sensitive to complexity, bricoleurs use multiple methods to uncover new insights, expand and modify old principles, and reexamine accepted interpretations in unanticipated contexts. Using any methods necessary to gain new perspectives on objects of inquiry, bricoleurs employ the principle of difference not only in research methods but in cross-cultural analysis as well. In this domain, bricoleurs explore the different perspectives of the socially privileged and the marginalized in relation to formations of race, class, gender, and sexuality (McLeod, 2000; Pryse, 1998; Young & Yarbrough, 1993).

The deep interdisciplinarity of bricolage is sensitive to multivocality and the consciousness of difference it produces in a variety of contexts. Described by Denzin and Lincoln (2000) as “multi-competent, skilled at using inter- views, observation, personal documents,” the bricoleur explores the use of ethnography, Pinarian currere, historiography, genre studies, psychoanalysis, rhetorical analysis, discourse analysis, content analysis, ad infinitum. The addition of historiography, for example, to the bricoleur’s tool kit profoundly expands his or her interpretive facility. As bricoleurs historically contextualize their ethnographies, discourse analysis, and semiotic studies, they tap into the power of etymology. Etymological insight (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1993; Kincheloe, Steinberg, & Hinchey, 1999) involves an under- standing of the origins of the construction of social, cultural, psychological, political, economic, and educational artifacts and the ways they shape our subjectivities. Indeed, our conception of self, world, and our positionalities as researchers can only become complex and critical when we appreciate the historical aspect of its formation. With this one addition, we dramatically sophisticate the quality and depth of our knowledge work (Zammito, 1996).

Expanding The Boundaries: The Search For New Forms Of Knowledge Production

Operating as a form of deep interdisciplinarity, bricolage is unembarrassed in its effort to rupture particular ways of functioning in the established disciplines of research. One of the best ways to accomplish this goal is to include what might be termed philosophical research to the bricolage. In the same way that historiography ruptures the stability of particular disciplinary methods, philosophical research provides bricoleurs with the dangerous knowledge of the multivocal results of humans’ desire to understand, to know themselves and the world. Differing philosophical/cultural conventions have employed diverse epistemological, ontological, and cosmological assumptions as well as different methods of inquiry. Again, depending on the context of the object of inquiry, bricoleurs use their knowledge of these dynamics to shape their research design. It is not difficult to understand the epistemological contention that the types of logic, criteria for validity, and methods of inquiry used in clinical medicine as opposed to teacher effectiveness in teaching critical thinking will differ.

In making such an assertion the bricoleur is displaying philosophical/ epistemological/ontological sensitivity to the context of analysis. Such a sensitivity is a key element of the bricolage, as it brings an understanding of social theory together with an appreciation of the demands of particular contexts; this fused concept is subsequently used to examine the repertoire of methods the bricoleur can draw on and to help decide which ones are relevant to the project at hand. Practicing this mode of analysis in a variety of research situations, the bricoleur becomes increasingly adept at employing multiple methods in concrete venues. Such a historiographically and philosophically informed bricolage helps researchers move into a new, more complex domain of knowledge production where they are far more conscious of multiple layers of intersections between the knower and the known, perception and the lived world, and discourse and representation. Employing the benefits of philosophical inquiry, the bricoleur gains a new ability to account for and incorporate these dynamics into his or her research narratives (Bridges, 1997; Fischer, 1998; Madison, 1988; McCarthy, 1997).

This is what expanding the boundaries of knowledge production specifically references. In the particularities of the philosophical interactions with the empirical in a variety of contexts, bricoleurs devise new forms of rigor, new challenges to other researchers to push the methodological and interpretive envelopes. As bricoleurs study the subjective meanings that human beings make, for example, they use their philosophical modes of inquiry to understand that this phenomenological form of information has no analogue in the methods of particular formalist forms of empirical research. Thus, in an obvious example, a choice of methods is necessitated by particular epistemological and ontological conditions—epistemological and ontological conditions rarely recognized in monological forms of empirical research (Haggerson, 2000; Lee, 1997).

I want to be as specific as possible about the nature of these epistemological and ontological conditions. Although we have made progress, much of the research that is devoid of the benefits philosophical inquiry brings to the bricolage still tends to study the world as if ontologically it consists of a series of static images. Entities are often removed from the contexts that shape them, the processes of which they are a part, and the relationships and connections that structure their being-in-the-world. Such ontological orientations impose particular epistemologies, specific ways of producing knowledge about such inert entities. In this ontological context, the task of researchers is reduced, as they simply do not have to worry about contextual insights, etymological processes, and the multiple relationships that constitute the complexity of lived reality. In a reductionistic mode of research, these dynamics are irrelevant and the knowledge produced in such contexts reflects the reductionism. The bricolage struggles to find new ways of seeing and interpreting that avoid this curse and that produce thick, complex, and rigorous forms of knowledge (Karunaratne, 1997).

In this thick, complex, and rigorous context, bricoleurs in the social, cultural, psychological, and educational domains operate with a sophisticated understanding of the nature of knowledge. To be well prepared, bricoleurs must realize that knowledge is always in process, developing, culturally specific, and power-inscribed. They are attuned to dynamic relationships connecting individuals, their contexts, and their activities instead of focusing on these separate entities in isolation from one another. In this ontological framework, they concentrate on social activity systems and larger cultural processes and the ways individuals engage or are engaged by them (Blackler, 1995).

Bricoleurs follow such engagements, analyzing how the ever-changing dynamics of the systems and the processes alter the lived realities of participants; concurrently, they monitor the ways participants operate to change the systems and the processes. The complexity of such a mode of inquiry precludes the development of a step-by-step set of research procedures. Bricoleurs know that this inability to proceduralize undermines efforts to “test” the validity of their research. The researcher’s fidelity to procedure cannot simply be checked off and certified. In the complex bricolage the products of research are “evaluated.” The evaluation process draws on the same forms of inquiry and analysis initially delineated by the bricolage itself (Madison, 1988). In this context, the rigor of research intensifies at the same time the boundaries of knowledge production are stretched.

Life on the Boundaries: Facilitating the Work of the Bricoleur

The bricolage understands that the frontiers of knowledge work rest in the liminal zones where disciplines collide. Thus, in the deep interdisciplinarity of the bricolage, researchers learn to engage in a form of boundary work. Such scholarly labor involves establishing diverse networks and conferences where synergistic interactions can take place as proponents of different methodologies, students of divergent subject matters, and individuals confronted with different problems interact. In this context, scholars learn across these domains and educate intermediaries who can build bridges between various territories. As disciplinary intermediaries operating as bricoleurs facilitate this boundary work, they create conceptual and electronic links that help researchers in different domains interact. If the cutting edge of research lives at the intersection of disciplinary borders, then developing the bricolage is a key strategy in the development of rigorous and innovative research. The facilitation and cultivation of boundary work is a central element of this process.

There is nothing simple about conducting research at the interdisciplinary frontier. Many scholars report that the effort to develop expertise in different disciplines and research methodologies demands more than a casual acquaintance with the literature of a domain. In this context, there is a need for personal interaction between representatives from diverse disciplinary domains and scholarly projects to facilitate these encounters. Many researchers find it extremely difficult to make sense of “outside” fields and the more disciplines a researcher scans the harder the process becomes. If the scholar does not have access to historical dimensions of the field, the contexts that envelop the research methods used and the knowledge produced in the area, or contemporary currents involving debates and controversies in the discipline, the boundary work of the bricolage becomes exceedingly frustrating and futile. Proponents of the bricolage must help develop specific strategies for facilitating this complicated form of scholarly labor.

In this context we come to understand that a key aspect of “doing bricolage” involves the development of conceptual tools for boundary work. Such tools might include the promotion and cultivation of detailed reviews of research in a particular domain written with the needs of bricoleurs in mind. Researchers from a variety of disciplinary domains should develop information for bricolage projects. Hypertextual projects that provide conceptual matrices for bringing together diverse literatures, examples of data produced by different research methods, connective insights, and bibliographic compilations can be undertaken by bricoleurs with the help of information professionals. Such projects would integrate a variety of conceptual understandings, including the previously mentioned historical, contextual, and contemporary currents of disciplines (Friedman, 1998; Palmer, 1996).

Kellner (1995) is helpful in this context with his argument that multiperspectival approaches to research may not be very helpful unless the object of inquiry and the various methods used to study it are situated historically. In this way, the forces operating to socially construct all elements of the research process are understood, an appreciation that leads to a grasp of new relationships and connections. Such an appreciation opens new interpretive windows that lead to more rigorous modes of analysis and interpretation. This historicization of the research and the researched is an intrinsic aspect of the bricolage and the education of the bricoleur. Because learning to become a bricoleur is a lifelong process, what we are discussing here relates to the lifelong curriculum for preparing bricoleurs.

Also necessary to this boundary work and the education of the bricoleur are social-theoretical and hermeneutical understandings. Social theory alerts bricoleurs to the implicit assumptions within particular approaches to research and the ways they shape their findings. With grounding in social theory, bricoleurs can make more informed decisions about the nature of the knowledge produced in the field and how researchers discern the worth of the knowledge they themselves produce. With the benefit of hermeneutics, bricoleurs are empowered to synthesize data collected via multiple methods. In the hermeneutic process, this ability to synthesize diverse information moves the bricoleur to a more sophisticated level of meaning making (Foster, 1997; Zammito, 1996). Life on the disciplinary boundaries is never easy, but the rewards to be derived from the hard work demanded are profound.

I’ll mercifully stop here. … This is part of an expanding piece.

Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work, and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies , 16 , 6.

Blommaert, J. (1997). Workshopping: Notes on professional vision in discourse [Online]. Available: http://africana_rug.ac.be/texts/research-publications/publications_ on-line/workshopping.htm

Bridges, D. (1997). Philosophy and educational research: A reconsideration of epistemological boundaries. Cambridge Journal of Education , 27 , 2.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dicks, B., & Mason, B. (1998). Hypermedia and ethnography: Reflections on the construction of a research approach. Sociological Research Online , 3 , 3.

Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond empiricism: Policy inquiry in postpositivist perspective. Policy Studies Journal , 26 (1), 129-146.

Foster, R. (1997). Addressing epistemologic and practical issues in multimethod research: A procedure for conceptual triangulation. Advances in Nursing Education , 202 , 2.

Friedman, S. (1998). (Inter) disciplinarity and the question of the women’s studies Ph.D. Feminist Studies , 24 , 2.

Haggerson, N. (2000). Expanding curriculum research and understanding: A mytho-poetic perspective . New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Karunaratne, V. (1997). Buddhism, science, and dialectics [Online]. Available: http://humanism.org/opinions/articles.html

Kellner, D. (1995). Media culture: Cultural studies, identity and politics between the modern and postmodern . New York: Routledge.

Kincheloe, J., & Steinberg, S. (1993). A tentative description of post-formal thinking: The critical confrontation with cognitive theory. Harvard Educational Review , 63 (3), 296-320.

Kincheloe, J., Steinberg, S., & Hinchey, P. (1999). The postformal reader: Cognition and education . New York: Falmer.

Lee, A. (1997). What is MIS? In R. Galliers & W. Currie (Eds.), Rethinking MIS . London: Oxford University Press.

Lester, S. (1997). Learning for the twenty-first century [Online]. Available: http://www.devmts.demon.co.uk/lrg21st.htm

Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lincoln, Y. S. (2012). Foreword. In K. Cooper & R. E. White, Qualitative research in the postmodern era, Volume I, (p. x). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

Lutz, K., Jones, K., & Kendall, J. (1997). Expanding the praxis debate: Contributions to clinical inquiry. Advances in Nursing Science , 20 , 2.

Madison, G. (1988). The hermeneutics of postmodernity: Figures and themes . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

McCarthy, M. (1997). Pluralism, invariance, and conflict. The Review of Metaphysics , 51 , l.

McLeod, J. (2000, June). Qualitative research as bricolage . Paper presented at the Society for Psychotherapy Research Annual Conference, Chicago.

Morawski, J. (1997). The science behind feminist research methods. Journal of Social Issues , 53 (4), 667-682.

Palmer, C. (1996). Information work at the boundaries of science: Linking library services to research practices. Library Trends , 44 (2), 165-192.

Pryse, M. (1998). Critical interdisciplinarity, women’s studies, and cross-cultural insight. NWSA Journal , 10 (1), 1-11.

Selfe, C., & Selfe, R. (1994). The politics of the interface: Power and its exercise in electronic contact zones [Online]. Available: http://www.hu.mtu.edu/~cyselfe/texts/politics. html

Thomas, G. (1998). The myth of rational research. British Educational Research Journal , 24 , 2.

Varenne, H. (1996). The social facting of education: Durkheim’s legacy. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 27 , 373-389.

Young, T., & Yarbrough, J. (1993). Reinventing sociology: Mission and methods for postmodern sociologists (Transforming Sociology Series, 154). Weidman, MI: Red Feather Institute.

Zammito, J. (1996). Historicism, metahistory, and historical practice: The historicization of the historical subject [Online]. Available: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~sprague/zammito.htm

Joe L. Kincheloe is a professor of education at the City University of New York Graduate Center in Urban Education and at Brooklyn College. The author and editor of more than 20 books, he is a well-known lecturer. His areas of research include cultural studies, pedagogy, issues of diversity, qualitative research, bricolage, interdisciplinary rigor, and research methodology. His latest book, The Sign of the Burger: McDonald’s and the Culture of Power , will be out in February from Temple University Press.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

White, R.E., Cooper, K. (2022). The Future of Qualitative Research. In: Qualitative Research in the Post-Modern Era. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_11

Published : 29 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85126-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85124-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

6 priorities for future research into COVID-19 and its effects on early learning

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, christina weiland , christina weiland associate professor, school of education - university of michigan @weilanch erica greenberg , erica greenberg senior research associate, center on education data and policy - urban institute @ericahgreenberg daphna bassok , daphna bassok nonresident senior fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy @daphnabassok anna j. markowitz , anna j. markowitz assistant professor, graduate school of education and information studies - ucla @ajmarkowitz paola guerrero rosada , and paola guerrero rosada doctoral candidate, school of education - university of michigan @paolaguerreror grace luetmer grace luetmer research analyst, center on education data and policy - urban institute @graceluetmer.

July 20, 2021

Since March 2020, researchers have produced more than 300 reports on the effects of the COVID-19 crisis on young children’s learning and on the early care and education (ECE) programs that serve them. Very quickly, ECE leaders facing the urgent day-to-day demands of COVID-19 response also faced a deluge of evidence—far more than they could efficiently find, sort, and use.

To help provide policymakers with a clear understanding of the pandemic’s effects on young children’s learning and ECE programs, our team of 16 early childhood experts and 10 early childhood policy leaders recently released a summary of this evidence base. We reviewed 76 high-quality studies in depth, spanning 16 national studies, 45 studies in 31 states, and 15 local studies. Our work illuminated a national story of learning setbacks and unmet needs, for which we offered evidence-backed, equity-centered policy solutions.

But another advantage of taking stock of what we know was discovering what we don’t know. Our in-depth review revealed six takeaways about where research in this area should go next. Especially given that American Rescue Plan funds can be used to build research capacity in state and local agencies, our hope is that a clear statement of what stakeholders need to know next is helpful for producing new evidence to guide investments going forward.

Here are six priorities for future research going forward:

Continue to track recovery for children, families, teachers, and programs. We likely have just scratched the surface of the effects of this fluid, complex crisis. The Delta variant raises new questions about health and safety, and young children have yet to be vaccinated . Extending studies of the effects of the crisis on children’s learning, the supply of ECE programs, and early educators’ experiences is essential for targeting supports and ensuring equitable solutions.
Document changes to ECE programs and children’s experiences that are not captured in existing data. We have lots of evidence that shows the many changes ECE programs made to enhance health and safety, but we have only crude teacher reports on the effects of these changes on children’s classroom experiences. As vaccination rates increase, a return to direct observations of ECE classrooms—commonly done at large scale prior to the crisis—should be used to support both children and teachers. How are young children spending their time? Has instructional quality declined as teacher reports indicate? In what areas do teachers need support? Widely used and newer measures can answer these questions and inform instructional and policy decisions in the new normal.
Measure learning outcomes for the youngest learners directly and across multiple domains. We found no data from direct assessments of children’s skills prior to kindergarten, and very little data outside of the literacy domain for kindergarten through second grade. We have parent and teacher reports on the youngest children that paint a worrisome picture, but the psychometrics of such measures can be questionable. The K-2 direct assessments we have show consistent and large learning setbacks, particularly for children typically marginalized in the U.S. education system. And many children, especially children from households with low incomes and children of color, are missing from recent data. Direct assessments are critical for meeting young children where they are, targeting resources effectively, and guiding investment decisions.
Collect systematic data on the ECE workforce. Many studies have detailed how the ECE workforce suffered in the crisis, with the pandemic magnifying longstanding issues like very low pay, limited benefits, and few professional supports, particularly among teachers in child care and family child care settings. In the face of new challenges, early educators also reported new professional-development needs, including training on health and safety, remote learning, and meeting the needs of dual language learners (DLLs). Unlike in K-12, where extensive data is collected about the teaching workforce, few states systematically collect data about early educators. Collecting such data across sectors will be essential as new investments are made. ECE workforce issues commonly undercut investments and early educators are at the heart of ensuring the high-quality experiences that help young children thrive.
Prioritize research on groups hit hardest. We know the effects of the pandemic have not been borne equally , but we found no data on some key populations such as young children from homeless families, children experiencing bereavement, children from migrant families, and Asian-American children amid the spike in Asian-American hate. Data on other critical populations like DLLs, children with disabilities, and Native-American children are sparse. Equity-centered, evidence-backed decision-making requires more data on young children who belong to groups that have suffered more in the crisis.
Evaluate the impacts of new investments. We will need additional rigorous, fast-turnaround research as states and localities make high-stakes policy and spending decisions and families make decisions about their children’s care and education in the next chapter of the crisis. Decisions on a set of wide-ranging topics (e.g., program eligibility, teacher compensation and professional supports, and interventions for students needing help) both provide unique opportunities to study bold policy and have the potential to make lasting impacts. As an example, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan—a state hit particularly hard by the crisis—recently announced historic investments in both child care and preschool , including expanding access and improving teacher pay. Maine and Washington state also announced important new investments. Documenting state and local policy choices and their impacts is essential. Doing so will help legislartors make decisions about how best to allocate recovery dollars, and will ensure that what we learn from these historic investments will inform longer-term efforts to build truly high-quality ECE systems.

We titled our summary : “Historic crisis, historic opportunity.” The March 2021 American Rescue Plan was the largest public investment in early care and education in U.S. history. Smart and rigorous research, especially in partnership with decision-makers, has a critical role to play in pivoting from crisis to opportunity in ECE. Our young children and early educators deserve no less.

What is 'futures studies' and how can it help us improve our world?

A futurist explains.

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Abhinav Chugh

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Innovation is affecting economies, industries and global issues

A hand holding a looking glass by a lake

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:.

Listen to the article

Futures studies is the systematic study of possible, probable and preferable futures.
It can be used to help leaders and communities manage uncertainties and increase their resilience and innovation.
We spoke with futurist Dr. Stuart Candy about the latest developments in this field and how it can help us solve pressing global challenges.

Futures studies, or futures research, is the systematic study of possible, probable and preferable futures. The field has broadened into an exploration of alternative futures and deepened to investigate the worldviews and mythologies that underlie our collective prospects.

Governments and leaders around the world are increasingly looking to systemic foresight to manage uncertainty and build resilience. For example, the government of the United Arab Emirates has a Ministry for the Future , and the UN Secretary General recently proposed a global Summit of the Future in 2023.

Futurists collaborate with businesses, governments and other partners to explore future scenarios and help people think about –– and prepare for –– things that haven’t happened yet. Dr. Stuart Candy, USC Berggruen Fellow and Associate Professor of Design at Carnegie Mellon University, is a professional futurist and experience designer known for pioneering experiential futures , a range of practices for bringing possible scenarios to life through tangible artifacts and immersive storytelling.

As we welcome Dr. Candy into the Forum Expert Network , we discuss his motivations to explore this domain, what developments have him most excited, what he wishes people knew about his work, and how we could make the concept of the future more inclusive and accountable.

What drew you to the field of foresight and speculative design?

I happened across the foresight field, or futures studies, back in high school. It was immediately inspiring to me –– wide-ranging and imaginative, analytically insightful, ethically engaged and practically applied. However, over some years of working with foresight in government, I found that policymakers had limited capacity to envision alternative futures, and even where the field had a certain currency, its legacy methods weren’t necessarily having great impact.

So, I began re-visiting longstanding creative interests of mine that had perhaps begun to fall away during my formal education in history and law –– making things, films, theatre, games –– and asked: how might thinking about futures be made more accessible and compelling through these modes?

What began as a trickle has, over time, become more like a flood: practitioners, scholars, activists, and others around the world are now working in countless different ways on these intersections. A range of these are documented in our recent collection Design and Futures .

What global challenge does your work address?

The central challenge this work addresses could certainly be called global, but equally, it's psychological. It is an aspect of the human condition that exists at every scale of action and institution, from the personal to the planetary. That challenge is: how to engage the various possible worlds we might find ourselves in later –– not just intellectually, in the abstract, but more deeply as potential lived realities? The field traditionally has been very strong on frameworks for organizing thought, but less so on converting those anticipations into embodied insights and making them stick.

Design and futures were largely non-overlapping worlds when we started joining the dots in the mid-2000s, and a decade ago, the term "speculative design" wasn’t even in the mix. However, new framings that speak to different groups are part of the vitality of how the work has taken off, and I’m glad to help people explore futures more effectively under any banner. I have now spent well over a decade bringing futures often into new spaces, especially by growing and gardening those connections between foresight and media, arts, and design, which is intended to help acculturate –– build into our cultures –– these ways of thinking.

I would add that to my mind, designers have special duties because they create fragments of the future on behalf of everyone. Similarly, to the extent that a leader in any context has an outsized capacity to shape things, they have a commensurate responsibility to practice and enable high quality futures thinking.

What is the most critical challenge that you face as a futurist?

Perhaps the most critical challenge is the need for futures literacy in the culture. Take politics and journalism, institutions that inherently deal with the future but that do not have a well-established habit of " rigorous imagining ". Lack of futures literacy is apparent when otherwise discerning journalists demand that you provide predictions for their piece on "the future" (note the singular form) of any issue they are covering.

It is also apparent when policymakers, technologists, pundits, and other public figures issue a constant stream of authoritative-sounding forecasts, but no one checks back later to see how they fared, or asks how this diet of images of the future might be exerting influence and serving some interests more than others. Raising collective futures literacy, or "social foresight", not just across organizations but also throughout society, is an essential way for us all to navigate the predicaments that we face as a species.

What is the most exciting new development in collective foresight and why?

The greatest development right now is the rapid widening of those who initiate, run, and take part in foresight work. It’s incredibly exciting. People in various sectors, bringing diverse cultural, organizational, and disciplinary backgrounds and sensibilities, are picking up the tools to build strategic foresight and experiential futures approaches in particular, and adapting them for their own contexts and needs.

There’s more participation and interest than there has ever been, which is as thrilling as it is overdue. Organization leaders and governments, too, are taking the cue to improve their foresight approaches which is necessary in this time.

How are emerging technologies in the sphere of media (such as AR/VR) enabling this?

Playing with emerging media tools and technologies is a fun and productive aspect of opening up new ways of thinking through experiential futures. For instance, for the World Economic Forum’s own Global Technology Governance Summit this year, with my Carnegie Mellon students we designed online media –– websites and podcasts that behaved as if they were "from" decades out, each examining technology governance dilemmas and interventions that might be waiting in the wings.

Another project, for the UNESCO Futures Summit, pictured a future after the Sustainable Development Goals are achieved, via a digital showcase of world-changing organizations and initiatives in the year 2045. Here, we created a digital trade show for visitors to wander and explore at their leisure, using an online collaboration software Miro . Earlier this year, we created TikToks from the future , just as an experiment. The result was a range of wonderfully mundane, sometimes provocative or hilarious, vignettes of everyday futures, made with zero budget, and exploring food, autonomous vehicles, real estate, travel, and more.

Yet, the medium itself does not necessarily need to be cutting-edge or experimental to be effective. To support the UN Development Programme’s annual innovation gathering, mid-pandemic, my collaborators and I created physical artifacts from alternative futures for global development and sent them in the mail for people to receive at their homes, ahead of a global event that took place entirely online.

Every storytelling approach offers different ways to think and feel into what alternative scenarios might be like. Since no one can visit the future to get hard information about it, we must use whatever it takes to stoke our collective imaginative and deliberative capacities.

What is most misunderstood about your work? What do you wish people knew?

The role of a futurist is more like that of an artist or writer than an accountant or lawyer. It’s as much an art or craft as a profession, and there are as many kinds of futurists as there are ways of thinking about the future. The tradition I identify with is notable for being radically imaginative, critical, inclusive, and democratic. And to me, taking words like "future" and "futurist" back from the ways they have been abused, pre-populated or colonized with a tremendous amount of baggage is part of the project in hand.

It could also be helpful for more people to be aware that experts in the field generally don’t call it " futurism " –– that word refers more to an art movement early last century that’s unrelated.

What has been the biggest impact of mapping futures?

Building the habit of mapping futures can be life changing. For institutions or organizations, it can really shift how they operate. Likewise at an individual level –– and it’s remarkable to get to see this among my students. I think a reason it can have such impact is that it’s a way of situating the "what" and "how" of daily effort within the larger "whys" in our lives. Investing in foresight capacity helps to knit vital day-to-day work to the meaningful longer-term and bigger-picture questions, and to keep those ties alive.

I believe the biggest collective impact of all this is unfolding right before our eyes, but it’s a large story, so you must look for it on a timescale of decades or generations rather than months or years. We, as humans, are learning how to codesign our futures. This is ultimately a transformation in culture and governance.

How can we democratize futures studies and make it more accessible?

Well, I love that question. It’s central to what we have been up to. My own approach to developing and socializing experiential futures widely has been to keep several hats at the ready, sometimes wearing more than one at once. As a creative, I devise projects and interventions to make particular questions, and new horizons of thought, available for particular occasions and audiences

As an educator, I learn from these experiments to devise new frameworks, and distribute them to emerging practitioners and whoever else can use them in their own context. And as a strategic consultant, I collaborate with organizations, governments and communities on their challenges to apply what we are learning, and show how it can work, which helps address those challenges while also earning greater legitimacy and visibility on behalf of a wider futures community, growing the audience of users and learners for the underlying practices.

If you’re wondering about what a broader "we" can do, just about every organization has potential to grow their foresight capacity , and make more space to engage with alternative futures, which can help support creativity and innovation on one hand as well as risk mitigation and resilience on the other.

One project we’ve developed over some years which I think exemplifies this hybrid activity rather well, is a card deck called The Thing From The Future . It’s a tool for diversifying and deepening imagination. We’ve used it with UN agencies and the International Red Cross, as well as the BBC, NASA JPL, US Conference of Mayors, Skoll World Forum and other partners all over the world. It is a game that has the purpose of lowering the bar to using imagination with skill, and having conversations that matter, but playfully.

The future is not just something that happens to us, it is something we have the ability to shape. And part of what is interesting is, the more people and institutions tune in, participate, and act, the truer this becomes.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Emerging Technologies .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Future of the internet: Why we need convergence and governance for sustained growth

Thomas Beckley and Ross Genovese

April 25, 2024

Confused about AI? Here are the podcasts you need on artificial intelligence

Robin Pomeroy

How to manage AI's energy demand — today, tomorrow and in the future

Beena Ammanath

Sovereign AI: What it is, and 6 strategic pillars for achieving it

Muath Alduhishy

Equitable healthcare is the industry's north star. Here's how AI can get us there

Vincenzo Ventricelli

Why the Global Digital Compact's focus on digital trust and security is key to the future of internet

Agustina Callegari and Daniel Dobrygowski

April 24, 2024

Empowering Early Career Researchers

Future of Research champions, engages, and empowers early career researchers (ECRs) with evidence-based resources to make informed career choices and improve scientific research.

Our Mission

We share resources, community, and expertise with those dedicated to advocacy work and the improvement of academic training environments.

Our projects

We promote grassroots advocacy, currently focusing on three specific projects. Click on each below to see how you can get involved.

Mentoring future scientists

Departmental or training program policies have a huge impact on the success of graduate students, postdocs, and scientific endeavors.

We convened experts and early career researchers to define major policy guidelines and excellence tiers for STEM departments.

Labor and policy

Graduate students, postdoctoral researchers and research associates are among groups of academics searchers across the U.S. organizing, or participating in, unionization efforts and votes. Read our statement and review resources for unionization

international scholars

We raise awareness about the challenges faced by foreign-born researchers currently employed in US academic institutions and advocate for their needs by collecting data, disseminating findings to broad audiences.

Our leadership in action

Learn more about the importance of mentorship and resources in early career research from a Future of Research President, Fatima Sanchenznieto at TedX Chicago.

Latest News

Our blog posts keep you informed of overall organization news as well as with statements that that Future of Research develops as part of our advocacy to better empower ECRs.

Science Policy in our New Administration: Challenges Facing Early Career Researchers

by futureofresearch | Feb 7, 2021

In the week before he was sworn in as the 46th President of the United States, then President-elect Biden took the unprecedented step of elevating the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to a cabinet level position. In doing so, Biden...

Police Brutality, Racism, and the killing of Black civilians

by Fátima Sancheznieto | Jun 5, 2020

Dear Future of Research Community, At a time when there is a continued need for as much collective grieving as there is for concrete actions, writing a statement can feel hollow. When so many in the Black community, on a regular basis, decry the systemic,...

U.S. Senate Finance Committee meeting on foreign influences highlights federal agency urgency without clarity

by Gary McDowell | Jun 7, 2019

On Wednesday, the United States Senate Finance Committee met to discuss Foreign Threats to Taxpayer – Funded Research: Oversight Opportunities and Policy Solutions. The webpage includes a video of the session (which begins approximately 30 mins in) and written...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.)

Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation.

Chapter 9 conclusions and recommendations for future research.

How well have we achieved our original aim and objectives?

The initially stated overarching aim of this research was to identify the contextual factors and mechanisms that are regularly associated with effective and cost-effective public involvement in research. While recognising the limitations of our analysis, we believe we have largely achieved this in our revised theory of public involvement in research set out in Chapter 8 . We have developed and tested this theory of public involvement in research in eight diverse case studies; this has highlighted important contextual factors, in particular PI leadership, which had not previously been prominent in the literature. We have identified how this critical contextual factor shapes key mechanisms of public involvement, including the identification of a senior lead for involvement, resource allocation for involvement and facilitation of research partners. These mechanisms then lead to specific outcomes in improving the quality of research, notably recruitment strategies and materials and data collection tools and methods. We have identified a ‘virtuous circle’ of feedback to research partners on their contribution leading to their improved confidence and motivation, which facilitates their continued contribution. Following feedback from the HS&DR Board on our original application we did not seek to assess the cost-effectiveness of different mechanisms of public involvement but we did cost the different types of public involvement as discussed in Chapter 7 . A key finding is that many research projects undercost public involvement.

In our original proposal we emphasised our desire to include case studies involving young people and families with children in the research process. We recruited two studies involving parents of young children aged under 5 years, and two projects involving ‘older’ young people in the 18- to 25-years age group. We recognise that in doing this we missed studies involving children and young people aged under 18 years; in principle we would have liked to have included studies involving such children and young people, but, given the resources at our disposal and the additional resource, ethical and governance issues this would have entailed, we regretfully concluded that this would not be feasible for our study. In terms of the four studies with parental and young persons’ involvement that we did include, we have not done a separate analysis of their data, but the themes emerging from those case studies were consistent with our other case studies and contributed to our overall analysis.

In terms of the initial objectives, we successfully recruited the sample of eight diverse case studies and collected and analysed data from them (objective 1). As intended, we identified the outcomes of involvement from multiple stakeholders‘ perspectives, although we did not get as many research partners‘ perspectives as we would have liked – see limitations below (objective 2). It was more difficult than expected to track the impact of public involvement from project inception through to completion (objective 3), as all of our projects turned out to have longer time scales than our own. Even to track involvement over a stage of a case study research project proved difficult, as the research usually did not fall into neatly staged time periods and one study had no involvement activity over the study period.

Nevertheless, we were able to track seven of the eight case studies prospectively and in real time over time periods of up to 9 months, giving us an unusual window on involvement processes that have previously mainly been observed retrospectively. We were successful in comparing the contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes associated with public involvement from different stakeholders‘ perspectives and costing the different mechanisms for public involvement (objective 4). We only partly achieved our final objective of undertaking a consensus exercise among stakeholders to assess the merits of the realist evaluation approach and our approach to the measurement and valuation of economic costs of public involvement in research (objective 5). A final consensus event was held, where very useful discussion and amendment of our theory of public involvement took place, and the economic approach was discussed and helpfully critiqued by participants. However, as our earlier discussions developed more fully than expected, we decided to let them continue rather than interrupt them in order to run the final exercise to assess the merits of the realist evaluation approach. We did, however, test our analysis with all our case study participants by sending a draft of this final report for comment. We received a number of helpful comments and corrections but no disagreement with our overall analysis.

What were the limitations of our study?

Realist evaluation is a relatively new approach and we recognise that there were a number of limitations to our study. We sought to follow the approach recommended by Pawson, but we acknowledge that we were not always able to do so. In particular, our theory of public involvement in research evolved over time and initially was not as tightly framed in terms of a testable hypothesis as Pawson recommends. In his latest book Pawson strongly recommends that outcomes should be measured with quantitative data, 17 but we did not do so; we were not aware of the existence of quantitative data or tools that would enable us to collect such data to answer our research questions. Even in terms of qualitative data, we did not capture as much information on outcomes as we initially envisaged. There were several reasons for this. The most important was that capturing outcomes in public involvement is easier the more operational the focus of involvement, and more difficult the more strategic the involvement. Thus, it was relatively easy to see the impact of a patient panel on the redesign of a recruitment leaflet but harder to capture the impact of research partners in a multidisciplinary team discussion of research design.

We also found it was sometimes more difficult to engage research partners as participants in our research than researchers or research managers. On reflection this is not surprising. Research partners are generally motivated to take part in research relevant to their lived experience of a health condition or situation, whereas our research was quite detached from their lived experience; in addition people had many constraints on their time, so getting involved in our research as well as their own was likely to be a burden too far for some. Researchers clearly also face significant time pressures but they had a more direct interest in our research, as they are obliged to engage with public involvement to satisfy research funders such as the NIHR. Moreover, researchers were being paid by their employers for their time during interviews with us, while research partners were not paid by us and usually not paid by their research teams. Whatever the reasons, we had less response from research partners than researchers or research managers, particularly for the third round of data collection; thus we have fewer data on outcomes from research partners‘ perspectives and we need to be aware of a possible selection bias towards more engaged research partners. Such a bias could have implications for our findings; for example payment might have been a more important motivating factor for less engaged advisory group members.

There were a number of practical difficulties we encountered. One challenge was when to recruit the case studies. We recruited four of our eight case studies prior to the full application, but this was more than 1 year before our project started and 15 months or more before data collection began. In this intervening period, we found that the time scales of some of the case studies were no longer ideal for our project and we faced the choice of whether to continue with them, although this timing was not ideal, or seek at a late moment to recruit alternative ones. One of our case studies ultimately undertook no involvement activity over the study period, so we obtained fewer data from it, and it contributed relatively little to our analysis. Similarly, one of the four case studies we recruited later experienced some delays itself in beginning and so we had a more limited period for data collection than initially envisaged. Research governance approvals took much longer than expected, particularly as we had to take three of our research partners, who were going to collect data within NHS projects, through the research passport process, which essentially truncated our data collection period from 1 year to 9 months. Even if we had had the full year initially envisaged for data collection, our conclusion with hindsight was that this was insufficiently long. To compare initial plans and intentions for involvement with the reality of what actually happened required a longer time period than a year for most of our case studies.

In the light of the importance we have placed on the commitment of PIs, there is an issue of potential selection bias in the recruitment of our sample. As our sampling strategy explicitly involved a networking approach to PIs of projects where we thought some significant public involvement was taking place, we were likely (as we did) to recruit enthusiasts and, at worst, those non-committed who were at least open to the potential value of public involvement. There were, unsurprisingly, no highly sceptical PIs in our sample. We have no data therefore on how public involvement may work in research where the PI is sceptical but may feel compelled to undertake involvement because of funder requirements or other factors.

What would we do differently next time?

If we were to design this study again, there are a number of changes we would make. Most importantly we would go for a longer time period to be able to capture involvement through the whole research process from initial design through to dissemination. We would seek to recruit far more potential case studies in principle, so that we had greater choice of which to proceed with once our study began in earnest. We would include case studies from the application stage to capture the important early involvement of research partners in the initial design period. It might be preferable to research a smaller number of case studies, allowing a more in-depth ethnographic approach. Although challenging, it would be very informative to seek to sample sceptical PIs. This might require a brief screening exercise of a larger group of PIs on their attitudes to and experience of public involvement.

The economic evaluation was challenging in a number of ways, particularly in seeking to obtain completed resource logs from case study research partners. Having a 2-week data collection period was also problematic in a field such as public involvement, where activity may be very episodic and infrequent. Thus, collecting economic data alongside other case study data in a more integrated way, and particularly with interviews and more ethnographic observation of case study activities, might be advantageous. The new budgeting tool developed by INVOLVE and the MHRN may provide a useful resource for future economic evaluations. 23

We have learned much from the involvement of research partners in our research team and, although many aspects of our approach worked well, there are some things we would do differently in future. Even though we included substantial resources for research partner involvement in all aspects of our study, we underestimated how time-consuming such full involvement would be. We were perhaps overambitious in trying to ensure such full involvement with the number of research partners and the number and complexity of the case studies. We were also perhaps naive in expecting all the research partners to play the same role in the team; different research partners came with different experiences and skills, and, like most of our case studies, we might have been better to be less prescriptive and allow the roles to develop more organically within the project.

Implications for research practice and funding

If one of the objectives of R&D policy is to increase the extent and effectiveness of public involvement in research, then a key implication of this research is the importance of influencing PIs to value public involvement in research or to delegate to other senior colleagues in leading on involvement in their research. Training is unlikely to be the key mechanism here; senior researchers are much more likely to be influenced by peers or by their personal experience of the benefits of public involvement. Early career researchers may be shaped by training but again peer learning and culture may be more influential. For those researchers sceptical or agnostic about public involvement, the requirement of funders is a key factor that is likely to make them engage with the involvement agenda. Therefore, funders need to scrutinise the track record of research teams on public involvement to ascertain whether there is any evidence of commitment or leadership on involvement.

One of the findings of the economic analysis was that PIs have consistently underestimated the costs of public involvement in their grant applications. Clearly the field will benefit from the guidance and budgeting tool recently disseminated by MHRN and INVOLVE. It was also notable that there was a degree of variation in the real costs of public involvement and that effective involvement is not necessarily costly. Different models of involvement incur different costs and researchers need to be made aware of the costs and benefits of these different options.

One methodological lesson we learned was the impact that conducting this research had on some participants’ reflection on the impact of public involvement. Particularly for research staff, the questions we asked sometimes made them reflect upon what they were doing and change aspects of their approach to involvement. Thus, the more the NIHR and other funders can build reporting, audit and other forms of evaluation on the impact of public involvement directly into their processes with PIs, the more likely such questioning might stimulate similar reflection.

Recommendations for further research

There are a number of gaps in our knowledge around public involvement in research that follow from our findings, and would benefit from further research, including realist evaluation to extend and further test the theory we have developed here:

In-depth exploration of how PIs become committed to public involvement and how to influence agnostic or sceptical PIs would be very helpful. Further research might compare, for example, training with peer-influencing strategies in engendering PI commitment. Research could explore the leadership role of other research team members, including research partners, and how collective leadership might support effective public involvement.
More methodological work is needed on how to robustly capture the impact and outcomes of public involvement in research (building as well on the PiiAF work of Popay et al. 51 ), including further economic analysis and exploration of impact when research partners are integral to research teams.
Research to develop approaches and carry out a full cost–benefit analysis of public involvement in research would be beneficial. Although methodologically challenging, it would be very useful to conduct some longer-term studies which sought to quantify the impact of public involvement on such key indicators as participant recruitment and retention in clinical trials.
It would also be helpful to capture qualitatively the experiences and perspectives of research partners who have had mixed or negative experiences, since they may be less likely than enthusiasts to volunteer to participate in studies of involvement in research such as ours. Similarly, further research might explore the (relatively rare) experiences of marginalised and seldom-heard groups involved in research.
Payment for public involvement in research remains a contested issue with strongly held positions for and against; it would be helpful to further explore the value research partners and researchers place on payment and its effectiveness for enhancing involvement in and impact on research.
A final relatively narrow but important question that we identified after data collection had finished is: what is the impact of the long periods of relative non-involvement following initial periods of more intense involvement for research partners in some types of research, particularly clinical trials?

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License .

Cite this Page Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.) Chapter 9, Conclusions and recommendations for future research.
PDF version of this title (4.3M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

Conclusions and recommendations for future research - Public involvement in rese... Conclusions and recommendations for future research - Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Bachelor’s Degrees
Master’s Degrees
Doctorate Degrees
Certificate Programs
Nursing Degrees
Cybersecurity
Human Services
Science & Mathematics
Communication
Liberal Arts
Social Sciences
Computer Science
Admissions Overview
Tuition and Financial Aid
Incoming Freshman and Graduate Students
Transfer Students
Military Students
International Students
Early Access Program
About Maryville
Our Faculty
Our Approach
Our History
Accreditation
Tales of the Brave
Student Support Overview
Online Learning Tools
Infographics

Home / Blog

Trends and Skills for the Future of Research

May 7, 2019

Technological advancements have made it easier than ever for organizations to access large amounts of data. However, with this information overload comes the challenge of managing, analyzing, and reporting on the data. Organizations are increasingly relying on professional researchers and research analysts to turn these large amounts of data into information they can use to make strategic decisions that will positively impact business operations.

Two researchers gather together to look at statistical graphs with an online tool

Career Outlook for Researchers

Career opportunities in the research field are diverse and span a variety of industries. A social science researcher may focus on areas like healthcare and unemployment, conducting interviews and surveys to collect data for analysis. In a corporate environment, an operations research analyst can help his or her organization by reviewing business processes and identifying efficiencies, while a market research analyst may make production recommendations after examining consumer purchasing patterns.

The educational requirements for research jobs also vary by industry and the roles and responsibilities of the position. Most professional researchers have a bachelor’s degree in market research or a related field, such as a Bachelor of Arts degree in Liberal Studies . Senior-level research positions typically require a graduate degree such as a master’s in business administration.

New Trends and Techniques for Researchers

Regardless of specific role or training, professional researchers need to understand the emerging trends and new techniques in this field to excel in their careers. Here’s what researchers should know about future research trends.

Predictive Analytics

Predictive analytics refers to a sophisticated form of analysis using current and historical data to forecast future outcomes. Although using analytics to draw predictions about the future is not a new practice, predictive analytics is at the forefront of data analysis because of the advanced techniques involved. Some of the tools used in this practice include machine learning, artificial intelligence, data mining, and statistical and mathematical algorithms. These advanced tools and models allow for the creation of more accurate and dependable future predictions of trends, behaviors, and actions.

Because accurate future studies and forecasting are essential to most business models, researchers with predictive analytics experience are in demand. The valuable information generated by predictive analytics can be used by organizations to make strategic decisions about operations and identify opportunities and risks. For example, the financial services sector could use this practice to forecast market trends or create credit risk reports. Or government and law enforcement agencies may look to gather data about community crime and use that information to develop proactive safety measures.

Researchers need to keep abreast of this cutting-edge form of analytics because of its increasing usage. According to a report by Zion Market Research, the predictive analytics market in 2016 was valued at approximately $3.49 billion and is expected to continue to grow.

Digital Tools

Advancements in digital tools continue to change the way researchers work. In fact, it can be a challenge for researchers to stay up-to-speed with the new resources available to them. Here are just a few digital tools and trends that support and simplify the work of researchers:

Search faster and easier. Researchers can spend less time searching for the right information by using search engines and curator sites such as CiteULike, Google Scholar, and LazyScholar.
Manage and share data. Code and data sharing are becoming more common among researchers, with sites like Code Ocean and Datahub providing data management, storage, and sharing.
Manage references. Sites such as EndNote and CitationStyles help researchers electronically manage their bibliographies, citation styles, and references.
Connect with fellow researchers. Sites such as Academia and Addgene help researchers get expert advice and identify opportunities to collaborate or share findings.

Data Visualization

From the widespread use of infographics in educational materials to storytelling on social media platforms through video and pictures, there is a clear trend toward more frequent visual communication in society. When applied to data analytics, visualization is the term often used to describe the practice of taking standard data and statistics and displaying them in a visually creative way.

Researchers who want their analysis effectively communicated should take note of this trend. For example, a simple research report that presents the findings in a large numerical spreadsheet may be hard to understand and confusing to the average person. If that same information was displayed in a graphic chart or by telling a story with images, readers would more likely have a clearer picture and understanding of the report’s main points.

Researchers who want to implement this trend in their practice should:

Consider the visual options available — whether it’s an infographic, chart, or slideshow
Focus on their audience and the key messages they need to convey
Remember to ensure the visual will highlight the actual data instead of serving as a distraction

Are you interested in learning more about the research profession and the techniques involved in predictive analytics and data visualization? Explore the Marville University Bachelor of Arts degree in Liberal Studies , and learn how this online degree could be your first step to a new career as a research analyst.

All About Careers, Social Science Researcher

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Market Research Analysts

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Market Research Analysts, Similar Occupations

CIO, “What Is Predictive Analytics, Transforming Data into Future Insights”

Connected Researchers, Online Tools for Researchers

EconoTimes, “Trends in Predictive Analytics”

Forbes, “Data Visualization, How to Tell a Story with Data”

Maryville University, Careers for Liberal Studies Graduates

Bring us your ambition and we’ll guide you along a personalized path to a quality education that’s designed to change your life.

Take Your Next Brave Step

Receive information about the benefits of our programs, the courses you'll take, and what you need to apply.

Home » Future Research – Thesis Guide

Future Research – Thesis Guide

Table of Contents

Future Research

Definition:

Future research refers to investigations and studies that are yet to be conducted, and are aimed at expanding our understanding of a particular subject or area of interest. Future research is typically based on the current state of knowledge and seeks to address unanswered questions, gaps in knowledge, and new areas of inquiry.

How to Write Future Research in Thesis

Here are some steps to help you write effectively about future research in your thesis :

Identify a research gap: Before you start writing about future research, identify the areas that need further investigation. Look for research gaps and inconsistencies in the literature , and note them down.
Specify research questions : Once you have identified a research gap, create a list of research questions that you would like to explore in future research. These research questions should be specific, measurable, and relevant to your thesis.
Discuss limitations: Be sure to discuss any limitations of your research that may require further exploration. This will help to highlight the need for future research and provide a basis for further investigation.
Suggest methodologies: Provide suggestions for methodologies that could be used to explore the research questions you have identified. Discuss the pros and cons of each methodology and how they would be suitable for your research.
Explain significance: Explain the significance of the research you have proposed, and how it will contribute to the field. This will help to justify the need for future research and provide a basis for further investigation.
Provide a timeline : Provide a timeline for the proposed research , indicating when each stage of the research would be conducted. This will help to give a sense of the practicalities involved in conducting the research.
Conclusion : Summarize the key points you have made about future research and emphasize the importance of exploring the research questions you have identified.

Examples of Future Research in Thesis

SomeExamples of Future Research in Thesis are as follows:

Future Research:

Although this study provides valuable insights into the effects of social media on self-esteem, there are several avenues for future research that could build upon our findings. Firstly, our sample consisted solely of college students, so it would be beneficial to extend this research to other age groups and demographics. Additionally, our study focused only on the impact of social media use on self-esteem, but there are likely other factors that influence how social media affects individuals, such as personality traits and social support. Future research could examine these factors in greater depth. Lastly, while our study looked at the short-term effects of social media use on self-esteem, it would be interesting to explore the long-term effects over time. This could involve conducting longitudinal studies that follow individuals over a period of several years to assess changes in self-esteem and social media use.

While this study provides important insights into the relationship between sleep patterns and academic performance among college students, there are several avenues for future research that could further advance our understanding of this topic.

This study relied on self-reported sleep patterns, which may be subject to reporting biases. Future research could benefit from using objective measures of sleep, such as actigraphy or polysomnography, to more accurately assess sleep duration and quality.
This study focused on academic performance as the outcome variable, but there may be other important outcomes to consider, such as mental health or well-being. Future research could explore the relationship between sleep patterns and these other outcomes.
This study only included college students, and it is unclear if these findings generalize to other populations, such as high school students or working adults. Future research could investigate whether the relationship between sleep patterns and academic performance varies across different populations.
Fourth, this study did not explore the potential mechanisms underlying the relationship between sleep patterns and academic performance. Future research could investigate the role of factors such as cognitive functioning, motivation, and stress in this relationship.

Overall, there is a need for continued research on the relationship between sleep patterns and academic performance, as this has important implications for the health and well-being of students.

Further research could investigate the long-term effects of mindfulness-based interventions on mental health outcomes among individuals with chronic pain. A longitudinal study could be conducted to examine the sustainability of mindfulness practices in reducing pain-related distress and improving psychological well-being over time. The study could also explore the potential mediating and moderating factors that influence the relationship between mindfulness and mental health outcomes, such as emotional regulation, pain catastrophizing, and social support.

Purpose of Future Research in Thesis

Here are some general purposes of future research that you might consider including in your thesis:

To address limitations: Your research may have limitations or unanswered questions that could be addressed by future studies. Identify these limitations and suggest potential areas for further research.
To extend the research : You may have found interesting results in your research, but future studies could help to extend or replicate your findings. Identify these areas where future research could help to build on your work.
To explore related topics : Your research may have uncovered related topics that were outside the scope of your study. Suggest areas where future research could explore these related topics in more depth.
To compare different approaches : Your research may have used a particular methodology or approach, but there may be other approaches that could be compared to your approach. Identify these other approaches and suggest areas where future research could compare and contrast them.
To test hypotheses : Your research may have generated hypotheses that could be tested in future studies. Identify these hypotheses and suggest areas where future research could test them.
To address practical implications : Your research may have practical implications that could be explored in future studies. Identify these practical implications and suggest areas where future research could investigate how to apply them in practice.

Applications of Future Research

Some examples of applications of future research that you could include in your thesis are:

Development of new technologies or methods: If your research involves the development of new technologies or methods, you could discuss potential applications of these innovations in future research or practical settings. For example, if you have developed a new drug delivery system, you could speculate about how it might be used in the treatment of other diseases or conditions.
Extension of your research: If your research only scratches the surface of a particular topic, you could suggest potential avenues for future research that could build upon your findings. For example, if you have studied the effects of a particular drug on a specific population, you could suggest future research that explores the drug’s effects on different populations or in combination with other treatments.
Investigation of related topics: If your research is part of a larger field or area of inquiry, you could suggest potential research topics that are related to your work. For example, if you have studied the effects of climate change on a particular species, you could suggest future research that explores the impacts of climate change on other species or ecosystems.
Testing of hypotheses: If your research has generated hypotheses or theories, you could suggest potential experiments or studies that could test these hypotheses in future research. For example, if you have proposed a new theory about the mechanisms of a particular disease, you could suggest experiments that could test this theory in other populations or in different disease contexts.

Advantage of Future Research

Including future research in a thesis has several advantages:

Demonstrates critical thinking: Including future research shows that the author has thought deeply about the topic and recognizes its limitations. It also demonstrates that the author is interested in advancing the field and is not satisfied with only providing a narrow analysis of the issue at hand.
Provides a roadmap for future research : Including future research can help guide researchers in the field by suggesting areas that require further investigation. This can help to prevent researchers from repeating the same work and can lead to more efficient use of resources.
Shows engagement with the field : By including future research, the author demonstrates their engagement with the field and their understanding of ongoing debates and discussions. This can be especially important for students who are just entering the field and want to show their commitment to ongoing research.
I ncreases the impact of the thesis : Including future research can help to increase the impact of the thesis by highlighting its potential implications for future research and practical applications. This can help to generate interest in the work and attract attention from researchers and practitioners in the field.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Futures Research

Futures research can be defined as a systematic study of possible future events and circumstances. As a field of study, futures evolved in 1950s. Futures research is different from forecasting in a way that the former has a forward orientation and looks ahead, rather that backwards, and is not as mathematical as forecasting.

It can be argued that highly dynamic nature of the contemporary global marketplace is making is difficult to conduct quality futures studies. For example, it is now evident that COVID-19 global pandemic has compromised findings of many futures studies. This is because no researcher could foresee the occurrence of extent of implications of pandemic on global business and economics.

Disadvantages of futures research are straightforward – no event or situation can be forecasted in an accurate and complete manner. Nevertheless, futures studies may offer a substantial advantage. Specifically, although futures studies are not able to produce totally accurate and complete information about the future, some researched information about the future is better than no information at all when engaging in decision making for long-term perspective.

There is wide range of techniques available that can be used to conduct futures studies. The following table illustrates types and techniques of the most popular futures techniques.

Futures research methods techniques

Source: Millenium Project

The nature of decision-making using the results of futures studies can be approached from four alternative perspectives:

1. Values perspective categorises forecasted outcome of events and occurrences as good or bad. Accordingly, value perspective tends to be highly subjective due to value differences amongst individuals.

2. Rational perspective relates to selection of an alternative amongst decision options guided by the extent to which each alternative meets certain criteria.

3. Judgement heuristics is associated with tendency towards risk-taking and relying on intuition when engaging in decision making.

4. Cognitive science perspective to decision making relies on inductive process of thought and taking decisions as a result of inductive analysis by individuals, as well as, related computer programs.

If you decide to conduct a futures research for your dissertation you will have to choose a specific method from table above. You will need to discuss advantages and disadvantages of the method selected and also provide rationale for the choice.

My e-book, The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance contains discussions of theory and application of research philosophy. The e-book also explains all stages of the research process starting from the selection of the research area to writing personal reflection. Important elements of dissertations such as research philosophy , research approach , research design , methods of data collection and data analysis are explained in this e-book in simple words.

[1] Source: Millenium Project

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Q&A: How – and why – we’re changing the way we study tech adoption

What share of U.S. adults have high-speed internet at home ? Own a smartphone? Use social media ?

Pew Research Center has long studied tech adoption by interviewing Americans over the phone. But starting with the publications released today, we’ll be reporting on these topics using our National Public Opinion Reference Survey (NPORS) instead. The biggest difference: NPORS participants are invited by postal mail and can respond to the survey via a paper questionnaire or online, rather than by phone.

To explain the thinking behind this change and its implications for our future work, here’s a conversation with Managing Director of Internet and Technology Research Monica Anderson and Research Associate Colleen McClain. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Pew Research Center has been tracking tech adoption in the United States for decades. Why is this area of study so important?

Anderson: We see this research as foundational to understanding the broader impact that the internet, mobile technology and social media have on our society.

Americans have an array of digital tools that help them with everything from getting news to shopping to finding jobs. Studying how people are going online, which devices they own and which social media sites they use is crucial for understanding how they experience the world around them.

This research also anchors our ongoing work on the digital divide : the gap between those who have access to certain technologies and those who don’t. It shows us where demographic differences exist, if they’ve changed over time, and how factors like age, race and income may contribute.

Our surveys are an important reminder that some technologies, like high-speed internet, remain out of reach for some Americans, particularly those who are less affluent. In fact, our latest survey shows that about four-in-ten Americans living in lower-income households do not subscribe to home broadband.

Why is your team making the switch from phone surveys to the National Public Opinion Reference Survey (NPORS)?

McClain: The internet hasn’t just transformed Americans’ everyday lives – it’s also transformed the way researchers study its impact. The changes we’ve made this year set us up to continue studying tech adoption long into the future.

We began tracking Americans’ tech use back in 2000. At that point, about half of Americans were online, and just 1% had broadband at home. Like much of the survey research world, we relied on telephone polling for these studies, and this approach served us well for decades.

But in more recent years, the share of people who respond to phone polls has plummeted , and these types of polls have become more costly. At the same time, online surveys have become more popular and pollsters’ methods have become more diverse . This transformation in polling is reflected in our online American Trends Panel , which works well for the vast majority of the Center’s U.S. survey work.

But there’s a caveat: Online-only surveys aren’t always the best approach when it comes to measuring certain types of data points. That includes measuring how many people don’t use technology in the first place.

Enter the National Public Opinion Reference Survey, which the Center launched in 2020 to meet these kinds of challenges. By giving people the choice to take our survey on paper or online, it is especially well-suited for hearing from Americans who don’t use the internet, aren’t comfortable with technology or just don’t want to respond online. That makes it a good fit for studying the digital divide. And NPORS achieves a higher response rate than phone polls .

Shifting our tech adoption studies to NPORS ensures we’re keeping up with the latest advances in the Center’s methods toolkit, with quality at the forefront of this important work.

The internet hasn’t just transformed Americans’ everyday lives – it’s also transformed the way researchers study its impact. The changes we’ve made this year set us up to continue studying tech adoption long into the future. Colleen McClain

Are the old and new approaches comparable?

McClain: We took several steps to make our NPORS findings as comparable as possible with our earlier phone surveys. We knew that it can be tricky, and sometimes impossible, to directly compare the results of surveys that use different modes – that is, methods of interviewing. How a survey is conducted can affect how people answer questions and who responds in the first place. These are known as “mode effects.”

To try to minimize the impact of this change, we started by doing what we do best: gathering data.

Around the same time that we fielded our phone polls about tech adoption in 2019 and 2021, we also fielded some surveys using alternate approaches. We didn’t want to change the mode right away, but rather understand how any changes in our approach might affect the data we were collecting about how Americans use technology.

These test runs helped narrow our options and tweak the NPORS design. Using the 2019 and 2021 phone data we collected as a comparison point, we worked over the next few years to make the respondent experience as similar as possible across modes.

What does your new approach mean for your ability to talk about changes over time?

McClain: We carefully considered the potential for mode effects as we decided how to talk about the changes we saw in our findings this year. Even with all the work we did to make the approaches as comparable as possible, we wanted to be cautious.

For instance, we paid close attention to the size of any changes we observed. In some cases, the figures were fairly similar between 2021 and 2023, and even without the mode shift, we wouldn’t make too much of them.

We gave a thorough look at more striking differences. For example, 21% of Americans said they used TikTok in our 2021 phone survey, and that’s risen to 33% now in our paper/online survey. Going back to our test runs from earlier years helped us conclude it’s unlikely this change was all due to mode. We believe it also reflects real change over time.

While the mode shift makes it trickier than usual to talk about trends, we believe the change in approach is a net positive for the quality of our work. NPORS sets us up well for the future.

How are you communicating this mode shift in your published work?

A line chart showing that most U.S. adults have a smartphone, home broadband.

McClain: It’s important to us that readers can quickly and easily understand the shift and when it took place.

In some cases, we’ll be displaying the findings from our paper/online survey side by side with the data points from prior phone surveys. Trend charts in our reports signal the mode shift with a dotted line to draw attention to the change in approach. In our fact sheets , a vertical line conveys the same thing. In both cases, we also provide information in the footnotes below the chart itself.

In other places in our publications, we’re taking an even more cautious approach and focusing on the new data rather than on trends.

Did you have to change the way you asked survey questions?

McClain: Writing questions that keep up with the ever-changing nature of technology is always a challenge, and the mode shift complicated this further. For example, our previous phone surveys were conducted by interviewers, but taking surveys online or on paper doesn’t involve talking to someone. We needed to adapt our questions to keep the experience as consistent as possible on the new paper and online surveys.

Take who subscribes to home broadband, for example. Knowing we wouldn’t have an interviewer to probe and confirm someone’s response in the new modes, we tested out different options in advance to help us ensure we were collecting quality data.

In this case, we gave people a chance to say they were “not sure” or to write in a different type of internet connection, if the ones we offered didn’t quite fit their situation. We also updated the examples of internet connections in the question to be consistent with evolving technology.

Which findings from your latest survey stand out to you?

Anderson: There are several exciting things in our latest work, but two findings related to social media really stand out.

The first is the rise of TikTok. A third of U.S. adults – including about six-in-ten adults under 30 – use this video-based platform. These figures have significantly jumped since we last asked these questions in 2021. And separate surveys from the Center have found that TikTok is increasingly becoming a news source for Americans , especially young adults.

The second is how dominant Facebook remains. While its use has sharply declined among teens in the U.S. , most adults – about two-thirds – say they use the site. And this share has remained relatively stable over the past decade or so. YouTube is the only platform we asked about in our current survey that is more widely used than Facebook.

These findings reinforce why consistently tracking the use of technology, especially specific sites and apps, is so important. The online landscape can evolve quickly. As researchers who study these platforms, a forward-looking mindset is key. We’ll continue looking for new and emerging platforms while tracking longer-standing sites to see how use changes – or doesn’t – over time.

To learn more about the National Public Opinion Reference Survey, read our NPORS fact sheet . For more on Americans’ use of technology, read our new reports:

Americans’ Use of Mobile Technology and Home Broadband
Americans’ Social Media Use
Internet & Technology
Research Explainers
Survey Methods
Technology Adoption

Anna Jackson is an editorial assistant at Pew Research Center

6 facts about Americans and TikTok

Many americans think generative ai programs should credit the sources they rely on, americans’ use of chatgpt is ticking up, but few trust its election information, whatsapp and facebook dominate the social media landscape in middle-income nations, 5 facts about americans and sports, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Age & Generations
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Economy & Work
Family & Relationships
Gender & LGBTQ
Immigration & Migration
International Affairs
Methodological Research
News Habits & Media
Non-U.S. Governments
Other Topics
Politics & Policy
Race & Ethnicity
Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

A group of people, many wearing head scarves, under an elaborate visual.

‘To the Future’: Saudi Arabia Spends Big to Become an A.I. Superpower

The oil-rich kingdom is plowing money into glitzy events, computing power and artificial intelligence research, putting it in the middle of an escalating U.S.-China struggle for technological influence.

More than 200,000 people converged on the Leap tech conference in the desert outside Riyadh in March. Credit... Iman Al-Dabbagh for The New York Times

Supported by

Share full article

By Adam Satariano and Paul Mozur

Adam Satariano reported from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Paul Mozur from Taipei, Taiwan.

April 25, 2024 Updated 3:35 p.m. ET

On a Monday morning last month, tech executives, engineers and sales representatives from Amazon, Google, TikTok and other companies endured a three-hour traffic jam as their cars crawled toward a mammoth conference at an event space in the desert, 50 miles outside Riyadh.

The lure: billions of dollars in Saudi money as the kingdom seeks to build a tech industry to complement its oil dominance.

To bypass the congestion, frustrated eventgoers drove onto the highway shoulder, kicking up plumes of desert sand as they sped past those following traffic rules. A lucky few took advantage of a special freeway exit dedicated to “V.V.I.P.s” — very, very important people.

“To the Future,” a sign read on the approach to the event, called Leap.

A view at night from above a city lit up with lights.

More than 200,000 people converged at the conference, including Adam Selipsky, chief executive of Amazon’s cloud computing division, who announced a $5.3 billion investment in Saudi Arabia for data centers and artificial intelligence technology. Arvind Krishna, the chief executive of IBM, spoke of what a government minister called a “lifetime friendship” with the kingdom. Executives from Huawei and dozens of other firms made speeches. More than $10 billion in deals were done there, according to Saudi Arabia’s state press agency.

“This is a great country,” Shou Chew, TikTok’s chief executive, said during the conference, heralding the video app’s growth in the kingdom. “We expect to invest even more.”

Shou Chew, TikTok’s chief executive, promoted the video app’s growth in Saudi Arabia during the Leap conference. Iman Al-Dabbagh for The New York Times
One of the booths at the Leap conference, which was attended by executives from Google, Amazon, TikTok and others. Iman Al-Dabbagh for The New York Times
A robotic dog walking through the Leap conference. Iman Al-Dabbagh for The New York Times

Everybody in tech seems to want to make friends with Saudi Arabia right now as the kingdom has trained its sights on becoming a dominant player in A.I. — and is pumping in eye-popping sums to do so.

Saudi Arabia created a $100 billion fund this year to invest in A.I. and other technology. It is in talks with Andreessen Horowitz, the Silicon Valley venture capital firm, and other investors to put an additional $40 billion into A.I. companies. In March, the government said it would invest $1 billion in a Silicon Valley-inspired start-up accelerator to lure A.I. entrepreneurs to the kingdom. The initiatives easily dwarf those of most major nation-state investments, like Britain’s $100 million pledge for the Alan Turing Institute.

The spending blitz stems from a generational effort outlined in 2016 by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and known as “Vision 2030.” Saudi Arabia is racing to diversify its oil-rich economy in areas like tech, tourism, culture and sports — investing a reported $200 million a year for the soccer superstar Cristiano Ronaldo and planning a 100-mile-long mirrored skyscraper in the desert.

For the tech industry, Saudi Arabia has long been a funding spigot. But the kingdom is now redirecting its oil wealth into building a domestic tech industry, requiring international firms to establish roots there if they want its money.

If Prince Mohammed succeeds, he will place Saudi Arabia in the middle of an escalating global competition among China, the United States and other countries like France that have made breakthroughs in generative A.I. Combined with A.I. efforts by its neighbor, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia’s plan has the potential to create a new power center in the global tech industry.

“I hereby invite all dreamers, innovators, investors and thinkers to join us, here in the kingdom, to achieve our ambitions together,” Prince Mohammed remarked in a 2020 speech about A.I.

His ambitions are geopolitically delicate as China and the United States seek to carve out spheres of influence over A.I. to shape the future of critical technologies.

In Washington, many worry that the kingdom’s goals and authoritarian leanings could work against U.S. interests — for instance, if Saudi Arabia ends up providing computing power to Chinese researchers and companies. This month, the White House brokered a deal for Microsoft to invest in G42, an A.I. company in the Emirates, which was intended partly to diminish China’s influence.

For China, the Persian Gulf region offers a big market, access to deep-pocketed investors and a chance to wield influence in countries traditionally allied with the United States. China’s form of A.I.-powered surveillance has already been embedded into policing in the region .

Some industry leaders have begun to arrive. Jürgen Schmidhuber, an A.I. pioneer who now heads an A.I. program at Saudi Arabia’s premier research university, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, recalled the kingdom’s roots centuries ago as a center for science and mathematics.

“It would be lovely to contribute to a new world and resurrect this golden age,” he said. “Yes, it will cost money, but there’s a lot of money in this country.”

The willingness to spend was front and center last month at a gala in Riyadh hosted by the Saudi government, which coincided with the Leap conference. Hollywood klieg lights blazed in the sky above the city as guests arrived in chauffeured Maseratis, Mercedes-Benzes and Porsches. Inside a 300,000-square-foot parking garage that had been converted two years ago into one of the world’s largest start-up spaces, attendees mingled, debated opening offices in Riyadh and sipped pomegranate juice and cardamom-flavored coffee.

“There’s something happening here,” said Hilmar Veigar Petursson, the chief executive of CCP Games, the Icelandic company behind the popular game Eve Online, who was at the gala. “I got a very similar sense when I came back from China in 2005.”

A Sci-Fi Script

Prince Mohammed’s Vision 2030 project, unveiled eight years ago, seems taken from a science-fiction script.

Under the plan, new futuristic cities will be built in the desert along the Red Sea, oriented around tech and digital services. And the kingdom, which has piled billions into tech start-ups like Uber and investment vehicles such as SoftBank’s Vision Fund, would spend more.

That drew Silicon Valley’s attention. When Prince Mohammed visited California in 2018, Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder, escorted him through a tree-lined path at the company’s campus. Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, showed him the company’s products. The prince also traveled to Seattle, where he met with Bill Gates of Microsoft; Satya Nadella, the company’s chief executive; and Jeff Bezos of Amazon.

It was a key moment for Saudi Arabia’s tech ambitions as Prince Mohammed presented himself as a youthful, digitally savvy reformer. But enthusiasm dimmed a few months later when Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist and critic of the crown prince, was killed at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Prince Mohammed denied involvement, but the C.I.A. concluded that he had approved the killing .

For a brief period, it was seen as untoward to associate with Saudi Arabia. Business executives canceled visits to the kingdom. But the lure of its money was ultimately too strong.

A.I. development depends on two key things that Saudi Arabia has in abundance: money and energy. The kingdom is pouring oil profits into buying semiconductors, building supercomputers, attracting talent and constructing data centers powered by its plentiful electricity. The bet is that Saudi Arabia will eventually export A.I. computing muscle.

Majid Ali AlShehry, the general manager of studies for the Saudi Data and A.I. Authority, a government agency overseeing A.I. initiatives, said 70 percent of the 96 strategic goals outlined in Vision 2030 involved using data and A.I.

“We see A.I. as one of the main enablers of all sectors,” he said in an interview at the agency’s office in Riyadh, where employees nearby worked on an Arabic chatbot called Allam.

Those goals have permeated the kingdom. Posters for Vision 2030 are visible throughout Riyadh. Young Saudis describe the crown prince as running the kingdom as if it were a start-up. Many tech leaders have parroted the sentiment.

“Saudi has a founder,” Ben Horowitz, a founder of Andreessen Horowitz, said last year at a conference in Miami. “You don’t call him a founder. You call him his royal highness.”

Some question whether Saudi Arabia can become a global tech hub. The kingdom has faced scrutiny for its human rights record, intolerance to homosexuality and brutal heat. But for those in the tech world who descended on Riyadh last month, the concerns seemed secondary to the dizzying amount of deal-making underway.

“They are just pouring money into A.I.,” said Peter Lillian, an engineer at Groq, a U.S. maker of semiconductors that power A.I. systems. Groq is working with Neom, a futuristic city that Saudi Arabia is building in the desert, and Aramco, the state oil giant. “We’re doing so many deals,” he said.

Torn Between Superpowers

Situated along the Red Sea’s turquoise waters, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology has become a site of the U.S.-Chinese technological showdown.

The university, known as KAUST, is central to Saudi Arabia’s plans to vault to A.I. leadership. Modeled on universities like Caltech, KAUST ihas brought in foreign A.I. leaders and provided computing resources to build an epicenter for A.I. research.

To achieve that aim, KAUST has often turned to China to recruit students and professors and to strike research partnerships , alarming American officials. They fear students and professors from Chinese military-linked universities will use KAUST to sidestep U.S. sanctions and boost China in the race for A.I. supremacy , analysts and U.S. officials said.

Of particular concern is the university’s construction of one of the region’s fastest supercomputers, which needs thousands of microchips made by Nvidia, the biggest maker of precious chips that power A.I. systems. The university’s chip order, with an estimated value of more than $100 million, is being held up by a review from the U.S. government, which must provide an export license before the sale can go through.

Both China and the United States want to keep Prince Mohammed close. A.I. ambitions add a new layer of geopolitical significance to a kingdom already key to Middle East policy and global energy supplies. A 2016 visit to Saudi Arabia by Xi Jinping, China’s leader, paved the way for new tech cooperation. Accustomed to top-down industrial policy, Chinese companies have expanded rapidly in the kingdom, forming partnerships with major state-owned companies. The United States has pushed Saudi Arabia to pick a side, but Prince Mohammed seems content to benefit from both nations.

Mr. Schmidhuber, the researcher leading KAUST’s A.I. efforts, has seen the jostling up close. Considered a pioneer of modern A.I. — students in a lab he led included a founder of DeepMind, an innovative A.I. company now owned by Google — he was lured to the desert in 2021.

He was reluctant to move at first, he said, but university officials, via a headhunter, “tried to make it more attractive and even more attractive and even more attractive for me.”

Now Mr. Schmidhuber is awaiting the completion of the supercomputer, Shaheen 3, which is a chance to attract more top talent to the Pesian Gulf and to give researchers access to computing power often reserved for major companies.

“No other university is going to have a similar thing,” he said.

Some in Washington fear the supercomputer may provide researchers from Chinese universities access to cutting-edge computing resources they would not have in China. More than a dozen students and staff members at KAUST are from military-linked Chinese universities known as the Seven Sons of National Defense, according to a review by The New York Times. During the Trump administration, the United States blocked entry to students from those universities over concerns they could take sensitive technologies back to China’s military.

“The United States should quickly move to deny export licenses to any entity if the end user is likely to be a P.R.C. actor affiliated with the People’s Liberation Army,” Representative Mike Gallagher, a Republican from Wisconsin, said in a statement.

A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the default U.S. policy was to share technology with Saudi Arabia, a critical ally in the gulf, but that there were national security concerns and risks with A.I.

The Commerce Department declined to comment. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to faxed questions for comment.

A KAUST spokeswoman said, “We will strictly comply with all U.S. export license terms and conditions for the full life cycle of Shaheen 3.”

Mr. Schmidhuber said the Saudi government was ultimately aligned with the United States. Just as U.S. technology helped create Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, it will play a critical role in A.I. development.

“Nobody wants to jeopardize that,” he said.

The Gold Rush

Aladin Ben, a German Tunisian A.I. entrepreneur, was in Bali last year when he received an email from a Saudi agency working on A.I. issues. The agency knew his software start-up, Memorality, which designs tools to make it easier for businesses to incorporate A.I., and wanted to work together.

Since then, Mr. Ben, 31, has traveled to Saudi Arabia five times. He is now negotiating with the kingdom on an investment and other partnerships. But his company may need to incorporate in Saudi Arabia to get the full benefit of the government’s offer, which includes buying hundreds of annual subscriptions to his software in a contract worth roughly $800,000 a month.

“If you want a serious deal, you need to be here,” Mr. Ben said in an interview in Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia was once viewed as a source of few-strings-attached cash. Now it has added conditions to its deals, requiring many companies to establish roots in the kingdom to partake in the financial windfall.

That was evident at GAIA, an A.I. start-up accelerator, for which Saudi officials announced $1 billion in funding last month.

Each start-up in the program receives a grant worth about $40,000 in exchange for spending at least three months in Riyadh, along with a potential $100,000 investment. Entrepreneurs are required to register their company in the kingdom and spend 50 percent of their investment in Saudi Arabia. They also receive access to computing power purchased from Amazon and Google free of charge.

About 50 start-ups — including from Taiwan, South Korea, Sweden, Poland and the United States — have gone through GAIA’s program since it started last year.

“We want to attract talent, and we want them to stay,” said Mohammed Almazyad, a program manager for GAIA. “We used to rely heavily on oil, and now we want to diversify.”

One of the biggest enticements for A.I. start-ups is the chance to make the deep-pocketed Saudi government a customer. In one recent meeting, Abdullah Alswaha, a senior minister for communications and information technology, asked GAIA’s start-ups to suggest what they could provide for the Saudi government, including for megacity projects like Neom . Afterward, many of the companies received messages introducing them to state-owned businesses, Mr. Almazyad said.

“I would say this process at the first stages is not organic,” he said. “You don’t find this in Silicon Valley. Eventually the process will be organic.”

Deciding to set up in Riyadh comes with challenges. There’s the heat, reaching more than 110 degrees in the summer, as well as the adjustments of moving to a deeply religious Muslim kingdom. While Saudi Arabia has loosened some restrictions in recent years, freedom of speech remains limited and L.G.B.T.Q. people can face criminal penalties.

Mr. Almazyad, who hopes to eventually study in the United States, said cultural differences could make it hard to recruit international A.I. talent. But he cautioned against underestimating Saudi Arabia’s resolve.

“This is just the beginning,” he said.

Adam Satariano is a technology correspondent based in Europe, where his work focuses on digital policy and the intersection of technology and world affairs. More about Adam Satariano

Paul Mozur is the global technology correspondent for The Times, based in Taipei. Previously he wrote about technology and politics in Asia from Hong Kong, Shanghai and Seoul. More about Paul Mozur

Explore Our Coverage of Artificial Intelligence

News and Analysis

Meta projected that revenue for the current quarter would be lower than what Wall Street anticipated and said it would spend billions of dollars more on its artificial intelligence efforts, even as it reported robust revenue and profits for the first three months of the year.

Microsoft introduced three smaller A.I. models that are part of a technology family the company has named Phi-3. The company said even the smallest of the three performed almost as well as GPT-3.5, the system that underpinned OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot.

A new flood of child sexual abuse material created by A.I. is threatening to overwhelm the authorities already held back by antiquated technology and laws. As a result, legislators are working on bills to combat A.I.-generated sexually explicit images of minors.

The Age of A.I.

A new category of apps promises to relieve parents of drudgery, with an assist from A.I . But a family’s grunt work is more human, and valuable, than it seems.

Despite Mark Zuckerberg’s hope for Meta’s A.I. assistant to be the smartest , it struggles with facts, numbers and web search.

Much as ChatGPT generates poetry, a new A.I. system devises blueprints for microscopic mechanisms that can edit your DNA.

Could A.I. change India’s elections? Avatars are addressing voters by name, in whichever of India’s many languages they speak. Experts see potential for misuse in a country already rife with disinformation.

Which A.I. system writes the best computer code or generates the most realistic image? Right now, there’s no easy way to answer those questions, our technology columnist writes .

Safety & Security
Support resources
Meet the Director
Advisory Board
Scientific Staff
Research Associates
Do Research
STRI Bibliography
Scientific Permits
Research Computing
Fellowships
Field courses
Internships
Punta Culebra
Barro Colorado
Bocas del Toro
Punta Galeta
Adrienne Arsht Resilience Solutions Initiative
Laboratory for Animal Behavior

H.S.H. Hereditary Prince Alois von und zu Liechtenstein

Hereditary Prince Alois, born in 1968, is the eldest son of Prince Hans-Adam II and Princess Marie. He completed his Studies of Law at Salzburg University with a master's degree in 1993. He is destined to succeed to the throne. Since 15 August 2004, he has performed the duties of Head of State of the Principality of Liechtenstein as his father's deputy.

Opening Remarks

Joshua j. tewksbury, ira rubinoff director of the smithsonian tropical research institute (stri), panama city.

Josh fosters understanding of tropical nature's significance for human welfare. He manages 400+ employees and a $35M budget, overseeing research facilities in Panama and field sites worldwide. With 30 resident scientists and 1,400 annual visitors, he drives research and public awareness of tropical ecosystems. Josh's extensive scientific background in biodiversity, sustainability, and conservation, along with his adept management of international projects, enhances STRI's collaboration with the Smithsonian and global scientific community. His communication skills bridge diverse audiences, ensuring continued growth and impact in tropical research and education.

The Smithsonian’s role in Life on a Sustainable Planet

Ellen stofan, smithsonian under secretary for science and research.

Ellen oversees the Smithsonian's scientific research centers and science museums such as the National Museum of Natural History and STRI. Championing the "Our Shared Future: Life on a Sustainable Planet" initiative, she drives collective research in biodiversity, climate change, and environmental justice. As the first woman to direct the National Air and Space Museum, she spearheaded its flagship renovation and the memorable celebration of the 50th anniversary of the moon landing through full-motion projection mapping artwork on the Washington Monument. With over 25 years in space-related roles, including as NASA's chief scientist, Stofan's expertise spans planetary geology and exploration. A prolific author and esteemed trustee, she's recognized for her contributions to science and society.

Tropical Forests and Global Climate

Managing director and head of sustainable and impact investments in asia at lgt bank (singapore) ltd..

En oversees the regional impact investment portfolio across Southeast Asia and China for the world's largest family-owned private banking and asset management group, managing over USD 260B in assets. He serves on multiple boards within LGT's portfolio organizations and is a Partner at Lightrock, LGT's global impact investing platform. With a background at Goldman Sachs and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, En is a respected figure in the industry, contributing to various advisory groups such as the World Economic Forum ESG Advisory Group and the Asia Investor Group on Climate Change. Additionally, he actively participates in sustainable finance initiatives with organizations like the Monetary Authority of Singapore. En's commitment to impact investing is evident through his involvement in diverse advisory and leadership roles, emphasizing his dedication to driving positive change in finance and beyond.

Stuart J. Davies

Director of the forest global earth observatory (forestgeo) at the smithsonian tropical research institute and frank h. levinson chair in global forest science.

Stuart delves into ecological and evolutionary influences on rainforest communities worldwide and uncovers how environmental factors shape species distributions and ecological processes. Stuart's leadership drives ForestGEO's scientific direction, coordinating sites, securing funds, and expanding scientific impact globally. Previously, he managed the Asia Program for the Center for Tropical Forest Science and served in academic roles at Harvard University and the University of Malaysia Sarawak. Stuart earned his PhD from Harvard University in 1996, contributing significantly to the understanding of forest diversity and dynamics.

Vibrant Tropical Oceans

Oris sanjur, deputy director of the smithsonian tropical research institute.

Oris Sanjur, Deputy Director of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, brings three decades of dedication to the institution. Starting as a research assistant in 1989, she earned a B.S. in Biology from the University of Panama and later a PhD in Cell and Developmental Biology from Rutgers University. Joining as a postdoctoral fellow in 1998, she focused on comparing genetics of wild and domesticated crops. Sanjur has held various roles, including Interim Director of STRI in 2020 and Acting Deputy Diversity Officer at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. With 30+ peer-reviewed articles, numerous presentations, and mentorship of 100+ students, she's committed to scientific advancement. Sanjur's current projects include co-leading a $3 million NSF RAMP grant and memberships in APANAC and IWF.

Matthieu Leray

Staff scientist at the smithsonian tropical research institute.

Matt specializes in marine ecology and biodiversity. His research focuses on understanding the intricate connections within marine ecosystems, particularly in coral reef environments. Through innovative methods such as DNA sequencing and ecological modeling, he unravels the complexities of species interactions and ecosystem dynamics. Leray's work contributes to broader efforts aimed at conserving and preserving marine biodiversity in the face of environmental challenges. With a commitment to scientific inquiry and conservation, he plays a vital role in advancing our understanding of tropical marine ecosystems and their conservation.

Tropical Resilience

Alfredo giron, head of the world economic forum’s ocean action agenda and friends of ocean action.

Alfredo drives strategy for the Ocean Action Agenda and Friends of Ocean Action, fostering sustainable transformations in business and policy. With expertise in public-private partnerships, he addresses marine conservation, fisheries management, and the blue economy's acceleration. Alfredo's efforts strengthen scientific integration into marine policy across 15+ countries. Previously, as an André Hoffmann fellow at Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions and the World Economic Forum Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (C4IR), he pioneered scientific and technological solutions against illegal fishing. A Roger Revelle awardee recognized by the US National Academy of Sciences, Alfredo holds a PhD and MSc from Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a Bachelor's from Universidad Autonoma de Baja California.

Ana Spalding

Director of the adrienne arsht community-based resilience solutions initiative at the smithsonian tropical research institute.

With interdisciplinary expertise spanning economics, marine affairs, and environmental studies, Ana brings over two decades of experience in international development and conservation. Ana’s research delves into drivers of global change and their impacts on vulnerable communities, advocating for community-based solutions. Through interdisciplinary approaches, she advances resilience science, focusing on marine resource-dependent communities in California and Oregon. Committed to collaboration, she works towards innovative and equitable solutions to social-environmental challenges in ocean governance.

NIH Grants & Funding
Blog Policies

NIH Extramural Nexus

Increases for National Research Service Award Stipends and Childcare Subsidies

We are committed to sustaining the vitality of the future biomedical research workforce, including providing appropriate support and addressing the many challenges faced by postdoctoral scholars in biomedicine. As part of this commitment, we are pleased to announce stipend and childcare subsidy increases for the over 17,000 early career scholars supported on NIH Kirschstein National Research Service Awards (NRSAs) ( NOT-OD-24-104 ). Stipends will be raised by 4% for predoctoral trainees and by 8% for postdoctoral scholars in fiscal year (FY) 2024 compared to last year), the most substantial year over year increase since FY 2017. Additionally, the childcare subsidy will be increased by an additional $500 (from $2500 to $3000) in FY24.

Appropriate support for early career researchers is something we take seriously. The Advisory Committee to the NIH director (ACD) , following thoughtful deliberations on re-envisioning the NIH-supported postdoctoral experience, reiterated that financial concerns were a topmost challenge for postdoctoral scholars. Echoing sentiments made in their final report from last December (see recommendation 1.1), lack of appropriate support dissuades some individuals to pursue a research career because of the negative effects on financial security.

The new stipend levels begin at $61,008 and are upwardly adjusted based on years of experience. In addition to higher stipend levels, there is also a modest $200 increase in training-related expenses and institutional allowances . Tuition and Fees for all educational levels remain unchanged from last year.

This is a significant step given a relatively flat NIH budget (see this recent blog about the interplay between budgets and success rates). The approach allows for an immediate stipend increase without drastic cuts to the number of available awards. As appropriations and budget realities allow, our goal is to reach the ACD recommended stipend levels (around $70,000 per year for postdoctoral scholars) in the coming years.

As we move toward that goal, institutions should note that:

As noted in the NIH Grants Policy Statement (e.g., 11.2.10.1), “Kirschstein-NRSA fellows receive stipends to defray living expenses. Stipends may be supplemented by an institution from non-Federal funds provided this supplementation is without any additional obligation for the fellow.”
Recipient institutions are reminded that they are not prohibited from hiring NRSA trainees and fellows as employees or provide them with benefits consistent with what the institution provides others at similar career stages.

Raising NRSA stipends and childcare subsidies are only two ways we are committed to fostering a strong and robust future workforce. We will continue to assess our policies and procedures. We anticipate releasing a request for information (RFI) in the near future to seek input on specific recommendations from the ACD.

Read the NIH press release for more.

RELATED NEWS

Before submitting your comment, please review our blog comment policies.

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

Stanford Humanities Today

Arcade: a digital salon.

Hope: The Future of an Idea | 2024 Spring Salon

Where is hope in humanities research? Perhaps it's a concept with a particular history, perhaps a force whose effects are latent or invisible; or it may be absent altogether for reasons to explain. Does hope motivate one's work? What does hope mean intellectually and personally?

Please join us for brief responses to these questions by current fellows, followed by a general discussion with Q&A moderated by SHC Director Roland Greene . The event will conclude with a reception.

About the Speakers

Samia Errazzouki (Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow) is a historian of early Northwest Africa. She holds a PhD in history from the University of California, Davis and an MA in Arab Studies from Georgetown University. Her research and teaching focuses on trans-regional histories of racial capitalism, slavery, and empire. Errazzouki formerly worked as a Morocco-based journalist with the Associated Press, and later, with Reuters. She is currently a co-editor of Jadaliyya and assistant editor of The Journal of North African Studies .

Jisha Menon (Violet Andrews Whittier Internal Fellow) is Professor of Theater and Performance Studies, and, by courtesy, of Comparative Literature at Stanford University. She is the author of Brutal Beauty: Aesthetics and Aspiration in Urban India (Northwestern UP, 2021) and The Performance of Nationalism: India, Pakistan and the Memory of Partition (Cambridge UP, 2013). She is also co-editor of two volumes: Violence Performed: Local Roots and Global Routes of Conflict (Palgrave-Macmillan Press, 2009) and Performing the Secular: Religion, Representation, and Politics (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017).

Joseph Wager (SHC Dissertation Prize Fellow) is a PhD Candidate in Iberian and Latin American Cultures at Stanford University. He is writing a dissertation focused on the form of the stories about desaparecidos, what is said about desaparecidos, in contemporary Colombia and Mexico. The dissertation places social-scientific inquiry, the work of activists and collectives, and legal instruments in dialogue with art installations, film, novels, performances, and poems. Underpinning this combination is 1. the idea that human-rights changes stem from how individual and collective actions resist institutionalization or translate into institutions and 2. that cultural products (e.g., art) and their form are crucial to the understanding of such processes.

Ya Zuo (External Faculty Fellow) is an associate professor of History at University of California, Santa Barbara. She is a cultural historian of middle and late imperial China. She is the author of Shen Gua’s Empiricism (Harvard University Press, 2018) and a range of articles on subjects such as theory of knowledge, sensory history, medical history, book history, and the history of emotions.

Image of mynah birds painted on a paper screen

Stanford Humanities Center 424 Santa Teresa Street

Also online via Zoom

Discovering Humanities Research at Stanford

Stanford Humanities Center

Advancing Research in the Humanities

Humanities Research for a Digital Future

The Humanities in the World

Annual Reports
Humanitrees
Humanities Center Fellows
Advisory Council
Director's Alumni Cabinet
Honorary Fellows
Hume Honors Fellows
International Visitors
Workshop Coordinators
Why Humanities Matter
Fellowships for External Faculty
Fellowships for Stanford Faculty
Mellon Fellowship of Scholars in the Humanities
Dissertation Fellowships FAQs
Career Launch Fellowships
Fellowships for Stanford Undergraduates
International Visitors Program
FAQ Mellon Fellowship
Faculty Fellowships FAQ
Events Archive
Public Lectures
Checklist for Event Coordinators
Facilities Guidelines
co-sponsorship from the Stanford Humanities Center
Call for Proposals
Manuscript Workshops
Past Workshops
Research Workshops

UCR getting ready to launch a new kind of research center

Researchers will receive stable funding and support to pursue ambitious projects

UC Riverside aims to offer researchers a chance to collaborate and pursue ambitious projects with centralized funding and administrative support through the first Campus Interdisciplinary Research Center.

Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Elizabeth Watkins and Rodolfo Torres, vice chancellor for Research and Economic Development, announced the creation of the new center in February, inviting applications with a May 1 deadline.

Torres said the center will be unlike any other on campus in terms of its structure, scope, funding, reporting, oversight, and review. It’s long been a goal at UCR to create a center with this type of structure, which will include administrative support from the Office of Research and Economic Development, or RED, and new funding from the central campus budget.

The hope is center participants will be able to use that support to pursue more ambitious research that will gain national and international recognition and to seek multi-million funding grants, Torres said.

“It’s a way to enhance what we represent and continue to attract great faculty and students,” he said. “It will be a jewel in our crown of creativity.”

The creation of a center with this type of infrastructure builds on one of the initiatives in the campus strategic plan, UCR 2030, which Watkins led. The third strategic goal calls for expanding the visibility of UCR locally, nationally, and globally.

“The newly created CIRC will excel in interdisciplinary research and scholarly work,” Watkins said in a February announcement. “It will capitalize on the demonstrated success of existing research teams, further creating and incentivizing synergy among faculty, students, and staff across campus. The goal is to attract new individuals and additional external resources to UCR, aiming to achieve even greater national and international recognition.”

To qualify for the Campus Interdisciplinary Research Center designation, proposals must involve multiple faculty members from at least three different colleges or schools; show a record of excellence in interdisciplinary collaborations; demonstrate an external funding record, and have the potential to apply for large federal grants.

Researchers must also have a long-term sustainable plan, as the center will receive a five-year funding commitment and may be renewed for additional five-year periods.

Another important piece will be the center’s director, who is expected to have a visible role, championing the research. The new funds will cover half of the director’s salary, freeing up their ability to concentrate on administrative duties, Torres said.

Any research area will be considered, although Torres said he expects proposals to capitalize on areas where UCR is already strong.

RED will start evaluating the applications after the May 1 deadline. An announcement of the selected proposal is expected in June so that it will be funded with the new fiscal year on July 1.

Only one project will be selected as the inaugural center, but Torres said he expects additional centers will be supported as exciting new proposals are brought forward.

Watkins and Torres have been holding engagement meetings with faculty members about the proposal over the last few months and have a received a positive response, Torres said.

“People honestly think this is overdue,” he said. “They’re happy seeing it coming now. There’s a lot of excitement.”

Undergraduate Education to offer student success-focused courses

Future Highlanders get a taste of college life

Campus celebrates Native American Garden

What UCR is doing to reduce waste

Princeton University

Princeton engineering, holographic displays offer a glimpse into an immersive future.

By Julia Schwarz

April 22, 2024

A figure wearing holographic displays glasses, a chip on the leg of the eyeglasses beaming colored light onto the inside of the lens of the glasses.

Researchers at Princeton and Meta have created a tiny optical device that makes holographic images larger and clearer. Small enough to fit on a pair of eyeglasses, the device could enable a new kind of immersive virtual reality display. Illustration by Liz Sabol, photo by Nathan Matsuda

Setting the stage for a new era of immersive displays, researchers are one step closer to mixing the real and virtual worlds in an ordinary pair of eyeglasses using high-definition 3D holographic images, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.

Holographic images have real depth because they are three dimensional, whereas monitors merely simulate depth on a 2D screen. Because we see in three dimensions, holographic images could be integrated seamlessly into our normal view of the everyday world.

The result is a virtual and augmented reality display that has the potential to be truly immersive, the kind where you can move your head normally and never lose the holographic images from view. “To get a similar experience using a monitor, you would need to sit right in front of a cinema screen,” said Felix Heide , assistant professor of computer science and senior author on a paper published April 22 in Nature Communications.

And you wouldn’t need to wear a screen in front of your eyes to get this immersive experience. Optical elements required to create these images are tiny and could potentially fit on a regular pair of glasses. Virtual reality displays that use a monitor, as current displays do, require a full headset. And they tend to be bulky because they need to accommodate a screen and the hardware necessary to operate it.

“Holography could make virtual and augmented reality displays easily usable, wearable, and ultrathin,” said Heide. They could transform how we interact with our environments, everything from getting directions while driving, to monitoring a patient during surgery, to accessing plumbing instructions while doing a home repair.

One of the most important challenges is quality. Holographic images are created by a small chip-like device called a spatial light modulator. Until now, these modulators could only create images that are either small and clear or large and fuzzy. This tradeoff between image size and clarity results in a narrow field of view, too narrow to give the user an immersive experience. “If you look towards the corners of the display, the whole image may disappear,” said Nathan Matsuda, research scientist at Meta and co-author on the paper.

At left, a small image of a zebra. This is the holographic image without the new device. At right, a large image of a zebra, which is make using the new device.

Heide, Matsuda and Ethan Tseng , doctoral student in computer science, have created a device to improve image quality and potentially solve this problem. Along with their collaborators, they built a second optical element to work in tandem with the spatial light modulator. Their device filters the light from the spatial light modulator to expand the field of view while preserving the stability and fidelity of the image. It creates a larger image with only a minimal drop in quality.

Image quality has been a core challenge preventing the practical applications of holographic displays, said Matsuda. “The research brings us one step closer to resolving this challenge,” he said.

The new optical element is like a very small custom-built piece of frosted glass, said Heide. The pattern etched into the frosted glass is the key. Designed using AI and optical techniques, the etched surface scatters light created by the spatial light modulator in a very precise way, pushing some elements of an image into frequency bands that are not easily perceived by the human eye. This improves the quality of the holographic image and expands the field of view.

Still, hurdles to making a working holographic display remain. The image quality isn’t yet perfect, said Heide, and the fabrication process for the optical elements needs to be improved. “A lot of technology has to come together to make this feasible,” said Heide. “But this research shows a path forward.”

The paper, “Neural Etendue Expander for Ultra-Wide-Angle High-Fidelity Holographic Display” was published April 22 in Nature Communications. In addition to Heide and Tseng, co-authors from Princeton include Seung-Hwan Baek and Praneeth Chakravarthula. In addition to Matsuda, co-authors from Meta Research are Grace Kuo, Andrew Maimone, Florian Schiffers, and Douglas Lanman. Qiang Fu and Wolfgang Heidrich from the Visual Computing Center at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia also contributed. The work was supported by Princeton University’s Imaging and Analysis Center and the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology’s Nanofabrication Core Lab.

Related News

Pedestrians crossing the street in New York City.

Retro-reflectors could help future cities keep their cool

Hazy sunlight filtering through ranked skyscrapers

A good way to cool a sweltering urban canyon? Put a lid on it.

Two men in lab coats and goggles pose in a lab setting.

Engineers use moisture to pull carbon dioxide out of the air

Trees and street signs partially submerged in river water with a buildings standing in floodwater in the background.

Climate change likely to drive more floods in some parts of the U.S., fewer in others

event organizers talk in dynamic business conversation with projector screen in background

Princeton researchers, industry leaders drive new era of innovation in wireless and networking technologies

Three researchers in lab coats examine a sample while one points at the material

Transforming microbes into factories for the future

Felix Heide

Computing and Network Systems

Related department.

Computer Science

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Published: 19 April 2022

Focus Issue: The Future Of Cancer Research

Nature Medicine volume 28 , page 601 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

5 Citations

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

New treatments and technologies offer exciting prospects for cancer research and care, but their global impact rests on widespread implementation and accessibility.

Cancer care has advanced at an impressive pace in recent years. New insights into tumor immunology and biology, combined with advances in artificial intelligence, nano tools, genetic engineering and sequencing — to name but a few — promise ever-more-powerful capabilities in the prevention, diagnosis and personalized treatment of cancer. How do we harness and build on these advances? How do we make them work in different global settings? In this issue, we present a Focus dedicated to the future of cancer research, in which we take stock of progress and explore ways to deliver research and care that is innovative, sustainable and patient focused.

This year brought news that two of the first patients with leukemia to receive chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell treatment remain in remission more than a decade later . Writing in this issue, Carl June — who helped to treat these first patients — and colleagues reflect on how early transplant medicine laid a solid foundation for CAR T cell development in blood cancers, and how this is now paving the way for the use of engineered cell therapies in solid cancers. In a noteworthy step toward this goal, Haas and colleagues present results of a phase 1 trial of CAR T cells in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer — a disease that has seen relatively few new treatment options in recent years.

Up to now, CAR T cells have been used only in the context of relapsed or refractory hematological malignancies, but in this issue, Neelapu et al . present phase 2 study data that suggest CAR T cell therapy could be beneficial when used earlier in certain high-risk patients. In addition, prospective data from van den Brink et al . support a role for the gut microbiome composition in CAR T cell therapy outcomes, highlighting new avenues of research to help maximize therapeutic benefit.

Although the idea that the gut microbiome influences CAR T cell therapy outcomes may be relatively new, it has been known for some time that it has a role in the response to checkpoint-inhibitor immunotherapy. A plethora of microbe-targeting therapies are now under investigation for cancer treatment; in this issue, Pal and colleagues describe one such strategy — whereby the combination of a defined microbial supplement with checkpoint blockade led to improved responses in patients with advanced kidney cancer. In their Review, Jennifer Wargo and colleagues take stock of the latest research in this field, and predict that microbial targeting could become a pillar of personalized cancer care over the next decade.

The theme for this year’s World Cancer Day was ‘Close the care gap’ — a message that is woven through several pieces in this issue. Early detection strategies have enormous potential to make a difference in this area; reviewing the latest advances, Rebecca Fitzgerald and colleagues ask who should be tested, and how — and outline their vision for personalized, risk-based screening, keeping in mind practicality and clinical implementation. Journalist Carrie Arnold reports on an emerging strategy known as ‘theranostics’ that aims to both diagnose and treat cancers in a unified approach, highlighting the growing commercial interest in this field. Of course, commercial interest does not equate to widespread availability or equal access to new therapies, and increasingly sophisticated technologies — although beneficial for some — can serve to widen existing inequalities.

Pediatric cancers lag far behind adult cancers in terms of drug development and approval. Nancy Goodman, a patient advocate whose son died from a childhood cancer, argues that market failures are largely to blame for the gap — but that legislative changes can correct this. Although in some cases there is a strong mechanistic rationale for testing promising adult cancer therapies or combinations in children, translational research is also needed to identify new therapeutic targets — such as the approach taken by Behjati and colleagues , which sheds new light on the molecular characteristics of an aggressive form of infant leukemia.

Meanwhile, for adult cancers, countless new therapeutic modalities are on the horizon , and drug approvals based on genomic biomarkers have accelerated in recent years. Unfortunately, their implementation into routine clinical care is progressing at a much slower pace. In their Perspective, Emile Voest and colleagues point out that bridging this gap will require investment in health infrastructure, as well as in education and decision-support tools, among other things.

Perhaps the most striking gap is that between high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, not only in terms of cancer survival outcomes but also in terms of resources and infrastructure for impactful research. In their Perspective, CS Pramesh and colleagues outline their top priorities for cancer research in low- and middle-income countries, arguing that cancer research must be regionally relevant and geared toward reducing the number of patients diagnosed with advanced disease. Practicality is key — a sentiment echoed by Bishal Gyawali and Christopher Booth, who call for a “ common sense revolution ” in oncology, and regulatory policies and trial designs that serve patients better.

To realize this goal, clinical trial endpoints and outcome measures should be designed to minimize the burden on patients and maximize the potential for improving on the standard of care. This should go beyond survival outcomes; systemic effects, including cachexia and pain, have a major impact on quality of life and mental health during and after treatment. Two articles in this issue highlight the enormous psychological burden associated with a cancer diagnosis; increased risks of depression, self-harm and suicide emphasize the need for psychosocial interventions and a holistic approach to treatment.

As noted by members of the Bloomberg New Economy International Cancer Coalition in their Comment , the widespread adoption of telemedicine and remote monitoring in response to the COVID-19 pandemic could, if retained, help to make cancer trials more patient centered. Therefore, as health systems and research infrastructures adapt to the ongoing pandemic, there exists an unprecedented opportunity to reshape the landscape of cancer research.

We at Nature Medicine are committed to helping shape this transformation. We are issuing a call for research papers that utilize innovative approaches to address current challenges in cancer prevention, detection, diagnosis and treatment — both clinical trials and population-based studies with global implications. Readers can find more information about publishing clinical research in Nature Medicine at https://www.nature.com/nm/clinicalresearch .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Focus Issue: The Future Of Cancer Research. Nat Med 28 , 601 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01809-z

Download citation

Published : 19 April 2022

Issue Date : April 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01809-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

IMAGES

Future Research
Top 8 Technology Trends & Innovations driving Scientific Research in 2023
The Future of Medical Research Explored by Industry Experts
Fuelling the future: science, society and the research and innovation
Research Agendas
These Engineers are Leading the Way in Artificial Intelligence Research

VIDEO

Future of Universities: The Future of Research
Punjab Will Produce Next Billionaires In Future 😱 ? #punjab #shorts
What is the Future of Market Research?
Medical Research Future Fund Webinar: From research plan to research proposal (23 November 2023)
Accelerating transformational science: connecting researchers and the public
Researching the past to understand the future of our planet

COMMENTS

Looking forward 25 years: the future of medicine
But let's try. Over the next 25 years, genomic-driven analysis will continue to broaden the impact of personalized medicine in healthcare globally. Precision medicine will continue to deliver ...
The future of research revealed
The Research Futures Report 2.0 shows that the past two years have driven progress in both speed and openness in the communication of research. Around two-thirds (67%) of researchers globally now consider preprints a valued source of communication, up from 43% before the pandemic — a shift likely driven by the increased role of preprints in ...
The next 20 years of human genomics must be more equitable and ...
This must be seen as a necessary part of genomics research, and will be key to its future. Commitments are also needed to improve the standards for data repositories. The repositories must be made ...
The next 25 years
The bioengineers of the future must not only promote technical excellence, but also foster equity, ethics, dialogue and social responsibility in how the fruits of their research are deployed.
Building on current progress to shape the future of biomedical science
The past 200 years have seen rapid advances in western biomedicine. A model arising from western Europe and North America, current biomedical science is largely driven by efforts to prevent or cure diseases. It uses hierarchies of evidence generated from observational and experimental research,1 and is arguably driven by the interests of scientists who hold this underlying philosophy, with ...
The Future of Biomedicine
The Future of Biomedicine. To achieve its goal of turning discovery into health and to maintain its role as the world's premier biomedical research agency, NIH must support the best scientific ideas and brightest scientific minds. That means looking to the future and ensuring that we have a strong and diverse workforce to catalyze discoveries ...
Advancing the future of scientific research
Advancing the future of scientific research. This Advertorial is brought to you by the Science /AAAS Custom Publishing Office. Research across all STEM fields is an iterative process. Whether it be incremental progress or a big breakthrough, today's advances are built upon the discoveries of the past. But to successfully incorporate the ...
The future of research revealed
The future of researchrevealed. The future of research. The research ecosystem has been undergoing rapid and profound change, accelerated by COVID-19. This transformation is being fueled by many factors, including advances in technology, funding challenges and opportunities, political uncertainty, and new pressures on women in research.
The future of research: Emerging trends and new directions in
The future of research is also marked by scientific innovation, with new technologies and approaches being developed to address some of the world's most pressing problems. For example, gene editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 have the potential to revolutionize medicine by allowing scientists to edit DNA and cure genetic diseases. Similarly ...
3 scenarios for the future of research
From the analysis, key themes emerged. The investigators then held creative workshops, and participants used this knowledge to develop three plausible scenarios of the future: . Brave open world considers the rise of open science. . Tech titans looks at the growing influence of technology. .
The future of research
Envisioning the future of research. Watch the on demand webinar. To help you fulfill your goals in a landscape of increasing competition and complexity, Web of Science TM is building advanced resources and tools designed to accelerate the pace of discovery, increase the transparency and visibility of open research, better support strategic ...
The Future of Qualitative Research
The future of qualitative research is somewhat less precarious than its past. As the future moves into the present and, eventually, becomes the past, many of the "newest" of qualitative research methodologies have withstood the vicissitudes of time. Many of the methodologies that were "unscientific" in their day have become the gold ...
6 priorities for future research into COVID-19 and its ...
6 priorities for future research into COVID-19 and its effects on early learning. Since March 2020, researchers have produced more than 300 reports on the effects of the COVID-19 crisis on young ...
What is 'futures studies' and how can it improve our world?
Listen to the article. Futures studies is the systematic study of possible, probable and preferable futures. It can be used to help leaders and communities manage uncertainties and increase their resilience and innovation. We spoke with futurist Dr. Stuart Candy about the latest developments in this field and how it can help us solve pressing ...
Future of Research
Empowering Early Career Researchers. Future of Research champions, engages, and empowers early career researchers (ECRs) with evidence-based resources to make informed career choices and improve scientific research. Get Involved Donate.
Conclusions and recommendations for future research
The initially stated overarching aim of this research was to identify the contextual factors and mechanisms that are regularly associated with effective and cost-effective public involvement in research. While recognising the limitations of our analysis, we believe we have largely achieved this in our revised theory of public involvement in research set out in Chapter 8.
How researchers can help fight climate change in 2022 and beyond
There are signs of renewed support for research and innovation in helping to address climate change. In Glasgow, 22 countries, as well as the European Commission (EC), announced plans to cooperate ...
Trends and Skills for the Future of Research
Trends and Skills for the Future of Research. May 7, 2019. Technological advancements have made it easier than ever for organizations to access large amounts of data. However, with this information overload comes the challenge of managing, analyzing, and reporting on the data. Organizations are increasingly relying on professional researchers ...
Future Research
Future Research: Further research could investigate the long-term effects of mindfulness-based interventions on mental health outcomes among individuals with chronic pain. A longitudinal study could be conducted to examine the sustainability of mindfulness practices in reducing pain-related distress and improving psychological well-being over time.
Futures Research
Futures Research. Futures research can be defined as a systematic study of possible future events and circumstances. As a field of study, futures evolved in 1950s. Futures research is different from forecasting in a way that the former has a forward orientation and looks ahead, rather that backwards, and is not as mathematical as forecasting.
we're changing the way we study tech adoption
Monica Anderson, managing director of internet and technology research. Anderson: We see this research as foundational to understanding the broader impact that the internet, mobile technology and social media have on our society. Americans have an array of digital tools that help them with everything from getting news to shopping to finding jobs.
Futures studies
Futures studies, futures research, futurism, or futurology is the systematic, interdisciplinary and holistic study of social/technological advancement, and other environmental trends; often for the purpose of exploring how people will live and work in the future. Predictive techniques, such as forecasting, can be applied, but contemporary futures studies scholars emphasize the importance of ...
'To the Future': Saudi Arabia Spends Big to Become an A.I. Superpower
Modeled on universities like Caltech, KAUST is the kingdom's premier scientific research school, bringing in foreign A.I. leaders and providing computing resources to build an epicenter for A.I ...
The Future of the Tropics is the Future of the World 2024
Championing the "Our Shared Future: Life on a Sustainable Planet" initiative, she drives collective research in biodiversity, climate change, and environmental justice. As the first woman to direct the National Air and Space Museum, she spearheaded its flagship renovation and the memorable celebration of the 50th anniversary of the moon landing ...
The future of human behaviour research
Future research can examine how cultural worldviews and global threats co-evolve. The pandemic has also amplified the demarcation of national, political and other major social categories.
Increases for National Research Service Award Stipends and Childcare
As part of this commitment, we are pleased to announce stipend and childcare subsidy increases for the over 17,000 early career scholars supported on NIH Kirschstein National Research Service Awards (NRSAs) (NOT-OD-24-104). Stipends will be raised by 4% for predoctoral trainees and by 8% for postdoctoral scholars in fiscal year (FY) 2024 ...
Hope: The Future of an Idea
She holds a PhD in history from the University of California, Davis and an MA in Arab Studies from Georgetown University. Her research and teaching focuses on trans-regional histories of racial capitalism, slavery, and empire. Errazzouki formerly worked as a Morocco-based journalist with the Associated Press, and later, with Reuters.
UCR getting ready to launch a new kind of research center
UC Riverside aims to offer researchers a chance to collaborate and pursue ambitious projects with centralized funding and administrative support through the first Campus Interdisciplinary Research Center. Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Elizabeth Watkins and Rodolfo Torres, vice chancellor for Research and Economic Development, announced the creation of the new center in February ...
Holographic displays offer a glimpse into an immersive future
Research. Bioengineering and Health Understanding and solving problems in living systems; Blockchain New technologies that provide trust without centralization; Cities and the Future Metropolis Making metropolitan areas healthy, sustainable, and resilient; Data Science AI and machine intelligence: foundations, applications, and implications for ...
Focus Issue: The Future Of Cancer Research
In this issue, we present a Focus dedicated to the future of cancer research, in which we take stock of progress and explore ways to deliver research and care that is innovative, sustainable and ...

You are here

tomorrow-science.jpg

Tomorrow’s Scientists

diversity-nih.jpg

Innovation Through Diversity

Connect with Us

The future of research revealed

Publishing moves faster, with more open knowledge.

Funding is harder, but new opportunities emerge.

Women in research face new pressures — and adapt.

Researchers are collaborating more.

More researchers are embracing AI.

Project Methodology

Contributors

Related stories

New dataset offers unique insights into peer review

Collaborative Governance in Government Administration in the Field of State Security Along the Republic of Indonesia (RI)-Malaysia Border Area

The future of research: Emerging trends and new directions in scientific inquiry

Suggested Articles

Related Posts

Helping you turn great ideas into real world outcomes

Related content

The Future of Qualitative Research

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Describing the Bricolage: Conceptualizing a New Rigor in Qualitative Research

Bricolage in the Cosmos of Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity

The Great Implosion: Dealing with the Debris of Disciplinarity

Rigor in the Ruins

Bricolage and the Dialectical View of Disciplinarity

Questioning the Social Construction of Interdisciplinarity

Bricolage as Deep Interdisciplinarity: The Synergy of Multiple Perspectives

Expanding The Boundaries: The Search For New Forms Of Knowledge Production

Life on the Boundaries: Facilitating the Work of the Bricoleur

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

6 priorities for future research into COVID-19 and its effects on early learning

What is 'futures studies' and how can it help us improve our world?

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

What drew you to the field of foresight and speculative design?

What global challenge does your work address?

What is the most critical challenge that you face as a futurist?

What is the most exciting new development in collective foresight and why?

How are emerging technologies in the sphere of media (such as AR/VR) enabling this?

What is most misunderstood about your work? What do you wish people knew?

What has been the biggest impact of mapping futures?

How can we democratize futures studies and make it more accessible?

Don't miss any update on this topic

Related topics:

Empowering Early Career Researchers

Our Mission

Our projects

Mentoring future scientists

Labor and policy

international scholars

Our leadership in action

Latest News

Science Policy in our New Administration: Challenges Facing Early Career Researchers

Police Brutality, Racism, and the killing of Black civilians

U.S. Senate Finance Committee meeting on foreign influences highlights federal agency urgency without clarity

Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation.

In this Page

Recent Activity

Trends and Skills for the Future of Research

Career Outlook for Researchers

New Trends and Techniques for Researchers

Predictive Analytics

Digital Tools

Data Visualization

Take Your Next Brave Step

Future Research – Thesis Guide

Future Research

How to Write Future Research in Thesis

Examples of Future Research in Thesis

Purpose of Future Research in Thesis