why research is good

More From Forbes

The role of research at universities: why it matters.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

(Photo by William B. Plowman/Getty Images)

Teaching and learning, research and discovery, synthesis and creativity, understanding and engagement, service and outreach. There are many “core elements” to the mission of a great university. Teaching would seem the most obvious, but for those outside of the university, “research” (taken to include scientific research, scholarship more broadly, as well as creative activity) may be the least well understood. This creates misunderstanding of how universities invest resources, especially those deriving from undergraduate tuition and state (or other public) support, and the misperception that those resources are being diverted away from what is believed should be the core (and sole) focus, teaching. This has led to a loss of trust, confidence, and willingness to continue to invest or otherwise support (especially our public) universities.

Why are universities engaged in the conduct of research? Who pays? Who benefits? And why does it all matter? Good questions. Let’s get to some straightforward answers. Because the academic research enterprise really is not that difficult to explain, and its impacts are profound.

So let’s demystify university-based research. And in doing so, hopefully we can begin building both better understanding and a better relationship between the public and higher education, both of which are essential to the future of US higher education.   

Why are universities engaged in the conduct of research?

Universities engage in research as part of their missions around learning and discovery. This, in turn, contributes directly and indirectly to their primary mission of teaching. Universities and many colleges (the exception being those dedicated exclusively to undergraduate teaching) have as part of their mission the pursuit of scholarship. This can come in the form of fundamental or applied research (both are most common in the STEM fields, broadly defined), research-based scholarship or what often is called “scholarly activity” (most common in the social sciences and humanities), or creative activity (most common in the arts). Increasingly, these simple categorizations are being blurred, for all good reasons and to the good of the discovery of new knowledge and greater understanding of complex (transdisciplinary) challenges and the creation of increasingly interrelated fields needed to address them.

It goes without saying that the advancement of knowledge (discovery, innovation, creation) is essential to any civilization. Our nation’s research universities represent some of the most concentrated communities of scholars, facilities, and collective expertise engaged in these activities. But more importantly, this is where higher education is delivered, where students develop breadth and depth of knowledge in foundational and advanced subjects, where the skills for knowledge acquisition and understanding (including contextualization, interpretation, and inference) are honed, and where students are educated, trained, and otherwise prepared for successful careers. Part of that training and preparation derives from exposure to faculty who are engaged at the leading-edge of their fields, through their research and scholarly work. The best faculty, the teacher-scholars, seamlessly weave their teaching and research efforts together, to their mutual benefit, and in a way that excites and engages their students. In this way, the next generation of scholars (academic or otherwise) is trained, research and discovery continue to advance inter-generationally, and the cycle is perpetuated.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

University research can be expensive, particularly in laboratory-intensive fields. But the responsibility for much (indeed most) of the cost of conducting research falls to the faculty member. Faculty who are engaged in research write grants for funding (e.g., from federal and state agencies, foundations, and private companies) to support their work and the work of their students and staff. In some cases, the universities do need to invest heavily in equipment, facilities, and personnel to support select research activities. But they do so judiciously, with an eye toward both their mission, their strategic priorities, and their available resources.

Medical research, and medical education more broadly, is expensive and often requires substantial institutional investment beyond what can be covered by clinical operations or externally funded research. But universities with medical schools/medical centers have determined that the value to their educational and training missions as well as to their communities justifies the investment. And most would agree that university-based medical centers are of significant value to their communities, often providing best-in-class treatment and care in midsize and smaller communities at a level more often seen in larger metropolitan areas.

Research in the STEM fields (broadly defined) can also be expensive. Scientific (including medical) and engineering research often involves specialized facilities or pieces of equipment, advanced computing capabilities, materials requiring controlled handling and storage, and so forth. But much of this work is funded, in large part, by federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Energy, US Department of Agriculture, and many others.

Research in the social sciences is often (not always) less expensive, requiring smaller amount of grant funding. As mentioned previously, however, it is now becoming common to have physical, natural, and social scientist teams pursuing large grant funding. This is an exciting and very promising trend for many reasons, not the least of which is the nature of the complex problems being studied.

Research in the arts and humanities typically requires the least amount of funding as it rarely requires the expensive items listed previously. Funding from such organizations as the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, and private foundations may be able to support significant scholarship and creation of new knowledge or works through much more modest grants than would be required in the natural or physical sciences, for example.

Philanthropy may also be directed toward the support of research and scholarly activity at universities. Support from individual donors, family foundations, private or corporate foundations may be directed to support students, faculty, labs or other facilities, research programs, galleries, centers, and institutes.

Who benefits?

Students, both undergraduate and graduate, benefit from studying in an environment rich with research and discovery. Besides what the faculty can bring back to the classroom, there are opportunities to engage with faculty as part of their research teams and even conduct independent research under their supervision, often for credit. There are opportunities to learn about and learn on state-of-the-art equipment, in state-of-the-art laboratories, and from those working on the leading edge in a discipline. There are opportunities to co-author, present at conferences, make important connections, and explore post-graduate pathways.

The broader university benefits from active research programs. Research on timely and important topics attracts attention, which in turn leads to greater institutional visibility and reputation. As a university becomes known for its research in certain fields, they become magnets for students, faculty, grants, media coverage, and even philanthropy. Strength in research helps to define a university’s “brand” in the national and international marketplace, impacting everything from student recruitment, to faculty retention, to attracting new investments.

The community, region, and state benefits from the research activity of the university. This is especially true for public research universities. Research also contributes directly to economic development, clinical, commercial, and business opportunities. Resources brought into the university through grants and contracts support faculty, staff, and student salaries, often adding additional jobs, contributing directly to the tax base. Research universities, through their expertise, reputation, and facilities, can attract new businesses into their communities or states. They can also launch and incubate startup companies, or license and sell their technologies to other companies. Research universities often host meeting and conferences which creates revenue for local hotels, restaurants, event centers, and more. And as mentioned previously, university medical centers provide high-quality medical care, often in midsize communities that wouldn’t otherwise have such outstanding services and state-of-the-art facilities.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

And finally, why does this all matter?

Research is essential to advancing society, strengthening the economy, driving innovation, and addressing the vexing and challenging problems we face as a people, place, and planet. It’s through research, scholarship, and discovery that we learn about our history and ourselves, understand the present context in which we live, and plan for and secure our future.

Research universities are vibrant, exciting, and inspiring places to learn and to work. They offer opportunities for students that few other institutions can match – whether small liberal arts colleges, mid-size teaching universities, or community colleges – and while not right for every learner or every educator, they are right for many, if not most. The advantages simply cannot be ignored. Neither can the importance or the need for these institutions. They need not be for everyone, and everyone need not find their way to study or work at our research universities, and we stipulate that there are many outstanding options to meet and support different learning styles and provide different environments for teaching and learning. But it’s critically important that we continue to support, protect, and respect research universities for all they do for their students, their communities and states, our standing in the global scientific community, our economy, and our nation.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

Princeton Correspondents on Undergraduate Research

Why Do We Research?

If you are reading this post, you are likely involved in  research. Unsurprisingly, I am too.  Yes, I’ve spent my fair share of long nights on the A floor of Firestone, reviewing sources and tightening up arguments. This week, I’m embarking on a new history research paper about the evolution of Native American spirituality from the 1830s to the 1890s, which I anticipate will take a fair amount of time. Reflecting on the work I have ahead got me thinking, why am I doing this in the first place? In fact, why do any of us research?

This question can really be broken into two parts: “What do we hope to achieve from our research?” and “What motivates us to conduct our research?” We think about the first question often, because in the academy, we have to justify what we’re doing to our professors, to funding boards, etc.  And in lots of research, one’s answer to the first question informs their answer to the second. Certain biologist friends of mine, for instance, study lab rat carcasses in the hopes of better understanding tumors, with the inspiring goal of curing cancer. In cases such as this, the aim of a project is to arrive at something with a concrete application so marvelous that it motivates the researcher to come to the lab each morning.

Similarly, in the social sciences, the motivating goal of research is societal optimization. Economists strive to understand how we as individuals, firms, and nations can most efficiently allocate our scarce resources to make the most of this precious life. Psychologists and sociologists analyze human motivations and behaviors, so that we can understand how we function and organize our lives accordingly. And, many political scientists and public policy researchers study our laws and systems of government with an eye toward tackling problems and implementing concrete solutions. Again, the noble aims of such research provide the motivation necessary to conduct it.

But what about research in the humanities? This realm of inquiry does not seem to concern itself with the material or technological advancement of humanity–the ‘goal’ is less tangible. This brings us back to the second overall question posed at the beginning of this post: w hat motivates us to conduct humanities research? 

Research can be goal-oriented, as discussed previously, or grounded in the process. Humanities research is often the latter: we hope to gain a personal appreciation for the immense value and power of ideas. The notion of truth- seeking , a common justification for more theoretical research, implies the high value of the truth being sought —after all, we wouldn’t spend long hours in the library “seeking the truth” if we didn’t think it’d be worth it in the end.

Regardless of our end goal (or lack thereof), rewards are built into the research process.  Before we can research, we must learn about our subject area. In the case of my history paper, I received background information on Native American life in the 1800s through lectures from various historians.  Grappling with their ideas, a vital part of my research, has been both a challenge and a reward. Indeed, as I learned while researching for this article, new findings in psychology suggest that learning  makes humans happier . So, next time you’re dreading working on a research paper, try to remember that you’ll learn something, which will make you happier!

Finally, in addition to making us happier or providing us with a personal sense of meaning, research also expresses something about who we are as a scholarly community. Research is a collective enterprise, and thus everything we do as researchers exists in the context of our fellow researchers–who are often attached to universities. As participants in the university system, we are at the forefront a collaborative, decentralized experiment in personal freedom of thought and action dating back to the 13 th century . This is just as true in the humanities as it is in the hard or social sciences, as we have a shared desire to bring the best ideas of humankind to light. And I think that’s pretty cool.

We all have our own private reasons for researching, too. As a student of history interested in public service, I hope to learn from the mistakes of the past by studying the intricacies of their causes and effects. The United States’ policies towards Native Americans in the 1800s were, in general, morally abhorrent–so studying them is actually a useful exercise in learning how not  to conduct public policy. I encourage my fellow Princeton students to devote some time to thinking about the “big picture” of their research, also keeping in mind what we’re participating in as a social movement and why it matters. After all, the grades we receive on our research papers will soon fade from our memories—but these feelings of purpose, meaning, and connection to the academic tradition will be with us forever.

–Shanon FitzGerald, Social Sciences Correspondent

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

What Is Research and Why We Do It

• First Online: 23 June 2020

Cite this chapter

• Carlo Ghezzi 2  

3030 Accesses

2 Altmetric

The notions of science and scientific research are discussed and the motivations for doing research are analyzed. Research can span a broad range of approaches, from purely theoretical to practice-oriented; different approaches often coexist and fertilize each other. Research ignites human progress and societal change. In turn, society drives and supports research. The specific role of research in Informatics is discussed. Informatics is driving the current transition towards the new digital society in which we will live in the future.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• 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

In [ 34 ], P.E. Medawar discusses what he calls the “snobismus” of pure versus applied science. In his words, this is one of the most damaging forms of snobbism, which draws a class distinction between pure and applied science.

Originality, rigor, and significance have been defined and used as the key criteria to evaluate research outputs by the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) [ 46 ]. A research evaluation exercise has been performed periodically since 1986 on UK higher education institutions and their research outputs have been rated according to their originality, rigor, and significance.

The importance of realizing that “we don’t know” was apparently first stated by Socrates, according to Plato’s account of his thought. This is condensed in the famous paradox “I know that I don’t know.”

This view applies mainly to natural and physical sciences.

Roy Amara was President of the Institute for Future, a USA-based think tank, from 1971 until 1990.

The Turing Award is generally recognized as the Nobel prize of Informatics.

See http://uis.unesco.org/apps/visualisations/research-and-development-spending/ .

Israel is a very good example. Investments in research resulted in a proliferation of new, cutting-edge enterprises. The term start-up nation has been coined by Dan Senor and Saul Singer in their successful book [ 51 ] to characterize this phenomenon.

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges .

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/cross-cutting-activities-focus-areas .

This figure has been adapted from a presentation by A. Fuggetta, which describes the mission of Cefriel, an Italian institution with a similar role of Fraunhofer, on a smaller scale.

The ERC takes an ecumenical approach and calls the research sector “Computer Science and Informatics.”

I discuss here the effect of “big data” on research, although most sectors of society—industry, finance, health, …—are also deeply affected.

Carayannis, E., Campbell, D.: Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. In: E. Carayannis, D. Campbell (eds.) Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems: 21st-Century Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Development. SpringerBriefs in Business, New York, NY (2012)

Google Scholar  

Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L.: The triple helix – university-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review 14 (1), 14–19 (1995)

Harari, Y.: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Random House (2014). URL https://books.google.it/books?id=1EiJAwAAQBAJ

Harari, Y.: Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Random House (2016). URL https://books.google.it/books?id=dWYyCwAAQBAJ

Hopcroft, J.E., Motwani, R., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation (3rd Edition). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA (2006)

MATH   Google Scholar  

Medawar, P.: Advice To A Young Scientist. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation series. Basic Books (2008)

OECD: Frascati Manual. OECD Publishing (2015). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en . URL https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/9789264239012-en

REF2019/2: Panel criteria and working methods (2019). URL https://www.ref.ac.uk/media/1084/ref-2019_02-panel-criteria-and-working-methods.pdf

Senor, D., Singer, S.: Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle. McClelland & Stewart, Toronto, Canada (2011)

Stokes, D.E.: Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. (1997)

Thurston, R.H.: The growth of the steam engine. Popular Science Monthly 12 (1877)

Vardi, M.Y.: The long game of research. Commun. ACM 62 (9), 7–7 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3352489 . URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3352489

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy

Carlo Ghezzi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlo Ghezzi .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ghezzi, C. (2020). What Is Research and Why We Do It. In: Being a Researcher. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45157-8_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45157-8_1

Published : 23 June 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-45156-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-45157-8

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (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

A question universities need to answer: why do we research?

Philosopher, The University of Melbourne

Disclosure statement

John Armstrong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Melbourne provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Fundamentally, there are two big motives for research.

On the on hand there is intellectual ambition: the desire to know and understand the word, to appreciate the best that has been said and thought on the topics that grip our imaginations.

In one of C.P. Snow ’s Cambridge novels there’s an elderly character who looks back on his early days working under the chemist and physicist, Ernest Rutherford . “We used to run to our laboratories” he says. They were running because of the immense excitement of the discoveries that were unfolding.

I used to look with an almost physical longing at books in the philosophy section of the library – desperate to get to grips with the glory of the ideas they contained.

Sometimes we call this “blue sky” or “fundamental” research. But, in a crucial way, what is at stake is the love and devotion brought to certain questions by (at present) a relatively small number of people.

Many more people would like to be involved in such work than we are, as a society, willing to pay for. I’ve lost count of the number of people who have told me that they would like to have a job in which they spent their time studying manuscripts or on archaeological digs or mapping the heavens or speculating on the ultimate nature of good and evil.

While, in fact, they work as public servants, lawyers, estate agents, school teachers, logistics managers, sales representatives and so on.

It may sound a bit crude to put it this way, but we should look at the issue for what it is: there is not enough demand for such research. That is, there are not enough sources of financial input to support these kinds of desired roles.

This raises the first great question that any serious debate about research must address: if you don’t engage ambitiously with markets or public opinion, how will you actually pay for the research you want to undertake?

Understandably we like to suppose that “government” in some form or another will meet the cost. But this in only to put the question one step further back. What kind of politics would we need to have for governments actually to direct resources in this way?

Clearly, relatively affluent countries spend large sums of money on all kinds of things. Why not on the love of knowledge for its own sake?

This is a tantalising question. It’s tempting to answer it in moral terms. One wants to explain why it is lovely and good and in the long-term national interest to support open-ended intellectual ambition.

But the question is not: would that be good and lovely? The question is: what would have to be the case for such a line of argument to be compelling to government?

There are many potential goods in the world that never come to fruition. And it is fair to say that we are, at present, very far from having a political or national culture in which such arguments would look powerful. It’s no help blaming other people. That gets us no closer to a good outcome.

The deep issue is this: fundamental and blue-sky research (research undertaken for the love of knowledge and from motives of sheer intellectual ambition) is possible on a large scale only with the profound consent of a whole society.

And universities – which are the natural homes of intellectual ambition – are not organised to secure this consent. Those who are fired by the love of knowledge do not see securing such support as fundamental to what they do.

And at an individual level, of course, the task belongs to no particular person. Yet, if we are to carry off the huge task of gaining such committed and widespread support we would have to devote ourselves to a vast project of engagement. We would have to have this task written into the DNA of research culture.

And this is the fateful irony. The motive of intellectual ambition very often goes alongside indifference to public opinion, lack of concern with buy-in from the wider world, hostility to winning over hearts and minds in large numbers.

We want the support that requires a great public but we don’t want to do the things that would win the loyalty of a great public. At worst, we want to demonise the philistines and have their taxes pay for our noble enthusiasms.

I mentioned that there were two motives for research. Aside from the pure pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, research is linked to problem solving. What this means is the solving of other people’s problems. That is, what other people experience as problems.

It starts with a tenderness and ambition that is directed at the needs of others – as they recognise and acknowledge those needs. This is, in effect, entry into a market place. Much research, of course, is conducted in precisely this way beyond the walls of the academy.

And this gives rise to the second great question that universities face with respect to research. If universities devote more of their energies to engagement with markets and public opinion, how will they retain a sense of noble mission – which is one of their defining characteristics? What would the institutions need to be like to carry this off?

My concern at this stage is not to provide a precise answer to either of the great questions. Rather, what I want is to get clear about the questions we really do have to address. That is, the questions that should be central to the debate.

Fundamentally, we are trying to explain to ourselves why research is good and how research will be paid for. Our danger is in asking and answering these questions independently.

We could have a fine account of why research is noble, but fail because we could not work out how to bring this to fruition in the world. Or we could have an account of how to make research pay but fail because we missed the whole point: which is that research is a noble human undertaking.

But not nearly enough people seem to be interested in answering both questions at the same time.

I believe that it is possible to integrate the two demands. And, in fact, that it is a central task of education and of culture to achieve such integration.

Our epochal task is to make our best ideals powerful in the world we happen to have. We must not be Jacobites: devotees of a gracious but lost cause. To avoid that fate we have to think about love and money at the same time. We have to answer the two great questions.

• Research funding
• Universities

Sydney Horizon Educators – Faculty of Engineering (Targeted)

Dean, Faculty of Education

Lecturer in Indigenous Health (Identified)

Social Media Producer

PhD Scholarship

5 Reasons Why Undergraduates Should Do Research

• by Julia Ann Easley
• May 02, 2017

Nearly 40 percent of UC Davis undergraduates participate in hands-on research. On the occasion of the 28th annual Undergraduate Research, Scholarship and Creative Activities Conference on April 28 and 29 — where more than 700 students presented their work — we introduce you to some students and graduates who shared what they’ve gained. Consider how the research experience can benefit you, too.

1. Exploring career directions

Here is how undergraduate research influenced the direction of three UC Davis students:

​Shadd Cabalatungan started his studies at UC Davis aiming for a career as a veterinarian. Touched by his aunt’s diagnosis with breast cancer, he got involved with research at the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center . That experience was key in changing his direction to pursue a medical degree. He also did research on how drinking by college students affects others who don’t drink. With a degree in sociology , he is now completing his first year as a medical student at Stony Brook University.

Graduating senior Rong Ben, once fascinated by the aesthetics of fashion, is geeking out on how technology can be incorporated so fashion helps solve problems. As a junior, this design major did a research internship with a professor working on wearable technology, including gloves to provide a patient’s vital statistics. “It opened up a new view for me,” said Ben. As a participant in the University Honors Program , Ben designed a grab-and-go coat for safety in an earthquake with protective materials, lighting, emergency food and water, and more. Next up for Ben: the graduate program in fashion enterprise and society at the University of Leeds.

Physics major Mario D’Andrea took a course related to climate neutrality to confirm his desire to study physics in graduate school. He worked with two other students to research waste reduction and carbon sequestration through composting. He enjoyed the research, and it helped confirm his desire to study condensed matter physics in graduate school. “I wish more classes were open-ended like this,” he said.

2. Building transferable skills and enhancing resumes

Graduating senior Julie Beppler has learned a lot about food options in downtown Davis. The managerial economics major analyzed how 49 restaurants use menu design to promote certain items. But more than that, she developed and demonstrated skills that employers seek. Beppler first worked as a research assistant and then pursued this project for her Undergraduate Honors Thesis . It focuses on the cost of production and price of featured menu items as well as their relative healthiness. She taught herself computer programing; learned time management; practiced professional communications as she interacted with restaurant managers; and proved her ability to motivate herself and direct her own work.

Beppler will soon start in the management development program at E. & J. Gallo Winery, so take her word that doing research can also help students find a mentor who can provide letters of recommendation and advice to support their success. Kristin Kiesel , a faculty member in agricultural and resource economics and a mentor to Beppler, agreed: “There is no better way to recommend a student than by having them successfully complete an undergraduate research project.”

3. Learning to publicly advocate for and defend work

“Nerve wracking.” That’s how graduating senior Kathryn Green described her anticipation of presenting for the first time her research on California’s clean car consumer rebate program. Now she’s a UC undergraduate research ambassador. Last quarter, the political science major participated in the policy program at the UC Center Sacramento , which included classes, an internship with the advocacy organization Environment California and a research project.

Presenting the research was a requirement. Green designed a large poster representing her research and, in a session lasting 90 minutes, explained it one-on-one to attendees. She talked about the process and her policy recommendations not only to policymakers and people from the clean car industry, but also to others who were unfamiliar with the topic. “I became almost a teacher,” said Green. “I took my research and explained it to someone who didn’t know about it.”

Based on her success in that venue, Green represented UC Davis at showcase in Los Angeles earlier in April for alumni, donors, regents and other friends of the University of California. “I’m really proud I got to go down and share my research,” she said.

4. Getting a leg up on graduate or professional school

When Becky Fu came to UC Davis in 2008, she was the first in her family to attend college. Nine years later, this genetics and genomics major is preparing to defend her dissertation and graduate from Stanford University with a doctoral degree in genetics and a master’s degree in biomedical informatics. A 2012 graduate from UC Davis, she credits her participation in undergraduate research as foundational to where she is today. “No question about it,” she said. “Without undergraduate research, there would have been no way I got into any of the graduate programs I did.”

As a freshman, Fu heard others talking about research and sought out the Undergraduate Research Center on campus for more information. She went on to do research with two professors; participate in the undergraduate research conference ; publish in Explorations , the UC Davis journal of undergraduate research; be awarded a Provost’s Undergraduate Fellowship to help pay for her research; and win the Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Research and other awards.

“Having that experience as an undergraduate to fail a lot and expand on the techniques,” Fu said, “was an integral part of being prepared for and getting through the doctoral program.” At Stanford, she is working in the lab of Andrew Fire, who shared the 2006 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine .

5. Contributing knowledge and impacting the world

Annaliese Franz, associate professor of chemistry  and faculty director of the Undergraduate Research Center , sees students experience the joy of discovery and creation through research. “Students really get the chance to create something new as they go into the lab or out into the field or study new policy.”

Fu, the Stanford student, explained how undergraduate research developed a new quest for her: “I wanted to be contributing to a bigger cause, a bigger realm of intelligence, and that’s advancing medical care in general.”

And Green, who did the research on the clean-car rebate program, discovered a new power. “My research told me that an undergraduate can make an impact,” she said. “You don’t have to have a master’s degree or doctorate to make valuable contributions.”

Julia Ann Easley of News and Media Relations supports communication and writes stories at the heart of the university. Her career includes a noble cause, adventures in learning, working with wonderful people and a beautiful green setting.

Subscribe to our majors blog

Primary Category

• Board Members
• Management Team
• Become a Contributor
• Volunteer Opportunities
• Code of Ethical Practices

KNOWLEDGE NETWORK

• Search Engines List
• Suggested Reading Library
• Web Directories
• Research Papers
• Industry News

• Become a Member
• Associate Membership
• Certified Membership
• Membership Application
• Corporate Application

• CIRS Certification Program
• CIRS Certification Objectives
• CIRS Certification Benefits
• CIRS Certification Exam
• Maintain Your Certification

• Upcoming Events
• Live Classes
• Classes Schedule
• Webinars Schedules

• Latest Articles
• Internet Research
• Search Techniques
• Research Methods
• Business Research
• Search Engines
• Research & Tools
• Investigative Research
• Internet Search
• Work from Home
• Internet Ethics
• Internet Privacy

Six Reasons Why Research is Important

Everyone conducts research in some form or another from a young age, whether news, books, or browsing the Internet. Internet users come across thoughts, ideas, or perspectives - the curiosity that drives the desire to explore. However, when research is essential to make practical decisions, the nature of the study alters - it all depends on its application and purpose. For instance, skilled research offered as a  research paper service  has a definite objective, and it is focused and organized. Professional research helps derive inferences and conclusions from solving problems. visit the HB tool services for the amazing research tools that will help to solve your problems regarding the research on any project.

What is the Importance of Research?

The primary goal of the research is to guide action, gather evidence for theories, and contribute to the growth of knowledge in data analysis. This article discusses the importance of research and the multiple reasons why it is beneficial to everyone, not just students and scientists.

On the other hand, research is important in business decision-making because it can assist in making better decisions when combined with their experience and intuition.

Reasons for the Importance of Research

• Acquire Knowledge Effectively
• Research helps in problem-solving
• Provides the latest information
• Builds credibility
• Helps in business success
• Discover and Seize opportunities

1-  Acquire Knowledge Efficiently through Research

The most apparent reason to conduct research is to understand more. Even if you think you know everything there is to know about a subject, there is always more to learn. Research helps you expand on any prior knowledge you have of the subject. The research process creates new opportunities for learning and progress.

2- Research Helps in Problem-solving

Problem-solving can be divided into several components, which require knowledge and analysis, for example,  identification of issues, cause identification,  identifying potential solutions, decision to take action, monitoring and evaluation of activity and outcomes.

You may just require additional knowledge to formulate an informed strategy and make an informed decision. When you know you've gathered reliable data, you'll be a lot more confident in your answer.

3- Research Provides the Latest Information

Research enables you to seek out the most up-to-date facts. There is always new knowledge and discoveries in various sectors, particularly scientific ones. Staying updated keeps you from falling behind and providing inaccurate or incomplete information. You'll be better prepared to discuss a topic and build on ideas if you have the most up-to-date information. With the help of tools and certifications such as CIRS , you may learn internet research skills quickly and easily. Internet research can provide instant, global access to information.

4- Research Builds Credibility

Research provides a solid basis for formulating thoughts and views. You can speak confidently about something you know to be true. It's much more difficult for someone to find flaws in your arguments after you've finished your tasks. In your study, you should prioritize the most reputable sources. Your research should focus on the most reliable sources. You won't be credible if your "research" comprises non-experts' opinions. People are more inclined to pay attention if your research is excellent.

5-  Research Helps in Business Success

R&D might also help you gain a competitive advantage. Finding ways to make things run more smoothly and differentiate a company's products from those of its competitors can help to increase a company's market worth.

6-  Research Discover and Seize Opportunities

People can maximize their potential and achieve their goals through various opportunities provided by research. These include getting jobs, scholarships, educational subsidies, projects, commercial collaboration, and budgeted travel. Research is essential for anyone looking for work or a change of environment. Unemployed people will have a better chance of finding potential employers through job advertisements or agencies. 

How to Improve Your Research Skills

Start with the big picture and work your way down.

It might be hard to figure out where to start when you start researching. There's nothing wrong with a simple internet search to get you started. Online resources like Google and Wikipedia are a great way to get a general idea of a subject, even though they aren't always correct. They usually give a basic overview with a short history and any important points.

Identify Reliable Source

Not every source is reliable, so it's critical that you can tell the difference between the good ones and the bad ones. To find a reliable source, use your analytical and critical thinking skills and ask yourself the following questions: Is this source consistent with other sources I've discovered? Is the author a subject matter expert? Is there a conflict of interest in the author's point of view on this topic?

Validate Information from Various Sources

Take in new information.

The purpose of research is to find answers to your questions, not back up what you already assume. Only looking for confirmation is a minimal way to research because it forces you to pick and choose what information you get and stops you from getting the most accurate picture of the subject. When you do research, keep an open mind to learn as much as possible.

Facilitates Learning Process

Learning new things and implementing them in daily life can be frustrating. Finding relevant and credible information requires specialized training and web search skills due to the sheer enormity of the Internet and the rapid growth of indexed web pages. On the other hand, short courses and Certifications like CIRS make the research process more accessible. CIRS Certification offers complete knowledge from beginner to expert level. You can become a Certified Professional Researcher and get a high-paying job, but you'll also be much more efficient and skilled at filtering out reliable data. You can learn more about becoming a Certified Professional Researcher.

Stay Organized

You'll see a lot of different material during the process of gathering data, from web pages to PDFs to videos. You must keep all of this information organized in some way so that you don't lose anything or forget to mention something properly. There are many ways to keep your research project organized, but here are a few of the most common:  Learning Management Software , Bookmarks in your browser, index cards, and a bibliography that you can add to as you go are all excellent tools for writing.

Make Use of the library's Resources

If you still have questions about researching, don't worry—even if you're not a student performing academic or course-related research, there are many resources available to assist you. Many high school and university libraries, in reality, provide resources not only for staff and students but also for the general public. Look for research guidelines or access to specific databases on the library's website. Association of Internet Research Specialists enjoys sharing informational content such as research-related articles , research papers , specialized search engines list compiled from various sources, and contributions from our members and in-house experts.

of Conducting Research

Latest from erin r. goodrich.

• Enhancing Efficiency: The Role of Technology in Personal Injury Case Management
• The Evolution and Future of Workplace Benefit Administration
• 10 Best People Search Engines and Websites in 2022

Live Classes Schedule

• JUN 14 CIRS Certification Internet Research Training Program Live Classes Online
• JUN 14 Web Search Methods & Techniques Live Training Live Classes Online

World's leading professional association of Internet Research Specialists - We deliver Knowledge, Education, Training, and Certification in the field of Professional Online Research. The AOFIRS is considered a major contributor in improving Web Search Skills and recognizes Online Research work as a full-time occupation for those that use the Internet as their primary source of information.

Get Exclusive Research Tips in Your Inbox

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Advertising Opportunities
• Knowledge Network

• Youth Program
• Wharton Online

Why should you do research as an undergraduate?

Alumni, faculty, and employers answer the question., erika james, dean, the wharton school; reliance professor of management and private enterprise.

When I was a student, I took a short detour to a corporate setting, which was an experience that only reinforced my belief that my true calling was in academia. The lasting professional and personal relationships I have developed through my research have proven to be invaluable, and transformed my life in many ways. Though not every student will pursue a career in academia, all students can benefit greatly from the skills gained through research. The experience will prepare you to think critically, anticipate opportunities and be an effective leader in any industry or endeavor.

Diana Roberson, Vice Dean, Wharton Undergraduate Division; Samuel A. Blank Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics 

Raveen Kariyawasam, W’22, SEAS’22

Adam Grant, Saul P. Steinberg Professor of Management, Professor of Psychology

I can’t imagine a better way to learn than doing undergraduate research. When I was in college, getting involved in research changed the course of my life. It gave me the chance to explore fascinating questions, soak up wisdom from brilliant mentors, and stretch my creative and critical thinking muscles. I discovered that I loved creating knowledge, not just consuming it.

Dara Cook, W’95

Wendy De La Rosa, Assistant Professor of Marketing

So many consumers, cultures, and organizations have been ignored and under-researched. As a result, so much is still unknown. For me, there is nothing more honorable than being the person who pushes our collective human knowledge forward (even if it is just by a centimeter). You can be that person, and you can start right now, right here at Penn.

Michael Roberts, William H. Lawrence Professor of Finance

Nancy Zhang, Professor of Statistics and Data Science, Vice Dean of Wharton Doctoral Programs

Geoffrey Garrett, Former Dean and Reliance Professor of Management and Private Enterprise, The Wharton School

Debi Ogunrinde, C’16, W’16

Paul Karner, C’03, W’03

Ashish Shah, W’92

My undergrad experience prepared me for success in a crisis that few expected and fewer were prepared for. When at Wharton, I was fortunate enough to conduct research in two completely different areas of finance.   Read more

Kate Lakin, Putnam Investments

Julio Reynaga, C’13, W’13

Katherina M. Rosqueta, WG’01, Founding Executive Director, Center for High Impact Philanthropy,  University of Pennsylvania

Joseph Wang, C’13, W’13

Nada Boualam, C’17, W’17

• Oxford Review /

Research quality – not all research is good research, but how do you tell?

• in Blog , Evidence-Based Practice , Oxford Review , Research by David Wilkinson

• “Research says…”

“Research says…”, but does it? How to tell how good a study is. Research quality is an important factor in deciding to use a study but how do you know how good a particular bit of research really is?

Science proves nothing 

There are lots of factors that influence things, science is useless, how it works, confirmation bias, how to tell how good a piece of research is, the 4 levels of evidence, the 5 grade domains , risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, publication bias, what we are looking for, example review panel, citing evidence, other references used.

Lots of people like quoting research. Usually the quote is vague, something like “There is a study that proves x”. There are a number of problems with using research in this way. The first and most obvious issue here is ‘what research’? A vague reference to some study could refer to a 4 th grade children’s school project, someone’s ideas written on the back of an envelope or a major international study conducted by subject matter experts and professional researchers. There is usually no way of telling what the research quality is until we know which study it actually is, how the research was conducted and by whom.

For example there is a big difference in research quality between a study that interviews 5 people in the same office and a study that observes the actual behaviour of 2,000 employees over time and not what they tell you their behaviour is.

The other issue here is the idea that research is there to ‘prove’ things. It isn’t. It is trying to get to as close to the truth about a particular topic as possible, but that is very different to ‘proving something to be true’. To say something has been ‘proved’ means that there is no doubt left, that this is the truth.

Science doesn’t work like that [i] . Life is complex. There are rarely simple causes of things and finding real causal relationships is notoriously hard. For example, ‘smoking causes lung cancer’. Firstly, not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer. There are other factors which, when combined with smoking, make the chances of developing cancer more or less likely, like excessive drinking, exercise, living in a polluted environment, having a diet of fast food and fizzy drinks etc. Some people have a greater genetic susceptibility to the carcinogens contained in smoke than others. Even then, all the smoke does is to help to create the conditions within the lungs that start changes in the person’s physiology that can then result in cancer. Additionally, there are many types of cancer.

The best we can say is that smoking significantly increases the chance of developing cancer compared to people who don’t smoke. But it’s complex and we don’t have all the answers.

There are rarely simple causes to things – life is complex

On an organisational note, saying something like ‘it has been proved that transformational leadership is better than transactional leadership’ has the same problem. There are so many variables involved that it is impossible to ‘prove’. For example, a poor transformational leader could be worse than a good transactional leader, or transformational leadership may not work in certain situations or with certain people (which appears to be the case). Notice I say, ‘appears to be the case’, not ‘has been proved’. There is always an element of doubt and, as research progresses and gets better, we start to see flaws in our research.

The problem with life, organisations, people etc. is that the number of variables or factors involved in the relationship between most things is so complex it is really hard to unravel.

Does that mean science is useless if it doesn’t prove things? No, not at all. Think about all the life-saving drugs that have been developed, for example. Does it mean the drugs work all the time and in every case? No, because there are so many variables, which is why most medicines come with a leaflet to tell you to stop taking them if you get certain reactions.

So, what researchers do when they are testing something is, firstly, they try to work out what factors may be involved (usually from previous research) and then they don’t test it. They form a hypothesis, something like we think that x is related to y in z direction or way. For example, higher levels of work engagement result in higher levels of productivity. That’s the hypothesis. However, the researcher will turn that statement around and test the null hypothesis. So, for example something like engagement (however that is measured) doesn’t result in higher productivity (however that is measured). If we then find that the null hypothesis can’t be accepted, we  accept  the hypothesis.

The reason for this is that it prevents things like confirmation bias, where people start looking for the answer they want / expect. This way, researchers are trying to break their hypothesis. If they can’t break it then the hypothesis is accepted. And this is important. It is only accepted – for now. It is always possible (and this happens all the time) that someone else comes along and either finds a flaw in your findings or research method or discovers a relationship or intervening factor you hadn’t. Science and research is dynamic and constantly changing. 

The problem is that just looking at findings doesn’t tell you how good or what quality a study is. For example, there is a big difference between someone publishing a single case study based on one particular situation, say a factory or one office or even one person, and a study taking in 1,000s of people across the world and using robust and valid research and analysis methods. 

99% of everything you are trying to do...

...has already been done by someone else, somewhere - and meticulously researched.

Get the latest research briefings, infographics and more from The Oxford Review - Free.

Success! Now check your email to confirm your subscription.

There was an error submitting your subscription. Please try again.

In evidence-based practice circles, the accuracy and reliability of the research (research quality) is an important factor when deciding to include a study in the evidence-base for a decision, especially clinical or engineering decisions where people’s lives are on the line.

One way that evidence-based practitioners judge the quality of research is to use the GRADE system or framework [i] . GRADE stands for Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, and is used extensively in medical scenarios. 

GRADE is now being used in engineering, organisational evidence-based practice to judge the research and is the basis of many systematic reviews. 

When choosing studies to include in a decision GRADE has four levels of evidence, or four levels of certainty, in the quality of the evidence/study:

• Very low – The real effect is probably very different from the reported findings.
• Low – The true effect is quite likely to be different from the findings of this study.
• Moderate – The true effect is probably close to the findings of this study.
• High – A high level of confidence that, the findings represent the true effect / represents reality.

There are five overall factors which are used to help a practitioner work out what the level of evidence a particular study is using :

• Publication bias    All of these potential biases downgrade the research quality of the study.

Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias 

The Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias usually uses a 3-point grading system for judging bias and is an important factor in working the quality of  research :

• Low risk of bias
• High risk of bias
• Unclear risk of bias

In 2005 The Cochrane Institute in Oxford produced a tool that has become the standard bias risk assessment tool – The Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias – and looks specifically at a range of different biases that can affect a study’s findings. The tool looks for whether the study being looked at:

• Uses quality scales. Quality scales are often inherently biased and based on opinions.
• Looks at the internal validity of the study. What this means is that the researchers extensively look for and report any potential biases the method or study might have. In other words, are the methods used in the study likely to lead to bias or less so?
• Has actively looked for sources of bias or influence in their results. Double blind trials, where neither the participants (subjects) nor the researchers know which subject is getting which treatment or is in which group are considered to be at the least risk of bias.
• That the assessor / evaluator understands the methods used and can make a good judgement about the methods used.
• Is there a risk of bias in the way the data is being presented or represented?
• Does the use or group to which you are putting the study introduce a risk of bias not associated to the study?

How precise are the data and methods used for the study? 

Does the study show inconsistences openly or do they try to mask them? Are there inherent inconsistencies that haven’t been reported?

How close is the situation / population of the study being looked at to the one it is being applied to? Is this study talking directly into and about the organisation or population of the study, or is this being used in a more indirect way?

• Does the publisher have a stake in the findings? For example, is this a study by a consultancy attempting to show how good its own methods are? 

All of these potential biases downgrade the quality of the research study.

When assessing a study, we are looking for good research that is applicable to the situation to which the findings are being put. It needs to be valid (the methods used actually give good data and is measuring what we think it is measuring) and reliable (you keep getting the same results). Being able to spot bias in all its forms in research studies is essential if you are using research to inform organisational decisions.

Our research briefings, research quality and the review panel

At the end of all of all of our research briefings we have an assessment/review of the study being reported. We use the following simplified panel to grade the quality of the study under consideration:

• Research Quality – 3/5 A good literature review and overview of the subject. Based on a meta-analysis, rather than primary research.
• Confidence – 4/5 Consistent with the current research thinking and developments.
• Usefulness – 4/5 Particularly useful to HR practitioners.
• Comments – The current focus on differentiated HR architecture (structures and systems) to support talent management is showing a lot of promise in improving organisational performance generally. 

And we always fully cite which studies we have used, so that you can check it and do further reading

[i] Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2008;336(7651):995-8. [i]  

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2008;336(7650):924-6.

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(4):383-94.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(4):395-400.

Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(4):401-6.

Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008). What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?.  Bmj ,  336 (7651), 995-998.

BMJ Best practice series: What is GRADE? Accessed at:  https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/toolkit/learn-ebm/what-is-grade/  on 3 rd  November 2019

Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., … & Jaeschke, R. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.  Journal of clinical epidemiology ,  64 (4), 383-394.

Be impressively well informed

Get the very latest research intelligence briefings, video research briefings, infographics and more sent direct to you as they are published

Be the most impressively well-informed and up-to-date person around...

Success! Now check your email to confirm that we got your email right. If you don't get an email in the next 4-5 minutes something went wrong: 1. Check your junk folder just in case 🙁 2. If it's not there either, you may have accidentally mistyped your email address (it happens). Have another go. Many thanks

Related Posts

Research Review of The Balanced Scorecard

Podcast: What are the workplace issues of neurodiversity?

Which factors motivate salespeople the most?

Fear of Failure and Self-sabotage, Self-handicapping and Self-deception

Nudge behaviour change – Is it real?

Change Myths: Separating Sense from Nonsense

How Aversive Leadership Impacts Employee Proactivity and Moral Disengagement

Podcast: What is Neurodiversity?

David Wilkinson

David Wilkinson is the Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford Review. He is also acknowledged to be one of the world's leading experts in dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty and developing emotional resilience. David teaches and conducts research at a number of universities including the University of Oxford, Medical Sciences Division, Cardiff University, Oxford Brookes University School of Business and many more. He has worked with many organisations as a consultant and executive coach including Schroders, where he coaches and runs their leadership and management programmes, Royal Mail, Aimia, Hyundai, The RAF, The Pentagon, the governments of the UK, US, Saudi, Oman and the Yemen for example. In 2010 he developed the world's first and only model and programme for developing emotional resilience across entire populations and organisations which has since become known as the Fear to Flow model which is the subject of his next book. In 2012 he drove a 1973 VW across six countries in Southern Africa whilst collecting money for charity and conducting on the ground charity work including developing emotional literature in children and orphans in Africa and a number of other activities. He is the author of The Ambiguity Advanatage: What great leaders are great at, published by Palgrave Macmillian. See more: About: About David Wikipedia: David's Wikipedia Page

• Previous post

Session expired

Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.

• Editorial Notes
• Open access
• Published: 07 January 2020

What is useful research? The good, the bad, and the stable

• David M. Ozonoff 1 &
• Philippe Grandjean 2 , 3  

Environmental Health volume  19 , Article number:  2 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

A scientific journal like Environmental Health strives to publish research that is useful within the field covered by the journal’s scope, in this case, public health. Useful research is more likely to make a difference. However, in many, if not most cases, the usefulness of an article can be difficult to ascertain until after its publication. Although replication is often thought of as a requirement for research to be considered valid, this criterion is retrospective and has resulted in a tendency toward inertia in environmental health research. An alternative viewpoint is that useful work is “stable”, i.e., not likely to be soon contradicted. We present this alternative view, which still relies on science being consensual, although pointing out that it is not the same as replicability, while not in contradiction. We believe that viewing potential usefulness of research reports through the lens of stability is a valuable perspective.

Good science as a purpose

Any scientific journal wishes to add to the general store of knowledge. For Environmental Health, an additional important goal is also to publish research that is useful for public health. While maximizing scientific validity is an irreducible minimum for any research journal, it does not guarantee that the outcome of a “good” article is useful. Most writing on this subject concerns efficiencies and criteria for generating new and useful research results while avoiding “research waste” [ 1 ]. In this regard, the role of journals is hard to define. Indeed, a usefulness objective depends upon what happens after publication, thus to some extent being out of our control. That said, because of the importance of this issue the Editors have set out to clarify our thinking about what makes published research useful.

First the obvious: properly conducted scientific research may not be useful, or worse, may potentially mislead, confuse or be erroneously interpreted. Journal editors and reviewers can mitigate such regrettable outcomes by being attentive to faulty over- or under-interpretation of properly generated data, and vice versa, ensuring that unrealistic standards don’t prevent publication of a “good” manuscript. In regard to the latter, we believe our journal should not shy away from alternative or novel interpretations that may be counter to established paradigms and have consciously adopted a precautionary orientation [ 2 ]: We believe that it is reasonable to feature risks that may seem remote at the moment because the history of environmental and occupational health is replete with instances of red flags ignored, resulting in horrific later harms that could no longer be mitigated [ 3 , 4 ].

Nonetheless, it has happened that researchers publishing results at odds with vested interests have become targets of unreasonable criticism and intimidation whose aim is to suppress or throw suspicion on unwelcome research information, as in the case of lead [ 3 , 5 ] and many other environmental chemicals [ 6 ]. An alternative counter strategy is generating new results favorable to a preferred view [ 7 , 8 ], with the objective of casting doubt on the uncomfortable research results. Indeed, one trade association involved in supporting such science once described its activities with the slogan, “Doubt is our product” [ 9 ]. Thus, for better or for worse, many people do not separate science, whether good or bad, from its implications [ 10 ].

Further, even without nefarious reasons, it is not uncommon for newly published research to be contradicted by additional results from other scientists. Not surprisingly, the public has become all too aware of findings whose apparent import is later found to be negligible, wrong, or cast into serious doubt, legitimately or otherwise [ 11 ]. This has been damaging to the discipline and its reputation [ 12 ].

Replication as a criterion

A principal reaction to this dilemma has been to demand that results be “replicated” before being put to use. As a result, both funding agencies [ 13 ] and journals [ 14 ] have announced their intention of emphasizing the reproducibility of research, thereby also facilitating replication [ 15 ]. On its face this sounds reasonable, but usual experimental or observational protocols are already based on internal replication. If some form of replication of a study is desired, attempts to duplicate an experimental set-up can easily produce non-identical measurements on repeated samples, and seemingly similar people in a population may yield somewhat different observations. Given an expected variability within and between studies, we need to define more precisely what is to be replicated and how it is to be judged.

That said, in most instances, it seems that what we are really asking for is interpretive replication (i.e., do we think two or more studies mean the same thing), not observational or measurement replication. Uninterpreted evidence is just raw data. The main product of scientific journals like Environmental Health is interpreted evidence. It is interpreted evidence that is actionable and likely to affect practice and policy.

Research stability

This brings us back to the question of what kind of evidence and its accompanying interpretation is likely to be of use? The philosopher Alex Broadbent distinguishes between how results get used and the decision about which results are likely to be used [ 16 ]. Discussions of research translation tend to focus on the former question, while the latter is rarely discussed. Broadbent introduces a new concept into the conversation, the stability of the research results.

He begins by identifying which results are not likely to be used. Broadbent observes that if a practitioner or policy-maker thinks a result might soon be overturned she is unlikely to use it. Since continual revision is a hallmark of science, this presents a dilemma. All results are open to revision as science progresses, so what users and policy makers really want are stable results, ones whose meaning is unlikely to change in ways that make a potential practice or policy quickly obsolete or wrong. What are the features of a stable result?

This is a trickier problem than it first appears. As Broadbent observes it does not seem sufficient to say that a stable a result is one that is not contradicted by subsequent work, an idea closely related to replication. Failure to contradict, like lack of replication, may have many reasons, including lack of interest, lack of funding, active suppression of research in a subject, or external events like social conflict or recession. Moreover, there are many examples of clinical practice, broadly accepted as stable in the non-contradiction sense, that have not been tested for one reason or another. Contrariwise, contradictory results may also be specious or fraudulent, e.g., due to attempts to make an unwelcome result appear unstable and hence unusable [ 6 , 9 ]. In sum, lack of contradiction doesn’t automatically make a result stable, nor does its presence annul the result.

One might plausibly think that the apparent truth of a scientific result would be sufficient to make a result stable. This is also in accordance with Naomi Oreskes’ emphasis of scientific knowledge being fundamentally consensual [ 10 ] and relies on the findings being generalizable [ 15 ]. Our journal, like most, employs conventional techniques like pre-publication peer review and editorial judgment, to maximize scientific validity of published articles; and we require Conflict of Interest declarations to maximize scientific integrity [ 6 , 17 ]. Still, a result may be true but not useful, and science that isn’t true may be very useful. Broadbent’s example of the latter is the most spectacular. Newtonian physics continues to be a paragon of usefulness despite the fact that in the age of Relativity Theory we know it to be false. Examples are also prevalent in environmental health. When John Snow identified contaminated water as a source of epidemic cholera in the mid-nineteenth Century he believed a toxin was the cause, as the germ theory of disease had not yet found purchase. This lack of understanding did not stop practitioners from advocating limiting exposure to sewage-contaminated water. Nonetheless, demands for modes of action or adverse outcome pathways are often used to block the use of new evidence on environmental hazards [ 18 ].

Criteria for stability

Broadbent’s suggestion is that a result likely to be seen as stable by practitioners and policy makers is one that (a) is not contradicted by good scientific evidence; and (b) would not likely be soon contradicted by further good research [ 16 ] (p. 63).

The first requirement, (a), simply says that any research that produces contradictory evidence be methodologically sound and free from bias, i.e., “good scientific evidence.” What constitutes “good” scientific evidence is a well discussed topic, of course, and not a novel requirement [ 1 ], but the stability frame puts existing quality criteria, in a different, perhaps more organized, structure, situating the evidence and its interpretation in relation to stability as a criterion for usefulness.

More novel is requirement (b), the belief that if further research were done it would not likely result in a contradiction. The if clause focuses our attention on examining instances where the indicated research has not yet been done. The criterion is therefore prospective, where the replication demand can only be used in retrospect.

This criterion could usefully be applied to inconclusive or underpowered studies that are often incorrectly labeled “negative” and interpreted to indicate “no risk” [ 18 ]. A U.S. National Research Council committee called attention to the erroneous inference that chemicals are regarded inert or safe, unless proven otherwise [ 19 ]. This “untested-chemical assumption” has resulted in exposure limits for only a small proportion of environmental chemicals, limits often later found to be much too high to adequately protect against adverse health effects [ 20 , 21 ]. For example, some current limits for perfluorinated compounds in drinking water do not protect against the immunotoxic effects in children and may be up to 100-fold too high [ 22 ].

Inertia as a consequence

Journals play an unfortunate part in the dearth of critical information on emerging contaminants, as published articles primarily address chemicals that have already been well studied [ 23 ]. This means that environmental health research suffers from an impoverishing inertia, which may in part be due to desired replications that may be superfluous or worse. The bottom line is that longstanding acceptance in the face of longstanding failure to test a proposition should not be used as a criterion of stability or of usefulness, although this is routinely done.

If non-contradiction, replication or truth are not reliable hallmarks of a potentially useful research result, then what is? Broadbent makes the tentative proposal that a stable interpretation is one which has a satisfactory answer to the question, “Why this interpretation rather than another?” Said another way, are there more likely, almost or equally as likely, or other possible explanations (including methodological error in the work in question)? Sometimes the answer is patently obvious. Such an evaluation is superfluous in instances where the outcomes have such forceful explanations that this exercise would be a waste of time, for example a construction worker falling from the staging. We only need one instance and (hopefully no repetitions) to make the case.

Consensus and stability

Having made the argument for perspicuous interpretation, we must also issue a note of caution. It is quite common to err in the other direction by downplaying conclusions and implications. Researchers frequently choose to hedge their conclusions by repeated use of words such as ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’, ‘in theory’ and similar terms [ 24 ]. Indeed, we might call the hedge the official flower of epidemiology. To a policy maker, journalist or member of the public not familiar with the traditions of scientific writing, the caveats and reservations may sound like the new results are irredeemably tentative, leaving us with no justification for any intervention. To those with a vested interest, the soft wording can be exploited through selective quotation and by emphasizing real or alleged weaknesses [ 25 ]. This tendency goes beyond one’s own writings and affects peer review and evaluations of manuscripts and applications. Although skepticism is in the nature of science, a malignant form is the one that is veiled and expressed in terms of need for further replication or emphasizing limitations of otherwise stable observations [ 9 ]. By softening the conclusions and avoiding attribution of specific causality and the possible policy implications, researchers protect themselves against critique by appearing well-balanced, unassuming, or even skeptical toward one’s own findings. In seeking consensus, researchers often moderate or underestimate their findings, a tendency that is not in accordance with public health interests.

These are difficult issues, requiring a balancing act. The Editors continue to ponder the question how to inspire, improve and support the best research and its translation. We believe Broadbent’s stability idea is worth considering as an alternative perspective to the replication and research translation paradigms prevalent in discussions of this topic. We also believe in Oreskes’ vision of consensus, though not to a degree that will preclude new interpretations. Meanwhile, we will endeavor to keep the Journal’s standards high while encouraging work that will make a difference.

Availability of data and materials

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.

Article   Google Scholar  

Grandjean P. Science for precautionary decision-making. In: Gee D, Grandjean P, Hansen SF, van den Hove S, MacGarvin M, Martin J, Nielsen G, Quist D, Stanners D, editors. Late Lessons from Early Warnings, vol. II. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency; 2013. p. 517–35.

Google Scholar  

Markowitz GE, Rosner D. Deceit and denial : the deadly politics of industrial pollution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2002.

European Environment Agency. Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000. Environmental issue report No 22. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency; 2001.

Needleman HL. The removal of lead from gasoline: historical and personal reflections. Environ Res. 2000;84(1):20–35.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Krimsky S. Science in the private interest. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2003.

Boden LI, Ozonoff D. Litigation-generated science: why should we care? Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116(1):117–22.

Fabbri A, Lai A, Grundy Q, Bero LA. The influence of industry sponsorship on the research agenda: a scoping review. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(11):e9–e16.

Michaels D. Doubt is their product: how industry's assault on science threatens your health. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.

Oreskes N. Why trust science? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2019.

Book   Google Scholar  

Nichols TM. The death of expertise : the campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2017.

Ioannidis JPA. All science should inform policy and regulation. PLoS Med. 2018;15(5):e1002576.

Collins FS, Tabak LA. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014;505(7485):612–3.

Journals unite for reproducibility. Nature. 2014;515(7525):7.

National Research Council. Reproducibility and replicability in science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2019.

Broadbent A. Is stability a stable category in medical epistemology? Angewandte Philosophie. 2015;2(1):24–37.

Soskolne CL, Advani S, Sass J, Bero LA, Ruff K. Response to Acquavella J, conflict of interest: a hazard for epidemiology. Ann Epidemiol. 2019;36:62–3.

Grandjean P. Seven deadly sins of environmental epidemiology and the virtues of precaution. Epidemiology. 2008;19(1):158–62.

National Research Council. Science and decisions: advancing risk assessment. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 2009.

Goldsmith JR. Perspectives on what we formerly called threshold limit values. Am J Ind Med. 1991;19(6):805–12.

Schenk L, Hansson SO, Ruden C, Gilek M. Occupational exposure limits: a comparative study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2008;50(2):261–70.

Grandjean P, Budtz-Jorgensen E. Immunotoxicity of perfluorinated alkylates: calculation of benchmark doses based on serum concentrations in children. Environ Health. 2013;12:35.

Grandjean P, Eriksen ML, Ellegaard O, Wallin JA. The Matthew effect in environmental science publication: a bibliometric analysis of chemical substances in journal articles. Environ Health. 2011;10:96.

Hyland K. Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins: Amsterdam; 1998.

Grandjean P. Late insights into early origins of disease. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2008;102(2):94–9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Author information, authors and affiliations.

Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

David M. Ozonoff

Department of Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Philippe Grandjean

Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DMO and PG jointly drafted the Editorial and read and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Grandjean .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

DMO and PG are editors-in-chief of this journal but have no other interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ozonoff, D.M., Grandjean, P. What is useful research? The good, the bad, and the stable. Environ Health 19 , 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-019-0556-5

Download citation

Published : 07 January 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-019-0556-5

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

• Generalizability
• Replication
• Reproducibility
• Scientific journals

Environmental Health

ISSN: 1476-069X

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Skip to content

Five reasons why research could be right for you

Ruairi Kavanagh &

Claire Farrugia

9 Oct 2023, 09:49

The supports available from the Irish Research Council mean that a career in research is rewarding, stimulating and engaging. Many highly qualified researchers apply each year, which means that the application and selection process is highly competitive, but why couldn’t you be one of them? Here are some of the reasons why people choose a career in research.

A career in research broadens your mind

The research community is collaborative by nature, and by meeting and communicating with other researchers, you can gain a better understanding of the holistic benefits of research. In one sense, doing research expands your vision as well as your content-based knowledge. You are constantly confronted with problems and hypotheses that challenge you to question your assumptions and to produce new outputs. At the same time, the collaborative nature of research broadens your mind by connecting you to like-minded people who contribute to the growth of your specific research in unforeseen ways. In this sense, the benefits of a career in research have a holistic element, involving adaptation, curiosity and teamwork skills. You will also gain an understanding of how research in particular areas can change and adapt, helping you to make sure your own research remains current and viable.

A career in research is challenging

The scope of recent Irish research breakthroughs reveals both the brilliance of researchers and the complexity of natural and human sciences, which do not give up their secrets easily. To become a good researcher, you need strong attention to detail, excellent complex problem-solving skills, resourcefulness and tenacity to validate your work. This is why the Irish Research Council funds projects based on the quality of the proposal and how it will contribute to knowledge.

A career in research can make a difference

The results of your research could have benefits across many areas of society, from addressing social, cultural and health issues to scientific and technological breakthroughs that could have benefits internationally.

A career in research can be fun

The work is hard and the standards are rigorous, but most researchers agree that their work is rewarding so you will enjoy what you do, and hopefully you will even find a way to express that through your work. Research allows you to try out new ideas, experiment with cutting-edge technology, meet interesting people and take part in engaging discussions.

A career in research is diverse

It includes natural and life sciences, engineering, as well as fields such as Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences. Research may range from statistical analysis to demographic investigations, such as the impact of technology on social inclusion or exclusions. Or, it may involve fine-grained analyses of philosophical or historical relevance. Yet other research projects may question how language and communication develop and influence our lives. Common to all fields, however, is the interdisciplinary character of research projects, which fosters collaborations across different disciplines. A career in research is valued: Being able to say you’re a researcher is rewarding in its own regard, particularly if you’re doing the right work to back it up. Being part of a broad network of people working towards better understanding and enhancing people’s lives is something to be proud of. Read about how you can apply for funding from the Irish Research Council or for a place on one of their postgraduate programmes and much more at www.research.ie .

Achievements in Irish Research

Each year the Irish Research Council recognises excellence in Irish research, and some of the notable achievements for 2022 included:

• Modern European history expert and professor of modern history, Professor Robert Gerwarth, who won the Irish Research Council Researcher of the Year Award 2022. He is an expert on 20th century European history with an emphasis on the history of political violence and armed conflict. He has published widely in the field. One of the main objectives of his work is to connect different national experiences in European countries. In light of the current geopolitical climate, his expertise in ‘war studies’ is crucial.
• Professor Judith Harford was awarded the Researcher of the Year: Impact Award. Her research focuses on gender and social class in relation to education. Her work has helped expose inequalities and raise awareness of gender and social class issues at a national level. Judith has served on several working group and committees of the Department of Education and the Teaching Council of Ireland. Her projects include a study into the under-representation of women in senior positions in higher education which led to a symposium on gender equality in higher education.

Aoife Doyle talks about her experience working with the Irish Research Council

Aoife Doyle, Employment-Based Postgraduate Programme, Irish Research Council

gradireland editorial advice

This describes editorially independent and impartial content, which has been written and edited by the gradireland content team. Any external contributors featuring in the article are in line with our non-advertorial policy, by which we mean that we do not promote one organisation over another.

People reading this also searched for roles in these areas:

• Graduate Jobs
• Graduate Schemes
• Internships

Related careers advice

Getting your research career started with the Irish Research Council

#GradStories Naoimh O'Connor, Research Careers Manager, UCD

• Accounting & finance +5

How enterprise research programmes work with the Irish Research Council

We've got you

• Assistant Professor / Lecturer
• PhD Candidate
• Senior Researcher / Group Leader
• Researcher / Analyst
• Research Assistant / Technician
• Administration
• Executive / Senior Industry Position
• Mid-Level Industry Position
• Junior Industry Position
• Graduate / Traineeship
• Remote/Hybrid Jobs
• Summer / Winter Schools
• Online Courses
• Professional Training
• Supplementary Courses
• All Courses
• PhD Programs
• Master's Programs
• MBA Programs
• Bachelor's Programs
• Online Programs
• All Programs
• Fellowships
• Postgraduate Scholarships
• Undergraduate Scholarships
• Prizes & Contests
• Financial Aid
• Research/Project Funding
• Other Funding
• All Scholarships
• Conferences
• Exhibitions / Fairs
• Online/Hybrid Conferences
• All Conferences
• Career Advice
• Study Advice
• Work Abroad
• Study Abroad
• Campus Reviews
• Recruiter Advice
• Teaching Advice Articles
• INOMICS Educator Resources
• INOMICS Academy
• INOMICS Study Guides
• Economics Terms A-Z
• University / College
• Graduate / Business School
• Research Institute
• Bank / Central Bank
• Private Company / Industry
• Consulting / Legal Firm
• Association / NGO
• All EconDirectory
• 📖 INOMICS Handbook

All Categories

All disciplines.

• Scholarships
• All Economics Terms A-Z
• EconDirectory
• All 📖 INOMICS Handbook

Weighing Up the Options

The pros and cons of a career in research.

Read a summary or generate practice questions using the INOMICS AI tool

Soon after the completion of a Master's degree or PhD , everybody is faced with the big question: what next? Although it may seem like a natural progression to continue with further research, there are many other careers open to academics in business, education, communications and journalism, to name but a few examples.

So how do you know if research is the right career choice for you? Well, like with most big decisions, a good way of figuring it out is to weigh the pros and cons of an academic career.

Travel and relocation

One big difference between a career in research and most other fields is the expectation of relocation. The first step for a Master's student or PhD who wants a career in research is to find a position at a university in a town, city or country where they are willing to relocate. It is typical for researchers to move to a new city or country every few years, particularly when pursuing postdoc positions. This is the natural consequence of there not being very many jobs to go around.

Pro: Moving around does have its advantages - it is a unique opportunity to travel to new places and experience life in different countries and cultures. One can meet new people and obtain contacts, both of which are extremely rewarding.

Furthermore, moving offers the valuable experience of working at various institutions, which can give insight into how cultures vary across universities. Being part of an institution like a university provides you a pre-existing network to explore, both professionally and socially, which can make settling down in a new region or country a whole lot easier.

Con: Arranging an international relocation is a lot of work, and it can be hard to make new friends and create a social circle in a new city. Moreover, relocating can be stressful on the mind, causing some to struggle, so having adequate support for a move is essential.

Particularly for those with families, relocation may be demanding for other reasons- your partner may also need a job in your new city and new schools need to be found for children, which can be a challenge. If your partner is also in research, some institutions offer dual career programs which help find research positions for both members of a couple.

Independence and interest

Pro: One great advantage of a career in research is how interesting the work is, and the independence one is afforded. If you are able to secure third-party funding, you can organize your own working schedule and priorities, and choose the topics of research which are of most pressing interest to you.

Within many research institutions there is also the possibility of flexible working hours, which can be especially advantageous to those with young children.

Security and career prospects

Con: One particularly difficult aspect of a research career is the lack of job security. Postdocs are typically employed on short-term contracts for two years, and at the end of this period they must find another position. For the ambitious and determined researcher, this can be an opportunity for fast career progression and the chance to work in a variety of labs.

However, this insecurity can be a source of stress for many researchers as there is no guarantee of long-term stable employment. Progressing from a postdoctoral position to a professorship can be extremely competitive, and the number of professor positions can be reduced due to budget cuts, so in tough times there will be even fewer openings available.

Overall, many more PhDs and postdocs are working than there are professorships available, so you must be extremely determined to follow this path.

Transferable skills

Pro: Although the competition for academic positions is so fierce that a career in research may seem risky, in fact the skills one acquires in the performance of research can be transferred to many other fields. Critical thinking skills are highly developed in researchers.

Besides these, researchers may acquire expertise in mathematics or statistics, in written communication, or in poster and oral presentation. All of these skills can be put to use in other jobs, so if a research position is not available, then you still have other career options open to you.

Whether a career in academia is for you or not will depend entirely on your own levels of determination and persistence, along with weighing the pros against the cons of research. In the end, only you can make the choice - but keep in mind the various advantages and disadvantages of going down this particular career path.

Currently trending in Russia

• Master's Program
• Posted 2 years ago

MSc in Quantitative Economics and Finance

• PhD Program
• Posted 4 months ago

Graduate Program in Economics and Finance (GPEF) - Fully funded Ph.D. Positions

• (Partially Online)
• Posted 1 week ago

49th EBES Conference - Athens

Related items.

MSc Economics and Finance

MSc Applied Economics

PhD in Economics - University of Torino

Featured announcements, call for papers: emanes annual conference 2024.

• scholarship

Call for Research Projects 2024 “Women and Science”

Cims online summer schools: foundations of dsge macro modelling and…, difference-in-differences and event studies for panel data and…, 36th rsep international conference on economics, finance and business, tinbergen institute summer school, upcoming deadlines.

• Jul 08, 2024 DIFFERENCE-IN-DIFFERENCES AND EVENT STUDIES FOR PANEL DATA AND REPEATED CROSS SECTIONS
• Jul 11, 2024 PhD in Methods and Models for Economic Decisions
• Jul 15, 2024 Postdoctoral Researcher in Data Science in Economics (100 %, pay grade 13 TV-L)

INOMICS AI Tools

The INOMICS AI can generate an article summary or practice questions related to the content of this article. Try it now!

An error occured

Please try again later.

3 Practical questions, generated by our AI model

For more questions on economics study topics, with practice quizzes and detailed answer explanations, check out the INOMICS Study Guides.

Login to your account

Email Address

Forgot your password? Click here.

10 Reasons Why Research is Important

No matter what career field you’re in or how high up you are, there’s always more to learn . The same applies to your personal life. No matter how many experiences you have or how diverse your social circle, there are things you don’t know. Research unlocks the unknowns, lets you explore the world from different perspectives, and fuels a deeper understanding. In some areas, research is an essential part of success. In others, it may not be absolutely necessary, but it has many benefits. Here are ten reasons why research is important:

#1. Research expands your knowledge base

The most obvious reason to do research is that you’ll learn more. There’s always more to learn about a topic, even if you are already well-versed in it. If you aren’t, research allows you to build on any personal experience you have with the subject. The process of research opens up new opportunities for learning and growth.

#2. Research gives you the latest information

Research encourages you to find the most recent information available . In certain fields, especially scientific ones, there’s always new information and discoveries being made. Staying updated prevents you from falling behind and giving info that’s inaccurate or doesn’t paint the whole picture. With the latest info, you’ll be better equipped to talk about a subject and build on ideas.

#3. Research helps you know what you’re up against

In business, you’ll have competition. Researching your competitors and what they’re up to helps you formulate your plans and strategies. You can figure out what sets you apart. In other types of research, like medicine, your research might identify diseases, classify symptoms, and come up with ways to tackle them. Even if your “enemy” isn’t an actual person or competitor, there’s always some kind of antagonist force or problem that research can help you deal with.

#4. Research builds your credibility

People will take what you have to say more seriously when they can tell you’re informed. Doing research gives you a solid foundation on which you can build your ideas and opinions. You can speak with confidence about what you know is accurate. When you’ve done the research, it’s much harder for someone to poke holes in what you’re saying. Your research should be focused on the best sources. If your “research” consists of opinions from non-experts, you won’t be very credible. When your research is good, though, people are more likely to pay attention.

#5. Research helps you narrow your scope

When you’re circling a topic for the first time, you might not be exactly sure where to start. Most of the time, the amount of work ahead of you is overwhelming. Whether you’re writing a paper or formulating a business plan, it’s important to narrow the scope at some point. Research helps you identify the most unique and/or important themes. You can choose the themes that fit best with the project and its goals.

#6. Research teaches you better discernment

Doing a lot of research helps you sift through low-quality and high-quality information. The more research you do on a topic, the better you’ll get at discerning what’s accurate and what’s not. You’ll also get better at discerning the gray areas where information may be technically correct but used to draw questionable conclusions.

#7. Research introduces you to new ideas

You may already have opinions and ideas about a topic when you start researching. The more you research, the more viewpoints you’ll come across. This encourages you to entertain new ideas and perhaps take a closer look at yours. You might change your mind about something or, at least, figure out how to position your ideas as the best ones.

#8. Research helps with problem-solving

Whether it’s a personal or professional problem, it helps to look outside yourself for help. Depending on what the issue is, your research can focus on what others have done before. You might just need more information, so you can make an informed plan of attack and an informed decision. When you know you’ve collected good information, you’ll feel much more confident in your solution.

#9. Research helps you reach people

Research is used to help raise awareness of issues like climate change , racial discrimination, gender inequality , and more. Without hard facts, it’s very difficult to prove that climate change is getting worse or that gender inequality isn’t progressing as quickly as it should. The public needs to know what the facts are, so they have a clear idea of what “getting worse” or “not progressing” actually means. Research also entails going beyond the raw data and sharing real-life stories that have a more personal impact on people.

#10. Research encourages curiosity

Having curiosity and a love of learning take you far in life. Research opens you up to different opinions and new ideas. It also builds discerning and analytical skills. The research process rewards curiosity. When you’re committed to learning, you’re always in a place of growth. Curiosity is also good for your health. Studies show curiosity is associated with higher levels of positivity, better satisfaction with life, and lower anxiety.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty. "10 Reasons Why Research is Important." The Important Site, 2020-04-18, available at: https://theimportantsite.com/10-reasons-why-research-is-important/ .

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Arab J Urol
• v.12(1); 2014 Mar

Why should I do research? Is it a waste of time?

Athanasios dellis.

a 2nd Department of Surgery, Aretaieion Hospital, University of Athens, Greece

Andreas Skolarikos

b 2nd Department of Urology, Sismanogleion Hospital, University of Athens, Greece

Athanasios G. Papatsoris

• • In medicine, research is the search for scientific knowledge, which is crucial for the development of novel medications and techniques.
• • Conducting research provides a deeper understanding of several scientific topics of the specialty of each doctor.
• • Research through RCTs represents the principal methodological approach.
• • There are two main research processes; qualitative and quantitative studies.
• • It is important to develop Research Units in hospitals and medical centres.
• • Ethics and the high quality of research are ensured by committees (i.e., Internal Board Review, Ethics Research Committee).
• • Research sessions could be implemented in the job plans of doctors.
• • Research is not a waste of time, but a scientific investment.

To answer the questions ‘Why should I do research? Is it a waste of time?’ and present relevant issues.

Medline was used to identify relevant articles published from 2000 to 2013, using the following keywords ‘medicine’, ‘research’, ‘purpose’, ‘study’, ‘trial’, ‘urology’.

Research is the most important activity to achieve scientific progress. Although it is an easy process on a theoretical basis, practically it is a laborious process, and full commitment and dedication are of paramount importance. Currently, given that the financial crisis has a key influence in daily practice, the need to stress the real purpose of research is crucial.

Research is necessary and not a waste of time. Efforts to improving medical knowledge should be continuous.

What is research?

Research is a general term that covers all processes aiming to find responses to worthwhile scientific questions by means of a systematic and scientific approach. In fact, research is the search for scientific knowledge, a systematically formal process to increase the fund of knowledge and use it properly for the development of novel applications.

There are several types of research, such as basic science laboratory research, translational research, and clinical and population-based research. Medical research through randomised clinical trials (RCTs) represents the principal methodological approach for the structured assessment of medical outcomes. RCTs provide prospective and investigator-controlled studies, representing the highest level of evidence (LoE) and grade of recommendation, and define the ultimate practice guideline [1] . However, many constraints, such as ethical, economic and/or social issues, render the conduct of RCTs difficult and their application problematic. For instance, in one of the largest RCTs in urology, on preventing prostate cancer with finasteride, the LoE was 1 [2] . In this RCT, after 7 years of finasteride chemoprevention, the rate of cancer decreased from 24.4% to 18.4%. Based on this study, it could be postulated that finasteride chemoprevention should be offered to men in the general population in an attempt to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. However, the findings of this RCT could not be implemented universally due to financial issues [3] .

There are two main research processes, i.e., qualitative and quantitative studies. Although very different in structure and methods, these studies represent two arms of the same research body. Qualitative studies are based mainly on human experience, using notions and theoretical information without quantifying variables, while quantitative studies record information obtained from participants in a numerical form, to enable a statistical analysis of the data. Therefore, quantitative studies can be used to establish the existence of associative or causal relationships between variables.

From a practical perspective, adding a Research Unit to a Medical Department would ultimately enhance clinical practice and education. As such, almost all hospitals in Western countries have research and development (R&D) departments, where the R&D can be linked with clinical innovation. Basic areas in this field include business planning, sales policies and activities, model design, and strategic propositions and campaign development. However, if researchers are not motivated, the research could be counterproductive, and the whole process could ultimately be a waste of time and effort [4] .

The ethics and the high quality of research are ensured by committees, such as the Internal Review Board, and Ethics Research Committees, especially in academic hospitals. They consist of highly educated and dedicated scientists of good faith as well as objectivity, to be the trustees of ethical and properly designed and performed studies.

Do we need research?

Research is the fuel for future progress and it has significantly shaped perspectives in medicine. In urology there are numerous examples showing that current practice has rapidly changed as a result of several key research findings. For example, from the research of Huggins and Hodges (who won the Nobel Prize in 1966), hormone therapy has become the standard treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic prostate cancer. The use of ESWL to treat stones in the urinary tract is another example of research that has improved practice in urology. The current trend in urology to use robotic assistance in surgery is a relatively recent example of how constant research worldwide improves everyday clinical practice [5] . Furthermore, in a more sophisticated field, research is used to identify factors influencing decision-making, clarify the preferred alternatives, and encourage the selection of a preferred screening option in diseases such as prostate cancer [6,7] .

Conducting research provides a deeper understanding of several scientific topics within the specialty of each doctor. Furthermore, it helps doctors of a particular specialty to understand better the scientific work of other colleagues. Despite the different areas of interest between the different specialties, there are common research methods.

In a University, PhD and MSc students concentrate their efforts at higher research levels. Apart from having to produce a challenging and stimulating thesis, young researchers try to develop their analytical, conceptual and critical thinking skills to the highest academic level. Also, postgraduate students thus prepare themselves for a future job in the global market.

During the research process several approaches can be tested and compared for their safety and efficacy, while the results of this procedure can be recorded and statistically analysed to extract the relevant results. Similarly, any aspects of false results and side-effects, e.g., for new medications, can be detected and properly evaluated to devise every possible improvement. Hence, research components under the auspices of dedicated supervisors, assisted by devoted personnel, are of utmost importance. Also, funding is a catalyst for the optimum progress of the research programme, and it must be independent from any other financial source with a possible conflict. Unfortunately, in cases of economic crisis in a hospital, the first department that is trimmed is research.

Is research time a waste of time?

Even if the right personnel are appointed and the funding is secured, it would be a great mistake to believe that the results are guaranteed. Full commitment and dedication are of utmost importance for successful research. Also, these questions are raised in relation to the scientific papers that are accepted for publication in medical journals. About US$ 160 billion is spent every year on biomedical research [8] . Recently, in the Lancet [9] it was estimated that 85% of research is wasteful or inefficient, with deficiencies presented in the following questions: (1) is the research question relevant for clinicians or patients?; (2) are the design and methods appropriate?; (3) is the full report accessible?; (4) is it unbiased and clinically meaningful? Such questions about the importance, purpose and impact of research should surely be answered during the research. The view of the general public is that the purpose of medical research is to advance knowledge for the good of society, to invent new substances to fight disease, to create diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms, to improve public health, to prevent diseases, to improve the quality of life and to prolong overall survival.

Pharmaceutical companies that sponsor research are financially orientated. This fact leads to a sole result, i.e., profit, as a return on their investment. In this framework it would be impossible for academic institutions to operate on any other basis but finance. Economic indicators, even better benefits and the commercial potential of research are important for their survival. Nevertheless, the purpose of research is more than that. It is time to reframe the way research is done and rewarded, leaving profits in second place. We need to remind ourselves about the real purpose of scientific research. Moreover, we need to decide what research is needed and what impact it is likely to have. Researchers and those who benefit from research (i.e., patients, practising doctors) have a crucial role in the research process. Academic institutions should assess and reward researchers on a long-term basis, and help them to concentrate on meaningful research. Researchers must defend their selection of topics as being those appropriate to benefit public health.

Each medical specialty has a different working plan, and surgical specialties such as urology are characterised by a lack of time for research. It is suggested that specific sessions for research could be implemented in the job plan of urologists, and for other doctors. This is more important for the ‘academic doctor’, but even non-academic doctors could undertake research, if only of the current updated medical literature.

Last but not least is the issue of teaching research to junior doctors. This is very important, as the sooner each doctor is involved in the research process the better for his or her career. Even for junior doctors who are not interested in an academic career, understanding the research process helps them to develop their scientific skills. Young doctors should be motivated to understand and undertake research. However, it is important to guide them through the basic principles of research and to mentor them during their first scientific projects. Furthermore, specific academic training opportunities should be offered within developing programmes, such as the academic specialist registrar’s career pathways in the UK [10] .

In conclusion, research is necessary and not a waste of time. All relevant components of the research engine should co-operate to achieve scientific progress that will help patients and the general population.

Take-home messages

• • Ethics and the high quality of research are ensured by committees (i.e. Internal Board Review, Ethical Research Committee).

Conflict of interest

Source of funding.

Peer review under responsibility of Arab Association of Urology.

Meet the psychological needs of your people—all your people

As record numbers of workers quit their jobs, companies are busy trying to figure out how to make working conditions at their organization more attractive and more sustainable. Many companies boast flexible hours, good benefits, and, of course, higher pay. And some go further, looking closely at how roles in the organization can fulfill people’s psychological needs.

Business leaders recognize these emotional needs—whether it is the sense of reward workers have when they accomplish something, the frustration they feel when being micromanaged, the anger they experience after being treated unfairly, the longing they feel to be part of a group, or the desire they have for their work to be interesting and meaningful.

Yet many leaders mistakenly believe that only other professionals who have enjoyed similar success—and the financial rewards that come with it—truly value the nonfinancial aspects of their work. As we show in this article, that is simply not true.

People in lower-paying jobs also want their psychological needs at work to be satisfied. Yet data show that those needs are typically going unmet, far more often than is the case for higher earners.

Some of this may be unavoidable: for example, there is only so much autonomy one can feasibly grant a production line worker, while the job of a truck driver may be inherently lacking in social contact. However, most jobs could be enhanced to provide a much greater degree of psychological satisfaction.

In this article, we share novel data and analysis that illustrate the premium placed by all workers on psychologically satisfying work and how current work practices appear to be exacerbating existing inequalities. We also look at what business leaders can do to address the psychological needs of their lower-earning employees.

The good news is that, for the most part, companies have direct control over actions that can improve matters. Moreover, many of the practices that are needed—while requiring some time and effort—do not typically call for direct cash outlays. In fact, better satisfying workers’ psychological needs tends to correlate with higher revenues and profits.

Most people, across all income levels, believe that having an interesting job is as important as having a solid income

For thousands of years, philosophers have argued about what constitutes a “good life”—a life with more progress, pleasure, or purpose. Now, modern sciences—neuroscience, endocrinology (hormones), psychology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology, among others—have caught up. All agree: there is much more to being a human than surviving and procreating. 1 Admittedly, the underlying motivators of human behavior—needs, desires, and preferences—may be evolutionary. In other words, they may be serving the goal of survival and procreation. Nevertheless, in modern societies, these needs, desires, and preferences include a large social and psychological component—for example, the need for belonging, friendship, and love. If these needs are not met, people’s reactions can be just as visceral as if their physical safety is threatened.

In a way, Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs 2 Abraham Maslow, “A theory of human motivation,” Psychological Review , July 1943, Volume 50, Number 4. was both right and wrong at the same time. On the one hand, it recognized that people have many desires in addition to basic bodily needs such as water, food, and shelter. On the other hand, it assumed a fixed hierarchy where psychological needs—such as belonging and self-esteem—became relevant only after basic physical and safety needs were met. However, modern research has shown that these needs exist in parallel and that a person’s well-being can be enhanced—for example, by good social relationships— even if their basic physical and safety needs are not completely fulfilled. 3 Ed Diener and Louis Tay, “Needs and subjective well-being around the world,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , August 2011, Volume 101, Number 2.

It is no longer a surprise that people seek more from their employers than just a paycheck and a safe place to work. A preponderance of evidence suggests that “good work” also means satisfying employees’ psychological needs.

At all levels of income, the most important drivers of people’s job satisfaction were interpersonal relationships and having an interesting job.

• McKinsey’s recent analysis of the reasons why employees are leaving their jobs in record numbers ( the Great Attrition , or what many call the Great Resignation) showed that the most important factors were social and psychological, including not feeling valued by their organization or manager or not having a sense of belonging at work.
• A quantitative analysis of more than 16,000 workers globally in 2015 showed that at all levels of income, the most important factors determining people’s job satisfaction were interpersonal relationships and having an interesting job—each accounting for around 20 percent of the explainable variation. In contrast, the level of pay accounted for only 4 percent of the variation in people’s job satisfaction. 4 Jan-Emmanuel de Neve et al., “Work and well-being: A global perspective,” in Global Happiness Policy Report , edited by Global Council for Happiness and Wellbeing, New York, NY: Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2018.
• In a representative global survey of nearly 50,000 people across 38 countries, more than 60 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I would enjoy having a paid job even if I did not need the money.” 5 ISSP Research Group (2017), “International Social Survey Programme: Work Orientations IV - ISSP 2015,” GESIS Data Archive, Cologne, ZA6770 data file version 2.1.0, doi.org/10.4232/1.12848. Percentages calculated using relevant weighting factors and excluding answers “can’t choose” and “no answer.” Only around 40 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “A job is just a way of earning money—no more.”
• In the same survey, across all occupations and income levels, only 16 percent of respondents rated “high income” as more important than having “an interesting job.” As shown in Exhibit 1, the average importance placed on “an interesting job” was on par with or higher than “high income” in all occupational groupings, including the lowest-paid ones .

Yet companies do a better job of addressing the psychological needs of higher-earning employees than lower-earning colleagues

One of the most prominent models of human motivation, extensively applied to organizational and employment research, is the self-determination theory by psychologists Richard Ryan and Edward Deci. 6 Delia O’Hara, “The intrinsic motivation of Richard Ryan and Edward Deci,” American Psychological Association, December 18, 2017. According to this theory, as well as a large body of empirical evidence, all employees have three basic psychological needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness—and satisfying these needs promotes high-quality performance and broader well-being. 7 Edward L. Deci et al., “Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science,” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 2017, Volume 4. Additional studies, including McKinsey’s own research, have also found a link between positive outcomes  (for both employer and employee) and employee engagement, 8 Jan-Emmanuel de Neve et al., “Employee well-being, productivity, and firm performance: Evidence and case studies,” in Global Happiness Policy Report , edited by Global Council for Happiness and Wellbeing, New York, NY: Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2019. often embodied in questions about the degree to which employees consider their work to be interesting, and purposeful .

Drawing on this literature, as well as a large global data set generated by the International Social Survey Programme, 9 ISSP Research Group (2017), “International Social Survey Programme: Work Orientations IV - ISSP 2015.” we looked at how well employees’ psychological needs are satisfied in different types of occupations, ranging from managerial and professional jobs to lower-paid roles, such as those in customer service, cleaning, and waste disposal. Given the data available, we focused on five psychological needs: competence (related to the concept of mastery), autonomy (related to control and agency), relatedness (including positive relationships), meaning (proxied by how interesting individuals find their jobs), and purpose (proxied by how proud individuals are of their organizations).

The results are fascinating (Exhibit 2). First, the good news: on a net basis (deducting those who “disagree” or “strongly disagree” from those who “agree” or “strongly agree”) across all occupations, a greater proportion of workers feel that their psychological needs are satisfied. Even for those with the worst net score—plant and machine operators and assemblers who were asked about feelings of competence—around 48 percent said that they could use “almost all” or “a lot” of their past experience and skills, versus 23 percent who said that they could use “almost none” of their skills on the job. Similarly, while 23 percent of workers in elementary occupations (such as cleaners, couriers, and waiters) didn’t find their jobs to be interesting, more than half did.

In absolute terms, more global workers—whatever their role—feel more positive than negative about the degree to which their psychological needs are met.

The bad news, however, is that this is far less true for individuals employed in lower-paying, and often lower-skilled, jobs. The differences between, say, managers and people in elementary occupations are particularly large in terms of competence (the ability to use experience and skills) and meaning (how interesting the job is). In this sense, current work practices globally seem to be exacerbating inequalities rather than ameliorating them.

The data indicate that not all of this is inherent to, or directly determined by, the characteristics of each role. After all, some people in even the most manual, routine, repetitive, or poorly paid jobs still indicate that their work is meaningful, that they are proud of the organization they work for, and that their role enables them to express and satisfy their needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.

Indeed, the potential for any job to inspire is illustrated powerfully by the classic story of the three bricklayers working at St Paul’s Cathedral in London. Christopher Wren, one of the most highly acclaimed English architects in history, had been commissioned in the late 17th century to rebuild the cathedral. One day, he noticed three bricklayers on a scaffold, each of whom appeared to have very different levels of motivation and speed. He asked each of them the same question: “What are you doing?”

The first bricklayer, seemingly the least satisfied with his position, said, “I’m a bricklayer. I’m working hard laying bricks to feed my family.” The second bricklayer, slightly more engaged, replied, “I’m a builder. I’m building a wall.” The third bricklayer, who seemed to be working with the greatest amount of purpose, said, “I’m a cathedral builder. I’m building a great cathedral to The Almighty.” 10 Jim Baker, “The story of three bricklayers—a parable about the power of purpose,” Sacred Structures, April 9, 2019. In the modern workplace, great managers and leaders can elicit a sense of meaning  by emphasizing, and reflecting with employees on, the ultimate contribution that their organization is making to society.

McKinsey research suggests that society is a key source of meaning for employees, along with company, customer, team, and individual. Together, they make up a collective, integrated whole that leaders can address. If average job satisfaction is weaker for lower-earning roles despite the many lower-paid individuals who do have their psychological needs met, organizations must be overlooking opportunities to do better. Luckily, they have many ways to refocus and improve their efforts.

Addressing the psychological needs of lower earners makes good business sense—here’s what leaders can do

Any organization claiming to be a good employer would want to address the imbalances highlighted above, as much as is operationally feasible. As we have written previously , positive and negative experiences at work—beyond pay and rations—have significant spillover consequences for people’s personal lives. 11 Diego Cortez et al., “Revisiting the link between job satisfaction and life satisfaction: The role of basic psychological needs,” Frontiers in Psychology , May 9, 2017, Volume 8, Article 680. For example, one study showed that a mother’s dissatisfaction with her job can contribute to her children’s behavioral problems. 12 Julian Barling and Karyl E. MacEwen, “Effects of maternal employment experiences on children’s behavior via mood, cognitive difficulties, and parenting behavior,” Journal of Marriage and Family , August 1991, Volume 53, Number 3.

However, in addition to the moral case for equalizing the scales on psychological well-being, there is also a strong business case. A comprehensive evidence base shows that higher employee satisfaction is associated with higher profitability 13 James K. Harter et al., “Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology , April 2002, Volume 87, Number 2. and that this phenomenon is not confined to a company’s higher-earning roles. Consider the case of frontline customer service staff: one experiment showed that weekly sales for call center operators increased by 13 percent when the operators’ happiness increased by one point on a scale of one to five. 14 Clement Bellet et al., “Does employee happiness have an impact on productivity?,” Saïd Business School working paper 2019-13, October 17, 2019. Worker satisfaction and customer satisfaction tend to go hand in hand. 15 “Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes,” April 2002.

Another direct link from employee satisfaction to the business bottom line is through employee turnover. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, more people than ever are leaving their jobs voluntarily , both in the United States and in other developed economies .

And while the competition for talent is heated among professionals such as software engineers and medics, vacancy rates in many low-paying jobs are also sky-high. Across the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, unfilled roles abound in the hospitality, entertainment, and logistics sectors, among others. 16 McKinsey analysis based on data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Eurostat, and the UK Office for National Statistics, accessed on May 11, 2022. For businesses, losing personnel means costly and time-consuming recruitment and retraining , not to mention lost output and productivity.

Psychological well-being at work  is one of the most important factors in employees’ decisions to stay or to go . Regardless of income level, workers who “strongly agreed” that they were proud of the organization they worked for were significantly more likely also to say that they would turn down a job at another organization, even if it offered higher pay. Granted, people in higher-earning roles tended to be more loyal, but the difference in loyalty between staff who felt proud and staff who did not was dramatic across all income categories.

Whether motivated by equity considerations or bottom-line benefits, employers would do well to consider ways they can improve the working experience for lower earners.

To get started, leaders can think of this as a journey with six steps:

• Appreciate that the majority of people, at all levels of the organization, are looking for more than just money from their job—that they would like to have their psychological needs satisfied.
• Recognize that workers’ circumstances vary significantly in different jobs and teams and are often very different from those of leaders themselves.
• Analyze how effectively psychological needs are being met in each type of job and each part of the organization, benchmarking performance to peers and best practice.
• Identify how psychological needs can be better satisfied—typically through changes in company culture, behaviors, and day-to-day working practices.
• Act by creating initiatives, projects, and processes to help make workers feel more masterful, in jobs that are, as much as possible, more skills-based, autonomous, connected, interesting, or purposeful.
• Monitor and evaluate the results, both in terms of how satisfied employees are with their psychological needs and in terms of commercial outcomes and employee well-being.

The best suggestions for how to redesign jobs or processes, or how to make the workplace more psychologically satisfying, will almost certainly come from workers themselves. Indeed, the process of discussing issues and opportunities and listening to employees’ daily experiences is itself a core part of creating positive change. Many businesses already routinely talk to their workers about employee engagement and satisfaction.

The best suggestions for how exactly to redesign jobs or processes, or make the workplace more psychologically satisfying, will almost certainly come from staff themselves.

However, it is vitally important to base these discussions on more than workers’ fundamental needs, such as physical safety and pay. The style of conversation should focus on both what people think about work and how they feel about work. Such discussions are likely to unleash a range of responses—both positive and negative—which leaders will need to harness both respectfully and skillfully.

In addition to intensive employee engagement processes, there are a number of practical behaviors that leaders can encourage through mindsets, communication, role modeling, training, and performance-management processes. For lower-earning employees, the actions and behaviors of immediate line managers can make an enormous difference. Some of the practices that have positive returns in almost every situation include the following:

Recognize competence: Frequently review a day’s work (with no judgment or blame) and ask what you as the manager or leader can do to make the next day easier. Thank and praise people for a job (well) done. Make the most of individuals’ skills through delegation. Provide regular, strength-based feedback oriented toward problem-solving.

For example, the plant and machine operators in Exhibit 2 who said that they were able to utilize their skills may still have had production line tasks that were fairly prescribed. But their factory organized short two-way briefings at every shift change, allowing workers to help make decisions about how operations are carried out.

Grant autonomy: Focus on the end goal of what is to be achieved and why and let employees decide—or at least give them a voice in—how to get there. Give frontline workers discretion over appropriate decisions. Ask employees how they feel about work and really listen to their answers.

For example, retail assistants who are given the discretion to accept customer returns or hand out vouchers in specific situations are more likely not only to make customers happier and more confident but also to feel better themselves.

Build connections: Set up regular (for example, daily) meetings at the beginning of each day (or shift) and allow time for socializing. Create regular breaks or events that help build social connections. Act decisively to eradicate any bullying or harassment. Praise and promote compassionate leaders .

For example, one skin care company whose sales agents work exclusively from home managed to maintain high levels of staff satisfaction by orchestrating regular one-on-one catch-ups, as well as virtual group get-togethers, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed people to feel more connected to their colleagues. 17 Tera Allas et al., “Lessons on resilience for small and midsize businesses,” Harvard Business Review , June 3, 2021.

Instill meaning: Always explain the “why” behind tasks and link the reason to goals that go beyond making money (for example, being proud of the organization’s product or service). Help make work more interesting by upskilling people to be able to perform more complex or varied tasks. Simply ask people what would make their jobs more interesting.

For example, the workers in elementary occupations in Exhibit 2 who said that they still found their jobs meaningful may well have benefited from the same attitude that met President John F. Kennedy when he visited NASA in 1962. When the president came across a janitor in the hallway and asked him what his role was, the janitor replied, “I’m helping put a man on the moon.”

Discuss purpose: Set aside time for teams to reflect on the impact the company has on the world. Use one-on-one conversations to better understand workers’ individual sense of purpose  and discuss how they can act on it in their work setting.

For example, for a worker at a clothing manufacturer, a manager can make the role more fulfilling by regularly sharing positive messages, photos, or videos from smiling customers wearing the company’s garments.

This advice may sound basic. We all know how to meet the psychological needs of the people in our lives—our children, our partners, our friends. We might even compliment, thank, and empathize with strangers.

We need to take these positive behaviors and apply them in the workplace as well—not only with peers but with employees at all levels of the organization. However routine their tasks, we can stop treating workers as cogs in a machine and start treating them as the wonderful human beings they are.

The authors wish to thank Jacqueline Brassey and Marino MB for their contributions to this article.

This article was edited by Rick Tetzeli, an executive editor in the New York office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

‘Great Attrition’ or ‘Great Attraction’? The choice is yours

Help your employees find purpose—or watch them leave

Psychological safety and the critical role of leadership development

This device is too small

If you're on a Galaxy Fold, consider unfolding your phone or viewing it in full screen to best optimize your experience.

Why I Would Never (Ever) Purchase a 100-Year CD

Published on July 5, 2024

By: Dana George

• What sounds like an impressive return may not be so spectacular once you factor in inflation.
• Historically, the real money is in stock market investments.
• There are no guarantees in life, so the best we can do is weigh our options and do what seems right.

I'm not sure how I missed it, but a friend recently pointed out a story The Motley Fool Ascent ran about a bank offering a 100-year certificate of deposit (CD) with a 4.75% APY. The minimum deposit is $1,000 and the maximum is $150,000.

I realize that inflation has become a dirty word, and out-of-control inflation puts a pinch on our checking accounts . However, in the middle of all the hand-wringing, we seem to forget that inflation has always existed. Due to how the economy cycles, sometimes inflation is up, and sometimes it's down.

Our Picks for the Best High-Yield Savings Accounts of 2024

If the average rate of inflation over the next 100 years is 2.96%, my initial investment of $10,000 will have the buying power of $61,940 today, which doesn't sound bad -- until I compare it to other options.

The good old stock market

My husband and I started "adult life" early, marrying when we were teenagers, having kids, and putting each other through college. In short, there were some lean years. As a result, we didn't seriously begin investing for retirement until much later than we should have. There are two reasons this doesn't upset me as much as one might expect.

• When we got serious, we got really serious. We learned to live below our means and invest a good portion of our income.
• The stock market has been very good to us over the past 15 years. The S&P 500 has enjoyed an average annual return of 12.6%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has pegged in at 10.7% annually, and the Nasdaq Composite has added an average annual return of 16.4%.

I understand that, like inflation, the market will be up in some years and down in others, but historically, there have been far more years of growth than contraction over the past 100 years.

It's ultimately about weighing which option leaves you with the most money in your bank account . If I'm going to invest money to leave to someone in 100 years, I don't think doing it via a CD will provide them with the most bang for the buck.

Tying up money for a century gives me the willies

CD rates are up right now, and these accounts have some great features. I especially appreciate the opportunity to grow my money at a guaranteed rate for short periods of time.

However, when I think of all the great investment opportunities that are bound to pop up over the remaining years of my life, I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to have money tied up that I can't access without paying a penalty.

Just as I know that a 100-year CD is the wrong investment product for me, I'm sure it works for others. That's the great thing about investing -- we all get to choose our own adventure.

These savings accounts are FDIC insured and could earn you 11x your bank

Many people are missing out on guaranteed returns as their money languishes in a big bank savings account earning next to no interest. Our picks of the best online savings accounts could earn you 11x the national average savings account rate. Click here to uncover the best-in-class accounts that landed a spot on our short list of the best savings accounts for 2024.

Two of our top online savings account picks:

Our Research Expert

Dana is a full-time personal finance writer, with more than two decades of experience. Her focus is on helping readers feel less alone as they navigate their personal finances and offering actionable insights.

Share this page

We're firm believers in the Golden Rule, which is why editorial opinions are ours alone and have not been previously reviewed, approved, or endorsed by included advertisers. The Ascent, a Motley Fool service, does not cover all offers on the market. The Ascent has a dedicated team of editors and analysts focused on personal finance, and they follow the same set of publishing standards and editorial integrity while maintaining professional separation from the analysts and editors on other Motley Fool brands.

Related Articles

By: Cole Tretheway | Published on June 7, 2024

By: Lyle Daly | Published on June 5, 2024

By: Christy Bieber | Published on June 5, 2024

By: Lyle Daly | Published on June 4, 2024

The Ascent is a Motley Fool service that rates and reviews essential products for your everyday money matters.

Copyright © 2018 - 2024 The Ascent. All rights reserved.

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:

• Americans’ Views of Government’s Role: Persistent Divisions and Areas of Agreement

Wide majorities of Biden and Trump supporters oppose cuts to Social Security

Table of contents.

• Views on the efficiency of government
• Views on the government’s regulation of business
• Confidence in the nation’s ability to solve problems
• Views on the effect of government aid to the poor
• Views on government’s role in health care
• Views on the future of Social Security
• Trust in government
• Feelings toward the federal government
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Americans’ attitudes about U.S. government, such as its size and role.

This report is based primarily on a survey of 8,709 adults, including 7,166 registered voters, from April 8 to 14, 2024. Some of the analysis in this report is based on a survey of 8,638 adults from May 13 to 19, 2024.

Everyone who took part in these surveys is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for the report and its methodology .

While the economy, immigration and abortion have emerged as major issues in the 2024 election, Joe Biden and Donald Trump also have dramatically different ideas about the size and role of government.

These differences reflect decades-old divisions between Democrats and Republicans over the scope of government.

Among registered voters, large majorities of Biden supporters – roughly three-quarters or more – favor a bigger, more activist government.

• 74% say they would rather have a bigger government providing more services.
• 76% say government should do more to solve problems.
• 80% say government aid to the poor “does more good than harm.”

Trump supporters, by comparable margins, take the opposing view on all three questions.

The Pew Research Center survey of 8,709 adults – including 7,166 registered voters – conducted April 8-14, 2024, examines Americans’ views of the role and scope of government , the social safety net and long-term trends in trust in the federal government .

Democratic support for bigger government is little changed in the last five years but remains higher than it was a decade ago. Republicans’ views have shifted less over the last 10 years.

Among all adults, about three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents favor a bigger government, up from about six-in-ten in 2014 and 2015. The share of Republicans and Republican leaners who prefer a bigger government has increased only modestly over the same period.

Democratic support for bigger government, while slightly lower than in 2021 (78%), remains at nearly its highest level in five decades. During Bill Clinton’s presidency in the 1990s, fewer than half of Democrats said they preferred a bigger government with more services.

Voters continue to express very different views about government’s role in specific areas than about the government generally.

A large majority of voters (80%) – including 82% of Biden supporters and 78% of Trump supporters – say that in thinking about the long-term future of Social Security, benefits should not be reduced in any way.

However, Biden supporters are more likely than Trump supporters to say Social Security should cover more people with greater benefits.

• 46% of Biden supporters favor expanding Social Security coverage and benefits, compared with 28% of Trump supporters.

Most Americans (65%) continue to say the federal government has a responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage.

Democrats overwhelmingly (88%) say the federal government has this responsibility, compared with 40% of Republicans.

The share of Republicans who say the government has a responsibility to provide health coverage has increased 8 percentage points since 2021, from 32% to 40%.

There are wide income differences among Republicans in opinions about the government’s role in health care:

• 56% of Republicans with lower family incomes say the government has a responsibility to provide health coverage for all, compared with 36% of those with middle incomes and 29% of higher-income Republicans.

When asked how the government should provide health coverage, 36% of Americans say it should be provided through a single national program, while 28% say it should be through a mix of government and private programs. These views have changed little in recent years.

Democrats continue to be more likely than Republicans to favor a “single payer” government health insurance program (53% vs. 18%).

Other key findings in this report

• Americans’ trust in the federal government remains low but has modestly increased since last year. Today, 22% of American adults say they trust the government to do what is right always or most of the time, which is up from 16% in June 2023.
• While the public overall is divided over the nation’s ability to solve important problems, young adults are notably pessimistic about the country’s ability to solve problems . About half of Americans (52%) say the U.S. can’t solve many of its important problems, while 47% say it can find a way to solve problems and get what it wants. Roughly six-in-ten adults under age 30 (62%) say the nation can’t solve major problems, the highest share in any age group and 16 points higher than two years ago.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Election 2024
• Federal Government
• Government Spending & the Deficit
• Health Care
• Partisanship & Issues
• Social Security & Medicare
• Trust in Government

Third-party and independent candidates for president often fall short of early polling numbers

6 facts about presidential and vice presidential debates, biden, trump are least-liked pair of major party presidential candidates in at least 3 decades, cultural issues and the 2024 election, more than half of americans are following election news closely, and many are already worn out, most popular, report materials.

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

• 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 .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Celebrating 150 years of Harvard Summer School. Learn about our history.

Why You Should Make a Good Night’s Sleep a Priority

Poor sleep habits and sleep deprivation are serious problems for most high school and college students. This guide offers important tips on how—and why—to improve your sleep hygiene.

The time you spend in high school and college can be both fun and rewarding. At the same time, these can be some of the busiest years of your life.

Balancing all the demands on your time—a full course load, extracurricular activities, and socializing with friends—can be challenging. And if you also work or have family commitments, it can feel like there just aren’t enough hours in the day. 

With so many competing priorities, sacrificing sleep may feel like the only way to get everything done. 

Despite the sleepiness you might feel the next day, one late night probably won’t have a major impact on your well-being. But regularly short-changing yourself on quality sleep can have serious implications for school, work, and your physical and mental health.

Alternatively, prioritizing a regular sleep schedule can make these years healthier, less stressful, and more successful long-term.

The sleep you need versus the sleep you get

According to the National Sleep Foundation , high school students (ages 14-17) need about eight to 10 hours of sleep each night. For young adults (ages 18 to 25), the range is need between seven and nine hours.

How do you know how much sleep you need within this range? 

According to Dr. Edward Pace-Schott, Harvard Summer School and Harvard Medical School faculty member and sleep expert, you can answer that question simply by observing how much you sleep when you don’t need to get up.

“When you’ve been on vacation for two weeks, how are you sleeping during that second week? How long are you sleeping? If you’re sleeping eight or nine hours when you don’t have any reason to get up, then chances are you need that amount or close to that amount of sleep,” says Pace-Schott. 

Most students, however, get far less sleep than the recommended amount. 

Seventy to 96 percent of college students get less than eight hours of sleep each week night. And over half of college students sleep less than seven hours per night. The numbers are similar for high school students; 73 percent of high school students get between seven and seven and a half hours of sleep .

Of course, many students attempt to catch up on lost sleep by sleeping late on the weekends. Unfortunately, this pattern is neither healthy nor a true long-term solution to sleep deprivation. 

And what about those students who say that they function perfectly well on just a couple hours of sleep?

“There are very few individuals who are so-called short sleepers, people who really don’t need more than six hours of sleep. But, there are a lot more people who claim to be short sleepers than there are real short sleepers,” says Pace-Schott.

Consequences of sleep deprivation

The consequences of sleep deprivation are fairly well established but may still be surprising.

For example, did you know that sleep deprivation can create the same level of cognitive impairment as drinking alcohol? 

According to the CDC , staying awake for 18 hours can have the same effect as a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.05 percent. Staying awake for 24 hours can equate to a BAC of 0.10 percent (higher than the legal limit of 0.08 percent). 

And according to research by AAA , drowsy driving causes an average of 328,000 motor vehicle accidents each year in the US. Drivers who sleep less than five hours per night are more than five times as likely to have a crash as drivers who sleep for seven hours or more.  

Other signs of chronic sleep deprivation include:

• Daytime sleepiness and fatigue
• Irritability and short temper
• Mood changes
• Trouble coping with stress
• Difficulty focusing, concentrating, and remembering

Over the long term, chronic sleep deprivation can have a serious impact on your physical and mental health. Insufficient sleep has been linked, for example, to weight gain and obesity, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

The impact on your mental health can be just as serious. Harvard Medical School has conducted numerous studies, including research by Pace-Schott, demonstrating a link between sleep deprivation and mental health disorders such as anxiety and depression.

Earn college credits with a summer course at Harvard Summer School.

Importance of sleep for high school and college students

As difficult as it is to prioritize sleep, the advantages of going to bed early and getting quality sleep every night are very real.

College students who prioritize sleep are likely to see an improvement in their academic performance.

If you are well rested, you will experience less daytime sleepiness and fatigue. You may need less caffeine to stay awake during those long lectures. And you will also find you are more productive, more attentive to detail, and able to concentrate better while studying.

But the connection between sleep and academic performance goes well beyond concentration and attentiveness.

“Sleep is very important for consolidating memories. In any sort of experimental setting, study results show better performance if you learn material and then sleep on it, instead of remaining awake. So there’s lots and lots of evidence now indicating that sleep promotes memory strengthening and memory consolidation,” says Pace-Schott. 

There is also a strong connection between sleep quality and stress.

Students who prioritize sleep are better able to cope with the stress that comes with being an active student. 

“It’s a vicious circle where the more stressed you get, the less you sleep, and the less you sleep, the more stressed you get. And in the long term, that can lead to serious psychiatric problems,” says Pace-Schott.

In the worst case scenario, the combination of lack of sleep and stress can lead to mental health disorders such as depression, general anxiety disorder, and potentially even post-traumatic stress disorder.

But prioritizing sleep can create a positive feedback loop as well. 

Establishing a sleep schedule and adequate sleep duration can improve your ability to cope with stress. Being active and productive will help you get more done throughout the day, which also reduces feelings of stress.

And the less stressed you feel during the day, the better you will sleep at night. 

Tips for getting more sleep as a student

The key to getting a good night’s sleep is establishing healthy sleep habits, also known as sleep hygiene.

The first step is deciding to make sleep a priority. 

Staying ahead of coursework and avoiding distractions and procrastination while you study is key to avoiding the need for late night study sessions. And prioritizing sleep may mean leaving a party early or choosing your social engagements carefully. 

Yet the reward—feeling awake and alert the next morning—will reinforce that positive choice. 

The next step is establishing healthy bedtime and daytime patterns to promote good quality sleep.

Pace-Schott offers the following tips on steps you can take to create healthy sleep hygiene:

• Limit caffeine in close proximity to bed time. College students should also avoid alcohol intake, which disrupts quality sleep.
• Avoid electronic screens (phone, laptop, tablet, desktop) within an hour of bedtime. 
• Engage in daily physical exercise, but avoid intense exercise within two hours of bedtime.
• Establish a sleep schedule. Be as consistent as possible in your bedtime and rise time, and get exposure to morning sunlight.
• Establish a “wind-down” routine prior to bedtime.
• Limit use of bed for daily activities other than sleep (e.g., TV, work, eating)

Of course, college students living in dorms or other communal settings may find their sleep disturbed by circumstances beyond their control: a poor-quality mattress, inability to control the temperature of your bedroom, or noisy roommates, for example. 

But taking these active steps to promote healthy sleep will, barring these other uncontrollable circumstances, help you fall asleep faster, stay asleep, and get a more restorative sleep.

And for students who are still not convinced of the importance of sleep, Pace-Schott says that personal observation is the best way to see the impact of healthy sleep habits. 

“Keep a sleep diary for a week. Pay attention to your sleep in a structured way. And be sure to record how you felt during the day. This can really help you make the link between how you slept the night before and how you feel during the day. It’s amazing how much you will learn about your sleep and its impact on your life.” 

Interested in summer at Harvard? Learn more about our summer programs.

Request Information

What You Need to Know About Pre-College Program Activities

Rigorous, fast-paced—and a lot of fun.

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.