what is important of research in our daily life

Jacks Of Science

Simple Answers to Scientific Questions

Importance Of Research In Daily Life

Whether we are students, professionals, or stay-at-home parents, we all need to do research on a daily basis.

The reason?

Research helps us make informed decisions.

It allows us to learn about new things, and it teaches us how to think critically.

There is an importance of research in daily life.

Let’s discuss the importance of research in our daily lives and how it can help us achieve our goals!

6 ways research plays an important role in our daily lives.

It leads to new discoveries and innovations that improve our lives. Many of the technologies we rely on today are the result of research in fields like medicine, computer science, engineering, etc. Things like smartphones, wifi, GPS, and medical treatments were made possible by research.
It informs policy making. Research provides data and evidence that allows policymakers to make more informed decisions on issues that impact society, whether it’s related to health, education, the economy, or other areas. Research gives insights into problems.
It spreads knowledge and awareness. The research contributes new information and facts to various fields and disciplines. The sharing of research educates people on new topics, ideas, social issues, etc. It provides context for understanding the world.
It drives progress and change. Research challenges existing notions, tests new theories and hypotheses, and pushes boundaries of what’s known. Pushing the frontiers of knowledge through research is key for advancement. Even when research invalidates ideas, it leads to progress.
It develops critical thinking skills. The research process itself – asking questions, collecting data, analyzing results, drawing conclusions – builds logic, problem-solving, and cognitive skills that benefit individuals in their professional and personal lives.
It fuels innovation and the economy. Research leads to the development of new products and services that create jobs and improve productivity in the marketplace. Private sector research drives economic growth.

So while not always visible, research underlies much of our technological, social, economic, and human progress. It’s a building block for society.

Conducting quality research and using it to maximum benefit is key.

Research is important in everyday life because it allows us to make informed decisions about the things that matter most to us.

Whether we’re researching a new car before making a purchase, studying for an important test, or looking into different treatment options for a health issue, research allows us to get the facts and make the best choices for ourselves and our families.

In today’s world, there’s so much information available at our fingertips, and research is more accessible than ever.
The internet has made it possible for anyone with an interest in doing research to access vast amounts of information in a short amount of time.

This is both a blessing and a curse; while it’s great that we have so much information available to us, it can be overwhelming to try to sort through everything and find the most reliable sources.

What is the importance of research in our daily life?

Research is essential to our daily lives.

It helps us to make informed decisions about everything from the food we eat to the medicines we take.
It also allows us to better understand the world around us and find solutions to problems.

In short, research is essential for our health, safety, and well-being. Without it, we would be living in a world of ignorance and misinformation.

What is the importance of research in our daily lives as a student?

Research allows us to make informed decisions

As a student, research plays an important role in our daily life. It helps us to gain knowledge and understanding of the world around us.

It also allows us to develop new skills and perspectives.
In addition, research helps us to innovate and create new things.
Research is essential for students because it helps us to learn about the world around us. Without research, we would be limited to our own personal experiences and observations.
Research allows us to go beyond our personal bubble and explore new ideas and concepts.
It also gives us the opportunity to develop new skills and perspectives.
In addition, research is important because it helps us to innovate and create new things. When we conduct research , we are constantly learning new information that can be used to create something new.

This could be anything from a new product or service to a new way of doing things.

Research is essential for students because it allows us to be innovative and create new things that can make a difference in the world.

Consequently, while each person’s daily life routine might differ based on their unique circumstances, the role that research plays in our lives as students is an integral one nonetheless.

Different though our routines might be, the value of research in our lives shines through brightly regardless. And that importance cannot be overstated .

How does research affect your daily life?

a man studying and doing Practical Research

Every day, we benefit from the countless hours of research that have been conducted by scientists and scholars around the world.

From the moment we wake up in the morning to the time we go to bed at night, we rely on research to improve our lives in a variety of ways.
For instance, many of the items we use every day, such as our phones and laptops, are the result of years of research and development.
And when we see a news story about a new medical breakthrough or a natural disaster, it is often the result of research that has been conducted over a long period of time.

In short, research affects our daily lives in countless ways, both big and small. Without it, we would be living in a very different world.

What are the purposes of research?

Research contributes new information and facts to various fields and disciplines

The word “research” is used in a variety of ways. In its broadest sense, research includes any gathering of data, information, and facts for the advancement of knowledge.

Whether you are looking for a new recipe or trying to find a cure for cancer, the process of research is the same.

You start with a question or an area of interest and then use different sources to find information that will help you answer that question or learn more about that topic.

“The purpose of research is to find answers to questions, solve problems, or develop new knowledge.”

It is an essential tool in business , education, science, and many other fields. By conducting research, we can learn about the world around us and make it a better place.

How to do effective research

Research is essential to our daily lives and growing

Research is a process of uncovering facts and information about a subject.

It is usually done when preparing for an assignment or project and can be either primary research, which involves collecting data yourself, or secondary research, which involves finding existing data.

Regardless of the type of research you do, there are some effective strategies that will help you get the most out of your efforts:

First, start by clearly defining your topic and what you hope to learn. This will help you to focus your search and find relevant information more quickly.
Once you know what you’re looking for, try using keyword searches to find websites, articles, and other resources that are relevant to your topic.
When evaluating each source, be sure to consider its reliability and biases.
Finally, take good notes as you read, and make sure to keep track of where each piece of information came from so that you can easily cite it later.

By following these steps, you can ensure that your research is both thorough and accurate.

How to use research to achieve your goals.

Achieving your goals requires careful planning and a lot of hard work.

But even the best-laid plans can sometimes go awry.

That’s where research comes in.

By taking the time to do your homework, you can increase your chances of success while also learning more about your topic of interest.

When it comes to goal-setting, research can help you to identify realistic targets and develop a roadmap for achieving them.

It can also provide valuable insights into potential obstacles and how to overcome them.

In short, research is an essential tool for anyone who wants to achieve their goals.

So if you’re serious about reaching your target, be sure to do your homework first.

So the next time you are faced with a decision, don’t forget to do your research!

It could very well be the most important thing you do all day.

Jacks of Science sources the most authoritative, trustworthy, and highly recognized institutions for our article research. Learn more about our Editorial Teams process and diligence in verifying the accuracy of every article we publish.

2.1 Why Is Research Important?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behavior
Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession ( Figure 2.2 ). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

The goal of all scientists is to better understand the world around them. Psychologists focus their attention on understanding behavior, as well as the cognitive (mental) and physiological (body) processes that underlie behavior. In contrast to other methods that people use to understand the behavior of others, such as intuition and personal experience, the hallmark of scientific research is that there is evidence to support a claim. Scientific knowledge is empirical : It is grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing.

While behavior is observable, the mind is not. If someone is crying, we can see behavior. However, the reason for the behavior is more difficult to determine. Is the person crying due to being sad, in pain, or happy? Sometimes we can learn the reason for someone’s behavior by simply asking a question, like “Why are you crying?” However, there are situations in which an individual is either uncomfortable or unwilling to answer the question honestly, or is incapable of answering. For example, infants would not be able to explain why they are crying. In such circumstances, the psychologist must be creative in finding ways to better understand behavior. This chapter explores how scientific knowledge is generated, and how important that knowledge is in forming decisions in our personal lives and in the public domain.

Use of Research Information

Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology. More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies. In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the explosion in our use of technology has led researchers to question whether this ultimately helps or hinders us. The use and implementation of technology in educational settings has become widespread over the last few decades. Researchers are coming to different conclusions regarding the use of technology. To illustrate this point, a study investigating a smartphone app targeting surgery residents (graduate students in surgery training) found that the use of this app can increase student engagement and raise test scores (Shaw & Tan, 2015). Conversely, another study found that the use of technology in undergraduate student populations had negative impacts on sleep, communication, and time management skills (Massimini & Peterson, 2009). Until sufficient amounts of research have been conducted, there will be no clear consensus on the effects that technology has on a student's acquisition of knowledge, study skills, and mental health.

In the meantime, we should strive to think critically about the information we encounter by exercising a degree of healthy skepticism. When someone makes a claim, we should examine the claim from a number of different perspectives: what is the expertise of the person making the claim, what might they gain if the claim is valid, does the claim seem justified given the evidence, and what do other researchers think of the claim? This is especially important when we consider how much information in advertising campaigns and on the internet claims to be based on “scientific evidence” when in actuality it is a belief or perspective of just a few individuals trying to sell a product or draw attention to their perspectives.

We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding early intervention programs. These programs are designed to help children who come from low-income backgrounds, have special needs, or face other disadvantages. These programs may involve providing a wide variety of services to maximize the children's development and position them for optimal levels of success in school and later in life (Blann, 2005). While such programs sound appealing, you would want to be sure that they also proved effective before investing additional money in these programs. Fortunately, psychologists and other scientists have conducted vast amounts of research on such programs and, in general, the programs are found to be effective (Neil & Christensen, 2009; Peters-Scheffer, Didden, Korzilius, & Sturmey, 2011). While not all programs are equally effective, and the short-term effects of many such programs are more pronounced, there is reason to believe that many of these programs produce long-term benefits for participants (Barnett, 2011). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, you would want to look at research. Which programs are most effective? What characteristics of these programs make them effective? Which programs promote the best outcomes? After examining the research, you would be best equipped to make decisions about which programs to fund.

Link to Learning

Watch this video about early childhood program effectiveness to learn how scientists evaluate effectiveness and how best to invest money into programs that are most effective.

Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine that your sister, Maria, expresses concern about her two-year-old child, Umberto. Umberto does not speak as much or as clearly as the other children in his daycare or others in the family. Umberto's pediatrician undertakes some screening and recommends an evaluation by a speech pathologist, but does not refer Maria to any other specialists. Maria is concerned that Umberto's speech delays are signs of a developmental disorder, but Umberto's pediatrician does not; she sees indications of differences in Umberto's jaw and facial muscles. Hearing this, you do some internet searches, but you are overwhelmed by the breadth of information and the wide array of sources. You see blog posts, top-ten lists, advertisements from healthcare providers, and recommendations from several advocacy organizations. Why are there so many sites? Which are based in research, and which are not?

In the end, research is what makes the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are observable realities, and opinions are personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate. In the scientific community, facts can be established only using evidence collected through empirical research.

NOTABLE RESEARCHERS

Psychological research has a long history involving important figures from diverse backgrounds. While the introductory chapter discussed several researchers who made significant contributions to the discipline, there are many more individuals who deserve attention in considering how psychology has advanced as a science through their work ( Figure 2.3 ). For instance, Margaret Floy Washburn (1871–1939) was the first woman to earn a PhD in psychology. Her research focused on animal behavior and cognition (Margaret Floy Washburn, PhD, n.d.). Mary Whiton Calkins (1863–1930) was a preeminent first-generation American psychologist who opposed the behaviorist movement, conducted significant research into memory, and established one of the earliest experimental psychology labs in the United States (Mary Whiton Calkins, n.d.).

Francis Sumner (1895–1954) was the first African American to receive a PhD in psychology in 1920. His dissertation focused on issues related to psychoanalysis. Sumner also had research interests in racial bias and educational justice. Sumner was one of the founders of Howard University’s department of psychology, and because of his accomplishments, he is sometimes referred to as the “Father of Black Psychology.” Thirteen years later, Inez Beverly Prosser (1895–1934) became the first African American woman to receive a PhD in psychology. Prosser’s research highlighted issues related to education in segregated versus integrated schools, and ultimately, her work was very influential in the hallmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional (Ethnicity and Health in America Series: Featured Psychologists, n.d.).

Although the establishment of psychology’s scientific roots occurred first in Europe and the United States, it did not take much time until researchers from around the world began to establish their own laboratories and research programs. For example, some of the first experimental psychology laboratories in South America were founded by Horatio Piñero (1869–1919) at two institutions in Buenos Aires, Argentina (Godoy & Brussino, 2010). In India, Gunamudian David Boaz (1908–1965) and Narendra Nath Sen Gupta (1889–1944) established the first independent departments of psychology at the University of Madras and the University of Calcutta, respectively. These developments provided an opportunity for Indian researchers to make important contributions to the field (Gunamudian David Boaz, n.d.; Narendra Nath Sen Gupta, n.d.).

When the American Psychological Association (APA) was first founded in 1892, all of the members were White males (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.). However, by 1905, Mary Whiton Calkins was elected as the first female president of the APA, and by 1946, nearly one-quarter of American psychologists were female. Psychology became a popular degree option for students enrolled in the nation’s historically Black higher education institutions, increasing the number of Black Americans who went on to become psychologists. Given demographic shifts occurring in the United States and increased access to higher educational opportunities among historically underrepresented populations, there is reason to hope that the diversity of the field will increasingly match the larger population, and that the research contributions made by the psychologists of the future will better serve people of all backgrounds (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.).

The Process of Scientific Research

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method . Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning , ideas are tested in the real world; in inductive reasoning , real-world observations lead to new ideas ( Figure 2.4 ). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

In the scientific context, deductive reasoning begins with a generalization—one hypothesis—that is then used to reach logical conclusions about the real world. If the hypothesis is correct, then the logical conclusions reached through deductive reasoning should also be correct. A deductive reasoning argument might go something like this: All living things require energy to survive (this would be your hypothesis). Ducks are living things. Therefore, ducks require energy to survive (logical conclusion). In this example, the hypothesis is correct; therefore, the conclusion is correct as well. Sometimes, however, an incorrect hypothesis may lead to a logical but incorrect conclusion. Consider this argument: all ducks are born with the ability to see. Quackers is a duck. Therefore, Quackers was born with the ability to see. Scientists use deductive reasoning to empirically test their hypotheses. Returning to the example of the ducks, researchers might design a study to test the hypothesis that if all living things require energy to survive, then ducks will be found to require energy to survive.

Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization that is tested against real-world observations; however, inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction. Inductive reasoning uses empirical observations to construct broad generalizations. Unlike deductive reasoning, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning may or may not be correct, regardless of the observations on which they are based. For instance, you may notice that your favorite fruits—apples, bananas, and oranges—all grow on trees; therefore, you assume that all fruit must grow on trees. This would be an example of inductive reasoning, and, clearly, the existence of strawberries, blueberries, and kiwi demonstrate that this generalization is not correct despite it being based on a number of direct observations. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate theories, which in turn generate hypotheses that are tested with deductive reasoning. In the end, science involves both deductive and inductive processes.

For example, case studies, which you will read about in the next section, are heavily weighted on the side of empirical observations. Thus, case studies are closely associated with inductive processes as researchers gather massive amounts of observations and seek interesting patterns (new ideas) in the data. Experimental research, on the other hand, puts great emphasis on deductive reasoning.

We’ve stated that theories and hypotheses are ideas, but what sort of ideas are they, exactly? A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena. Theories are repeatedly checked against the world, but they tend to be too complex to be tested all at once; instead, researchers create hypotheses to test specific aspects of a theory.

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about how the world will behave if our idea is correct, and it is often worded as an if-then statement (e.g., if I study all night, I will get a passing grade on the test). The hypothesis is extremely important because it bridges the gap between the realm of ideas and the real world. As specific hypotheses are tested, theories are modified and refined to reflect and incorporate the result of these tests Figure 2.5 .

To see how this process works, let’s consider a specific theory and a hypothesis that might be generated from that theory. As you’ll learn in a later chapter, the James-Lange theory of emotion asserts that emotional experience relies on the physiological arousal associated with the emotional state. If you walked out of your home and discovered a very aggressive snake waiting on your doorstep, your heart would begin to race and your stomach churn. According to the James-Lange theory, these physiological changes would result in your feeling of fear. A hypothesis that could be derived from this theory might be that a person who is unaware of the physiological arousal that the sight of the snake elicits will not feel fear.

A scientific hypothesis is also falsifiable , or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory chapter that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors ( Figure 2.6 ). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

In contrast, the James-Lange theory does generate falsifiable hypotheses, such as the one described above. Some individuals who suffer significant injuries to their spinal columns are unable to feel the bodily changes that often accompany emotional experiences. Therefore, we could test the hypothesis by determining how emotional experiences differ between individuals who have the ability to detect these changes in their physiological arousal and those who do not. In fact, this research has been conducted and while the emotional experiences of people deprived of an awareness of their physiological arousal may be less intense, they still experience emotion (Chwalisz, Diener, & Gallagher, 1988).

Scientific research’s dependence on falsifiability allows for great confidence in the information that it produces. Typically, by the time information is accepted by the scientific community, it has been tested repeatedly.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Psychology 2e
Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/2-1-why-is-research-important

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

PLOS Biology
PLOS Climate
PLOS Complex Systems
PLOS Computational Biology
PLOS Digital Health
PLOS Genetics
PLOS Global Public Health
PLOS Medicine
PLOS Mental Health
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
PLOS Pathogens
PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
PLOS Collections
About This Blog
Official PLOS Blog
EveryONE Blog
Speaking of Medicine
PLOS Biologue
Absolutely Maybe
DNA Science
PLOS ECR Community
All Models Are Wrong
About PLOS Blogs

A Guide to Using the Scientific Method in Everyday Life

what is important of research in our daily life

The scientific method —the process used by scientists to understand the natural world—has the merit of investigating natural phenomena in a rigorous manner. Working from hypotheses, scientists draw conclusions based on empirical data. These data are validated on large-scale numbers and take into consideration the intrinsic variability of the real world. For people unfamiliar with its intrinsic jargon and formalities, science may seem esoteric. And this is a huge problem: science invites criticism because it is not easily understood. So why is it important, then, that every person understand how science is done?

Because the scientific method is, first of all, a matter of logical reasoning and only afterwards, a procedure to be applied in a laboratory.

Individuals without training in logical reasoning are more easily victims of distorted perspectives about themselves and the world. An example is represented by the so-called “ cognitive biases ”—systematic mistakes that individuals make when they try to think rationally, and which lead to erroneous or inaccurate conclusions. People can easily overestimate the relevance of their own behaviors and choices. They can lack the ability to self-estimate the quality of their performances and thoughts . Unconsciously, they could even end up selecting only the arguments that support their hypothesis or beliefs . This is why the scientific framework should be conceived not only as a mechanism for understanding the natural world, but also as a framework for engaging in logical reasoning and discussion.

A brief history of the scientific method

The scientific method has its roots in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Philosophers Francis Bacon and René Descartes are often credited with formalizing the scientific method because they contrasted the idea that research should be guided by metaphysical pre-conceived concepts of the nature of reality—a position that, at the time, was highly supported by their colleagues . In essence, Bacon thought that inductive reasoning based on empirical observation was critical to the formulation of hypotheses and the generation of new understanding : general or universal principles describing how nature works are derived only from observations of recurring phenomena and data recorded from them. The inductive method was used, for example, by the scientist Rudolf Virchow to formulate the third principle of the notorious cell theory , according to which every cell derives from a pre-existing one. The rationale behind this conclusion is that because all observations of cell behavior show that cells are only derived from other cells, this assertion must be always true.

Inductive reasoning, however, is not immune to mistakes and limitations. Referring back to cell theory, there may be rare occasions in which a cell does not arise from a pre-existing one, even though we haven’t observed it yet—our observations on cell behavior, although numerous, can still benefit from additional observations to either refute or support the conclusion that all cells arise from pre-existing ones. And this is where limited observations can lead to erroneous conclusions reasoned inductively. In another example, if one never has seen a swan that is not white, they might conclude that all swans are white, even when we know that black swans do exist, however rare they may be.

The universally accepted scientific method, as it is used in science laboratories today, is grounded in hypothetico-deductive reasoning . Research progresses via iterative empirical testing of formulated, testable hypotheses (formulated through inductive reasoning). A testable hypothesis is one that can be rejected (falsified) by empirical observations, a concept known as the principle of falsification . Initially, ideas and conjectures are formulated. Experiments are then performed to test them. If the body of evidence fails to reject the hypothesis, the hypothesis stands. It stands however until and unless another (even singular) empirical observation falsifies it. However, just as with inductive reasoning, hypothetico-deductive reasoning is not immune to pitfalls—assumptions built into hypotheses can be shown to be false, thereby nullifying previously unrejected hypotheses. The bottom line is that science does not work to prove anything about the natural world. Instead, it builds hypotheses that explain the natural world and then attempts to find the hole in the reasoning (i.e., it works to disprove things about the natural world).

How do scientists test hypotheses?

Controlled experiments

The word “experiment” can be misleading because it implies a lack of control over the process. Therefore, it is important to understand that science uses controlled experiments in order to test hypotheses and contribute new knowledge. So what exactly is a controlled experiment, then?

Let us take a practical example. Our starting hypothesis is the following: we have a novel drug that we think inhibits the division of cells, meaning that it prevents one cell from dividing into two cells (recall the description of cell theory above). To test this hypothesis, we could treat some cells with the drug on a plate that contains nutrients and fuel required for their survival and division (a standard cell biology assay). If the drug works as expected, the cells should stop dividing. This type of drug might be useful, for example, in treating cancers because slowing or stopping the division of cells would result in the slowing or stopping of tumor growth.

Although this experiment is relatively easy to do, the mere process of doing science means that several experimental variables (like temperature of the cells or drug, dosage, and so on) could play a major role in the experiment. This could result in a failed experiment when the drug actually does work, or it could give the appearance that the drug is working when it is not. Given that these variables cannot be eliminated, scientists always run control experiments in parallel to the real ones, so that the effects of these other variables can be determined. Control experiments are designed so that all variables, with the exception of the one under investigation, are kept constant. In simple terms, the conditions must be identical between the control and the actual experiment.

Coming back to our example, when a drug is administered it is not pure. Often, it is dissolved in a solvent like water or oil. Therefore, the perfect control to the actual experiment would be to administer pure solvent (without the added drug) at the same time and with the same tools, where all other experimental variables (like temperature, as mentioned above) are the same between the two (Figure 1). Any difference in effect on cell division in the actual experiment here can be attributed to an effect of the drug because the effects of the solvent were controlled.

In order to provide evidence of the quality of a single, specific experiment, it needs to be performed multiple times in the same experimental conditions. We call these multiple experiments “replicates” of the experiment (Figure 2). The more replicates of the same experiment, the more confident the scientist can be about the conclusions of that experiment under the given conditions. However, multiple replicates under the same experimental conditions are of no help when scientists aim at acquiring more empirical evidence to support their hypothesis. Instead, they need independent experiments (Figure 3), in their own lab and in other labs across the world, to validate their results.

Often times, especially when a given experiment has been repeated and its outcome is not fully clear, it is better to find alternative experimental assays to test the hypothesis.

Applying the scientific approach to everyday life

So, what can we take from the scientific approach to apply to our everyday lives?

A few weeks ago, I had an agitated conversation with a bunch of friends concerning the following question: What is the definition of intelligence?

Defining “intelligence” is not easy. At the beginning of the conversation, everybody had a different, “personal” conception of intelligence in mind, which – tacitly – implied that the conversation could have taken several different directions. We realized rather soon that someone thought that an intelligent person is whoever is able to adapt faster to new situations; someone else thought that an intelligent person is whoever is able to deal with other people and empathize with them. Personally, I thought that an intelligent person is whoever displays high cognitive skills, especially in abstract reasoning.

The scientific method has the merit of providing a reference system, with precise protocols and rules to follow. Remember: experiments must be reproducible, which means that an independent scientists in a different laboratory, when provided with the same equipment and protocols, should get comparable results. Fruitful conversations as well need precise language, a kind of reference vocabulary everybody should agree upon, in order to discuss about the same “content”. This is something we often forget, something that was somehow missing at the opening of the aforementioned conversation: even among friends, we should always agree on premises, and define them in a rigorous manner, so that they are the same for everybody. When speaking about “intelligence”, we must all make sure we understand meaning and context of the vocabulary adopted in the debate (Figure 4, point 1). This is the first step of “controlling” a conversation.

There is another downside that a discussion well-grounded in a scientific framework would avoid. The mistake is not structuring the debate so that all its elements, except for the one under investigation, are kept constant (Figure 4, point 2). This is particularly true when people aim at making comparisons between groups to support their claim. For example, they may try to define what intelligence is by comparing the achievements in life of different individuals: “Stephen Hawking is a brilliant example of intelligence because of his great contribution to the physics of black holes”. This statement does not help to define what intelligence is, simply because it compares Stephen Hawking, a famous and exceptional physicist, to any other person, who statistically speaking, knows nothing about physics. Hawking first went to the University of Oxford, then he moved to the University of Cambridge. He was in contact with the most influential physicists on Earth. Other people were not. All of this, of course, does not disprove Hawking’s intelligence; but from a logical and methodological point of view, given the multitude of variables included in this comparison, it cannot prove it. Thus, the sentence “Stephen Hawking is a brilliant example of intelligence because of his great contribution to the physics of black holes” is not a valid argument to describe what intelligence is. If we really intend to approximate a definition of intelligence, Steven Hawking should be compared to other physicists, even better if they were Hawking’s classmates at the time of college, and colleagues afterwards during years of academic research.

In simple terms, as scientists do in the lab, while debating we should try to compare groups of elements that display identical, or highly similar, features. As previously mentioned, all variables – except for the one under investigation – must be kept constant.

This insightful piece presents a detailed analysis of how and why science can help to develop critical thinking.

In a nutshell

Here is how to approach a daily conversation in a rigorous, scientific manner:

First discuss about the reference vocabulary, then discuss about the content of the discussion. Think about a researcher who is writing down an experimental protocol that will be used by thousands of other scientists in varying continents. If the protocol is rigorously written, all scientists using it should get comparable experimental outcomes. In science this means reproducible knowledge, in daily life this means fruitful conversations in which individuals are on the same page.
Adopt “controlled” arguments to support your claims. When making comparisons between groups, visualize two blank scenarios. As you start to add details to both of them, you have two options. If your aim is to hide a specific detail, the better is to design the two scenarios in a completely different manner—it is to increase the variables. But if your intention is to help the observer to isolate a specific detail, the better is to design identical scenarios, with the exception of the intended detail—it is therefore to keep most of the variables constant. This is precisely how scientists ideate adequate experiments to isolate new pieces of knowledge, and how individuals should orchestrate their thoughts in order to test them and facilitate their comprehension to others.

Not only the scientific method should offer individuals an elitist way to investigate reality, but also an accessible tool to properly reason and discuss about it.

Edited by Jason Organ, PhD, Indiana University School of Medicine.

Simone is a molecular biologist on the verge of obtaining a doctoral title at the University of Ulm, Germany. He is Vice-Director at Culturico (https://culturico.com/), where his writings span from Literature to Sociology, from Philosophy to Science. His writings recently appeared in Psychology Today, openDemocracy, Splice Today, Merion West, Uncommon Ground and The Society Pages. Follow Simone on Twitter: @simredaelli

Pingback: Case Studies in Ethical Thinking: Day 1 | Education & Erudition

This has to be the best article I have ever read on Scientific Thinking. I am presently writing a treatise on how Scientific thinking can be adopted to entreat all situations.And how, a 4 year old child can be taught to adopt Scientific thinking, so that, the child can look at situations that bothers her and she could try to think about that situation by formulating the right questions. She may not have the tools to find right answers? But, forming questions by using right technique ? May just make her find a way to put her mind to rest even at that level. That is why, 4 year olds are often “eerily: (!)intelligent, I have iften been intimidated and plain embarrassed to see an intelligent and well spoken 4 year old deal with celibrity ! Of course, there are a lot of variables that have to be kept in mind in order to train children in such controlled thinking environment, as the screenplay of little Sheldon shows. Thanking the author with all my heart – #ershadspeak #wearescience #weareallscientists Ershad Khandker

Simone, thank you for this article. I have the idea that I want to apply what I learned in Biology to everyday life. You addressed this issue, and have given some basic steps in using the scientific method.

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.

What Is the Importance of Research? 5 Reasons Why Research is Critical

by Logan Bessant | Nov 16, 2021 | Science

Most of us appreciate that research is a crucial part of medical advancement. But what exactly is the importance of research? In short, it is critical in the development of new medicines as well as ensuring that existing treatments are used to their full potential.

Research can bridge knowledge gaps and change the way healthcare practitioners work by providing solutions to previously unknown questions.

In this post, we’ll discuss the importance of research and its impact on medical breakthroughs.

The Importance Of Health Research

The purpose of studying is to gather information and evidence, inform actions, and contribute to the overall knowledge of a certain field. None of this is possible without research.

Understanding how to conduct research and the importance of it may seem like a very simple idea to some, but in reality, it’s more than conducting a quick browser search and reading a few chapters in a textbook.

No matter what career field you are in, there is always more to learn. Even for people who hold a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in their field of study, there is always some sort of unknown that can be researched. Delving into this unlocks the unknowns, letting you explore the world from different perspectives and fueling a deeper understanding of how the universe works.

To make things a little more specific, this concept can be clearly applied in any healthcare scenario. Health research has an incredibly high value to society as it provides important information about disease trends and risk factors, outcomes of treatments, patterns of care, and health care costs and use. All of these factors as well as many more are usually researched through a clinical trial.

What Is The Importance Of Clinical Research?

Clinical trials are a type of research that provides information about a new test or treatment. They are usually carried out to find out what, or if, there are any effects of these procedures or drugs on the human body.

All legitimate clinical trials are carefully designed, reviewed and completed, and need to be approved by professionals before they can begin. They also play a vital part in the advancement of medical research including:

Providing new and good information on which types of drugs are more effective.
Bringing new treatments such as medicines, vaccines and devices into the field.
Testing the safety and efficacy of a new drug before it is brought to market and used in clinical practice.
Giving the opportunity for more effective treatments to benefit millions of lives both now and in the future.
Enhancing health, lengthening life, and reducing the burdens of illness and disability.

This all plays back to clinical research as it opens doors to advancing prevention, as well as providing treatments and cures for diseases and disabilities. Clinical trial volunteer participants are essential to this progress which further supports the need for the importance of research to be well-known amongst healthcare professionals, students and the general public.

The image shows a researchers hand holding a magnifying glass to signify the importance of research.

Five Reasons Why Research is Critical

Research is vital for almost everyone irrespective of their career field. From doctors to lawyers to students to scientists, research is the key to better work.

Increases quality of life

Research is the backbone of any major scientific or medical breakthrough. None of the advanced treatments or life-saving discoveries used to treat patients today would be available if it wasn’t for the detailed and intricate work carried out by scientists, doctors and healthcare professionals over the past decade.

This improves quality of life because it can help us find out important facts connected to the researched subject. For example, universities across the globe are now studying a wide variety of things from how technology can help breed healthier livestock, to how dance can provide long-term benefits to people living with Parkinson’s.

For both of these studies, quality of life is improved. Farmers can use technology to breed healthier livestock which in turn provides them with a better turnover, and people who suffer from Parkinson’s disease can find a way to reduce their symptoms and ease their stress.

Research is a catalyst for solving the world’s most pressing issues. Even though the complexity of these issues evolves over time, they always provide a glimmer of hope to improving lives and making processes simpler.

Builds up credibility

People are willing to listen and trust someone with new information on one condition – it’s backed up. And that’s exactly where research comes in. Conducting studies on new and unfamiliar subjects, and achieving the desired or expected outcome, can help people accept the unknown.

However, this goes without saying that your research should be focused on the best sources. It is easy for people to poke holes in your findings if your studies have not been carried out correctly, or there is no reliable data to back them up.

This way once you have done completed your research, you can speak with confidence about your findings within your field of study.

Drives progress forward

It is with thanks to scientific research that many diseases once thought incurable, now have treatments. For example, before the 1930s, anyone who contracted a bacterial infection had a high probability of death. There simply was no treatment for even the mildest of infections as, at the time, it was thought that nothing could kill bacteria in the gut.

When antibiotics were discovered and researched in 1928, it was considered one of the biggest breakthroughs in the medical field. This goes to show how much research drives progress forward, and how it is also responsible for the evolution of technology .

Today vaccines, diagnoses and treatments can all be simplified with the progression of medical research, making us question just what research can achieve in the future.

Engages curiosity

The acts of searching for information and thinking critically serve as food for the brain, allowing our inherent creativity and logic to remain active. Aside from the fact that this curiosity plays such a huge part within research, it is also proven that exercising our minds can reduce anxiety and our chances of developing mental illnesses in the future.

Without our natural thirst and our constant need to ask ‘why?’ and ‘how?’ many important theories would not have been put forward and life-changing discoveries would not have been made. The best part is that the research process itself rewards this curiosity.

Research opens you up to different opinions and new ideas which can take a proposed question and turn into a real-life concept. It also builds discerning and analytical skills which are always beneficial in many career fields – not just scientific ones.

Increases awareness

The main goal of any research study is to increase awareness, whether it’s contemplating new concepts with peers from work or attracting the attention of the general public surrounding a certain issue.

Around the globe, research is used to help raise awareness of issues like climate change, racial discrimination, and gender inequality. Without consistent and reliable studies to back up these issues, it would be hard to convenience people that there is a problem that needs to be solved in the first place.

The problem is that social media has become a place where fake news spreads like a wildfire, and with so many incorrect facts out there it can be hard to know who to trust. Assessing the integrity of the news source and checking for similar news on legitimate media outlets can help prove right from wrong.

This can pinpoint fake research articles and raises awareness of just how important fact-checking can be.

The Importance Of Research To Students

It is not a hidden fact that research can be mentally draining, which is why most students avoid it like the plague. But the matter of fact is that no matter which career path you choose to go down, research will inevitably be a part of it.

But why is research so important to students ? The truth is without research, any intellectual growth is pretty much impossible. It acts as a knowledge-building tool that can guide you up to the different levels of learning. Even if you are an expert in your field, there is always more to uncover, or if you are studying an entirely new topic, research can help you build a unique perspective about it.

For example, if you are looking into a topic for the first time, it might be confusing knowing where to begin. Most of the time you have an overwhelming amount of information to sort through whether that be reading through scientific journals online or getting through a pile of textbooks. Research helps to narrow down to the most important points you need so you are able to find what you need to succeed quickly and easily.

It can also open up great doors in the working world. Employers, especially those in the scientific and medical fields, are always looking for skilled people to hire. Undertaking research and completing studies within your academic phase can show just how multi-skilled you are and give you the resources to tackle any tasks given to you in the workplace.

The Importance Of Research Methodology

There are many different types of research that can be done, each one with its unique methodology and features that have been designed to use in specific settings.

When showing your research to others, they will want to be guaranteed that your proposed inquiry needs asking, and that your methodology is equipt to answer your inquiry and will convey the results you’re looking for.

That’s why it’s so important to choose the right methodology for your study. Knowing what the different types of research are and what each of them focuses on can allow you to plan your project to better utilise the most appropriate methodologies and techniques available. Here are some of the most common types:

Theoretical Research: This attempts to answer a question based on the unknown. This could include studying phenomena or ideas whose conclusions may not have any immediate real-world application. Commonly used in physics and astronomy applications.
Applied Research: Mainly for development purposes, this seeks to solve a practical problem that draws on theory to generate practical scientific knowledge. Commonly used in STEM and medical fields.
Exploratory Research: Used to investigate a problem that is not clearly defined, this type of research can be used to establish cause-and-effect relationships. It can be applied in a wide range of fields from business to literature.
Correlational Research: This identifies the relationship between two or more variables to see if and how they interact with each other. Very commonly used in psychological and statistical applications.

The Importance Of Qualitative Research

This type of research is most commonly used in scientific and social applications. It collects, compares and interprets information to specifically address the “how” and “why” research questions.

Qualitative research allows you to ask questions that cannot be easily put into numbers to understand human experience because you’re not limited by survey instruments with a fixed set of possible responses.

Information can be gathered in numerous ways including interviews, focus groups and ethnographic research which is then all reported in the language of the informant instead of statistical analyses.

This type of research is important because they do not usually require a hypothesis to be carried out. Instead, it is an open-ended research approach that can be adapted and changed while the study is ongoing. This enhances the quality of the data and insights generated and creates a much more unique set of data to analyse.

The Process Of Scientific Research

No matter the type of research completed, it will be shared and read by others. Whether this is with colleagues at work, peers at university, or whilst it’s being reviewed and repeated during secondary analysis.

A reliable procedure is necessary in order to obtain the best information which is why it’s important to have a plan. Here are the six basic steps that apply in any research process.

Observation and asking questions: Seeing a phenomenon and asking yourself ‘How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where?’. It is best that these questions are measurable and answerable through experimentation.
Gathering information: Doing some background research to learn what is already known about the topic, and what you need to find out.
Forming a hypothesis: Constructing a tentative statement to study.
Testing the hypothesis: Conducting an experiment to test the accuracy of your statement. This is a way to gather data about your predictions and should be easy to repeat.
Making conclusions: Analysing the data from the experiment(s) and drawing conclusions about whether they support or contradict your hypothesis.
Reporting: Presenting your findings in a clear way to communicate with others. This could include making a video, writing a report or giving a presentation to illustrate your findings.

Although most scientists and researchers use this method, it may be tweaked between one study and another. Skipping or repeating steps is common within, however the core principles of the research process still apply.

By clearly explaining the steps and procedures used throughout the study, other researchers can then replicate the results. This is especially beneficial for peer reviews that try to replicate the results to ensure that the study is sound.

What Is The Importance Of Research In Everyday Life?

Conducting a research study and comparing it to how important it is in everyday life are two very different things.

Carrying out research allows you to gain a deeper understanding of science and medicine by developing research questions and letting your curiosity blossom. You can experience what it is like to work in a lab and learn about the whole reasoning behind the scientific process. But how does that impact everyday life?

Simply put, it allows us to disprove lies and support truths. This can help society to develop a confident attitude and not believe everything as easily, especially with the rise of fake news.

Research is the best and reliable way to understand and act on the complexities of various issues that we as humans are facing. From technology to healthcare to defence to climate change, carrying out studies is the only safe and reliable way to face our future.

Not only does research sharpen our brains, but also helps us to understand various issues of life in a much larger manner, always leaving us questioning everything and fuelling our need for answers.

What is STEM education?
How Stem Education Improves Student Learning
What Are the Three Domains for the Roles of Technology for Teaching and Learning?
Why Is FIDO2 Secure?

Featured Articles

The Significance of Workplace Incident Reporting Software

The Importance of Research in the Advancement of Society

Thanks to the internet and other technologies, life moves at a very fast pace. We’re constantly adapting and learning new ways to do things–as well as expecting and even demanding innovation from our scientists, executives, and leaders.

Without research, our demands would go completely unanswered!

Curiosity leads to research

Research is what propels humanity forward. It’s fueled by curiosity: we get curious, ask questions, and immerse ourselves in discovering everything there is to know. Learning is thriving. Without curiosity and research, progress would slow to a halt, and our lives as we know them would be completely different.

What would happen without research?

If early civilizations hadn’t been curious about the dark sky, we wouldn’t know anything about space. Decades of research have led us to where we are today: a civilized society with the knowledge and tools to move forward.

If that research slowed to a standstill, what would happen?

We’d become ignorant and unaware. We wouldn’t understand or go forward. Without research, we couldn’t say we were close to finding the cure for cancer or find the most eco-friendly way to light up our homes and offices. We wouldn’t know that, even though bees are not our favorites, they do a job that help us all.

Without research, we could not possibly have survived as long as we have.

And there are still millions of things that have yet to be discovered: diseases to cure, waters to explore, species to discover. All of that is possible with research.

The future of research

Thankfully, schools are becoming more concerned with science and technology, and research is finding its place in the minds of today’s students. Students are eager to make discoveries, create solutions to the world’s problems, and invent the next big thing. We’re going places, one research project at a time.

How do we enable researchers to spend their time on, well, research (instead of filling out forms)? Thankfully, there’s cloud-based software to make that easier. Researchers and research administrators can find funding faster , apply for it more easily, manage their funding once they get it, meet federal and local requirements for documentation, stay in compliance if research involves humans or animals, and make sure research facilities are safe .

All of that means they’re one step closer to tomorrow’s big discoveries.

Adapted from an essay by Cali Simboli

Ready for easier research administration?

Featured resource:.

6 ways to minimize risk in research administration

Get ebook >>

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.8: Why Is Research Important?

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 82831

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$

$ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$

$ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$

$ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

$ \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} $

Learning outcomes

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behavior
Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession ( Figure ). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

A skull has a large hole bored through the forehead.

USE OF RESEARCH INFORMATION

Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology. More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies. In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the hypothesized link between exposure to media violence and subsequent aggression has been debated in the scientific community for roughly 60 years. Even today, we will find detractors, but a consensus is building. Several professional organizations view media violence exposure as a risk factor for actual violence, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association (American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program in public schools ( Figure ). This program typically involves police officers coming into the classroom to educate students about the dangers of becoming involved with alcohol and other drugs. According to the D.A.R.E. website (www.dare.org), this program has been very popular since its inception in 1983, and it is currently operating in 75% of school districts in the United States and in more than 40 countries worldwide. Sounds like an easy decision, right? However, on closer review, you discover that the vast majority of research into this program consistently suggests that participation has little, if any, effect on whether or not someone uses alcohol or other drugs (Clayton, Cattarello, & Johnstone, 1996; Ennett, Tobler, Ringwalt, & Flewelling, 1994; Lynam et al., 1999; Ringwalt, Ennett, & Holt, 1991). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, will you fund this particular program, or will you try to find other programs that research has consistently demonstrated to be effective?

Watch this news report to learn more about some of the controversial issues surrounding the D.A.R.E. program.

A D.A.R.E. poster reads “D.A.R.E. to resist drugs and violence.”

Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine you just found out that a close friend has breast cancer or that one of your young relatives has recently been diagnosed with autism. In either case, you want to know which treatment options are most successful with the fewest side effects. How would you find that out? You would probably talk with your doctor and personally review the research that has been done on various treatment options—always with a critical eye to ensure that you are as informed as possible.

THE PROCESS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method . Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning, ideas are tested against the empirical world; in inductive reasoning, empirical observations lead to new ideas ( Figure ). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

A diagram has a box at the top labeled “hypothesis or general premise” and a box at the bottom labeled “empirical observations.” On the left, an arrow labeled “inductive reasoning” goes from the top to bottom box. On the right, an arrow labeled “deductive reasoning” goes from the bottom to the top box.

Play this “Deal Me In” interactive card game to practice using inductive reasoning.

A diagram has four boxes: the top is labeled “theory,” the right is labeled “hypothesis,” the bottom is labeled “research,” and the left is labeled “observation.” Arrows flow in the direction from top to right to bottom to left and back to the top, clockwise. The top right arrow is labeled “use the hypothesis to form a theory,” the bottom right arrow is labeled “design a study to test the hypothesis,” the bottom left arrow is labeled “perform the research,” and the top left arrow is labeled “create or modify the theory.”

A scientific hypothesis is also falsifiable, or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory chapter that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors ( Figure ). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

(a)A photograph shows Freud holding a cigar. (b) The mind’s conscious and unconscious states are illustrated as an iceberg floating in water. Beneath the water’s surface in the “unconscious” area are the id, ego, and superego. The area just below the water’s surface is labeled “preconscious.” The area above the water’s surface is labeled “conscious.”

Visit this website to apply the scientific method and practice its steps by using them to solve a murder mystery, determine why a student is in trouble, and design an experiment to test house paint.

Scientists are engaged in explaining and understanding how the world around them works, and they are able to do so by coming up with theories that generate hypotheses that are testable and falsifiable. Theories that stand up to their tests are retained and refined, while those that do not are discarded or modified. In this way, research enables scientists to separate fact from simple opinion. Having good information generated from research aids in making wise decisions both in public policy and in our personal lives.

Review Questions

Scientific hypotheses are ________ and falsifiable.

________ are defined as observable realities.

Scientific knowledge is ________.

A major criticism of Freud’s early theories involves the fact that his theories ________.

were too limited in scope
were too outrageous
were too broad
were not testable

Critical Thinking Questions

In this section, the D.A.R.E. program was described as an incredibly popular program in schools across the United States despite the fact that research consistently suggests that this program is largely ineffective. How might one explain this discrepancy?

The scientific method is often described as self-correcting and cyclical. Briefly describe your understanding of the scientific method with regard to these concepts.

Personal Application Questions

Healthcare professionals cite an enormous number of health problems related to obesity, and many people have an understandable desire to attain a healthy weight. There are many diet programs, services, and products on the market to aid those who wish to lose weight. If a close friend was considering purchasing or participating in one of these products, programs, or services, how would you make sure your friend was fully aware of the potential consequences of this decision? What sort of information would you want to review before making such an investment or lifestyle change yourself?

[glossary-page] [glossary-term]deductive reasoning:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]results are predicted based on a general premise[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]empirical:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]fact:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]objective and verifiable observation, established using evidence collected through empirical research[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]falsifiable:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]able to be disproven by experimental results[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]hypothesis:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition](plural: hypotheses) tentative and testable statement about the relationship between two or more variables[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]inductive reasoning:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]conclusions are drawn from observations[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]opinion:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]personal judgements, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]theory:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena[/glossary-definition] [/glossary-page]

Why Is Research Important?. Provided by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:Hp5zMFYB@3/Why-Is-Research-Important . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

10 Practical Uses of Science in Our Daily Life

Kristina C.
17 minutes read
Correction policy

what are the 10 uses of science in our daily life

Science is a fascinating field that impacts our daily lives in countless ways. From the moment we wake up to the time we go to bed, science plays a crucial role in shaping our experiences. It is responsible for the technological advancements and innovations that surround us, making our lives easier, safer, and more enjoyable.

In our daily lives, science is used in various ways. It allows us to communicate instantly with loved ones across the globe, thanks to the wonders of technology. Science is behind the development of medicines and vaccines that help us stay healthy and fight diseases. It enables us to travel faster and more efficiently, whether by car, train, or airplane.

Moreover, science helps us understand and appreciate the world around us. It explains the natural phenomena we witness, such as the changing seasons or the movement of the stars. Science also fuels our curiosity, pushing us to explore the depths of the ocean or the vastness of outer space.

In essence, science is a constant companion in our daily lives, enhancing our experiences and providing us with endless possibilities. It is the driving force behind progress and innovation, making our lives more exciting and fulfilling. So the next time you marvel at the wonders of modern technology or experience the wonders of nature, remember that science is at the heart of it all.

Health and Medicine

Health and medicine are areas where the daily use of science is invaluable. From diagnosing illnesses to developing new treatments, science plays a vital role in improving our well-being. Medical advancements have led to the discovery of life-saving drugs, the development of surgical techniques, and the implementation of preventative measures.

In addition to treating diseases, science also helps us understand the human body better, aiding in the prevention of illnesses and the maintenance of good health. It allows us to gain insights into the intricacies of our biology, enabling us to make informed decisions about our lifestyles. Science has also contributed to the creation of innovative medical technologies, such as imaging machines, prosthetics, and telemedicine, which have revolutionized healthcare delivery.

Furthermore, scientific research has paved the way for the development of vaccines, which have eradicated or significantly reduced the prevalence of deadly diseases. Science's impact on health and medicine is far-reaching, improving the quality and longevity of our lives.

Communication and Technology

Communication and technology play a crucial role in our daily lives, thanks to science. From the moment we wake up to the moment we go to bed, we are constantly surrounded by various forms of communication and technology that have become an integral part of our routines. Whether it's using our smartphones to send text messages, checking emails on our laptops, or even watching television, science has made all of these activities possible.

Not only does science enable us to communicate with others effortlessly, but it also allows us to stay connected with the world around us. Through social media platforms, we can share our thoughts and experiences with friends and family, even if they are miles away. Science has revolutionized the way we communicate by introducing video calls and instant messaging services, making it easier than ever to connect with loved ones in real-time.

Technology has also greatly improved our productivity and efficiency. With the help of science, we now have access to a multitude of devices and gadgets that simplify our daily tasks. From smart home systems that allow us to control our appliances with a single command to navigation apps that guide us to our desired destinations, science has enhanced our lives in countless ways.

Moreover, science has transformed the way we access information and gain knowledge. With just a few taps on a screen, we can find answers to our questions, explore different topics, and educate ourselves on various subjects. The internet and search engines have become our go-to sources of information, empowering us to learn and grow every day.

Science has revolutionized communication and technology, making our lives more interconnected and convenient. With advancements in science, we can stay connected with loved ones, simplify daily tasks, and access a wealth of knowledge at our fingertips. The 10 uses of science in our daily lives encompass various aspects, from communication to productivity and beyond, shaping the way we live and interact with the world.

Transportation and Travel

Science plays a crucial role in transportation and travel, impacting our daily lives in numerous ways. Firstly, advancements in science have revolutionized the way we travel, with the invention of various modes of transportation such as cars, airplanes, and trains. These innovations have made it quicker and more convenient for people to commute and explore different parts of the world.

Science has also improved the safety and efficiency of transportation systems. Through the use of advanced technologies like GPS navigation and traffic control systems, science has helped in reducing accidents and congestion on roads, ensuring smoother and faster travel experiences.

Furthermore, science has contributed to the development of fuel-efficient engines and alternative energy sources, enabling us to reduce our carbon footprint and promote sustainable travel. Electric vehicles and hybrid cars are prime examples of how science is transforming the transportation industry to be more environmentally friendly.

In the realm of travel, science has provided us with tools and resources to explore and understand the world around us. From global positioning systems (GPS) to weather forecasting technologies, science has made it easier for travelers to navigate unfamiliar territories and plan their journeys effectively.

Science plays a vital role in shaping the transportation and travel sector. Through constant advancements and innovations, it has revolutionized the way we commute, improved safety measures, and promoted sustainability. Science continues to drive progress in this field, making travel more accessible, efficient, and enjoyable for everyone.

"Science is the key to unlocking the doors of the future and understanding the world we live in." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Energy and Environment

Energy and the environment are closely interconnected, with science playing a crucial role in both areas. Science provides us with the knowledge and tools to understand and address the environmental challenges we face, while also helping us harness and utilize energy efficiently.

Renewable Energy: Science has enabled us to tap into renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. These sustainable alternatives help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, decrease greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigate climate change.
Energy Conservation: Through scientific research, we have gained a deeper understanding of energy conservation techniques. This knowledge has led to the development of energy-efficient appliances, smart grids, and building design strategies that reduce energy consumption and promote sustainability.
Environmental Monitoring: Science plays a vital role in monitoring and assessing the health of our environment. Scientific techniques and technologies, such as remote sensing and data analysis, allow us to study air and water quality, biodiversity, and the impacts of human activities on ecosystems. This information is crucial for making informed decisions and implementing effective environmental policies.
Waste Management: Science helps us manage and minimize waste effectively. Scientific advancements have led to the development of recycling technologies, waste treatment methods, and strategies for reducing pollution. By applying scientific knowledge, we can reduce the environmental impact of waste and move towards a more sustainable approach to resource management.

Science is instrumental in addressing the energy and environmental challenges we face. It empowers us to adopt sustainable practices, develop cleaner energy sources, and protect our environment for future generations. By embracing scientific advancements, we can create a healthier, more sustainable world.

💡 Tip: Conserving energy is essential for both our environment and our wallets. Simple changes like turning off lights when not in use, using energy-efficient appliances, and reducing water consumption can make a significant impact. By being mindful of our energy usage, we can contribute to a more sustainable future.

Agriculture and Food

Science plays a crucial role in agriculture and food production, impacting nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Through scientific advancements, we have been able to increase crop yields, improve food quality, and develop sustainable farming practices.

One of the key uses of science in agriculture is the development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Through genetic engineering, scientists have been able to enhance crop traits such as pest resistance and drought tolerance, resulting in higher yields and better crop productivity. This has been essential in feeding our growing global population.

Science also helps in the development of fertilizers and pesticides. Through scientific research, we are able to create fertilizers that provide the necessary nutrients for plant growth, improving crop yields. Similarly, pesticides help control pests and diseases, protecting crops and ensuring food security.

In addition, science plays a crucial role in soil management. Through soil testing and analysis, scientists can determine the nutrient content and pH levels of the soil, allowing farmers to make informed decisions about fertilization and irrigation. This helps optimize crop growth and reduces the risk of nutrient deficiencies.

Furthermore, science has revolutionized food preservation and storage. Through techniques such as canning, freezing, and drying, we can extend the shelf life of perishable foods, reducing food waste and ensuring a stable food supply.

Science also contributes to the development of sustainable farming practices. Through research on organic farming methods, crop rotation, and integrated pest management, we can minimize the use of harmful chemicals and promote environmentally friendly farming practices.

Science plays a vital role in agriculture and food production, helping us meet the demands of a growing population while ensuring sustainable and efficient farming practices. By harnessing scientific advancements, we can continue to improve crop yields, enhance food quality, and protect our environment for future generations.

Home and Household

Science plays a crucial role in our daily lives, even within the comfort of our own homes. From the moment we wake up to the time we go to sleep, science is at work, making our lives easier and more convenient.

In the kitchen, science allows us to cook our meals efficiently and safely. The principles of chemistry and physics help us understand how heat is transferred during cooking, ensuring that our food is cooked thoroughly and evenly. Science also helps us preserve our food through refrigeration and freezing, allowing us to enjoy fresh produce and prevent food waste.

In terms of cleaning, science provides us with a range of products and tools that make household chores easier. The chemistry behind detergents and cleaning agents helps us remove stains and sanitize our homes effectively. Science also plays a role in developing efficient appliances, such as vacuum cleaners and washing machines, that save us time and energy.

In home maintenance, science enables us to understand the structural integrity of our homes. Engineering principles guide architects and builders in constructing safe and sturdy houses. Science also helps us maintain our homes by providing knowledge about plumbing, electrical systems, and insulation, ensuring our comfort and safety.

Beyond the kitchen and maintenance, science is also present in our entertainment and relaxation. From television screens and audio systems to gaming consoles and streaming services, science fuels our entertainment devices, enhancing our leisure time.

Science is intertwined with our daily lives, even within the confines of our homes. From cooking and cleaning to home maintenance and entertainment, science contributes to our well-being and convenience. By understanding and appreciating the scientific principles behind these aspects, we can fully maximize the benefits that science brings into our everyday lives.

Education and Learning

Education and learning play a crucial role in our daily lives, and science is an integral part of this process. Science provides us with the tools and knowledge to explore and understand the world around us. It helps us develop critical thinking skills, enhances our problem-solving abilities, and fosters a sense of curiosity and wonder. One of the uses of science in education and learning is through practical experiments and hands-on activities.

By conducting experiments, students can apply scientific principles and theories to real-life situations, allowing them to see the practical applications of what they are learning. This not only helps to reinforce their understanding of scientific concepts but also encourages them to think creatively and develop their own ideas.

Science also plays a vital role in technological advancements, which have revolutionized the field of education. With the help of science, we now have access to online learning platforms, educational apps, and interactive simulations that make learning more engaging and accessible. These technologies provide students with a wealth of resources and opportunities for self-directed learning, allowing them to explore different topics and personalize their educational experiences.

Furthermore, science has contributed to the development of innovative teaching methods and instructional strategies. Educators can now incorporate multimedia materials, such as videos, animations, and virtual reality, into their lessons to enhance students' understanding and engagement. These interactive and visually stimulating resources help to cater to different learning styles and make complex concepts more accessible.

Science also plays a significant role in curriculum development. By integrating scientific principles into various subjects, such as mathematics, language arts, and social studies, students can see the interconnectedness of different disciplines. This interdisciplinary approach not only helps them develop a holistic understanding of the world but also encourages them to think critically and make connections between different concepts.

In addition to these uses, science also promotes lifelong learning. By cultivating a scientific mindset, individuals become lifelong learners who are constantly seeking new knowledge and information. Science encourages us to question the world around us, explore new ideas, and seek evidence-based answers. This mindset of curiosity and inquiry extends beyond the classroom and has numerous applications in our daily lives, from making informed decisions about our health to understanding complex societal issues.

Science plays a vital role in education and learning by providing practical applications, technological advancements, innovative teaching methods, interdisciplinary approaches, and a mindset of lifelong learning. Its impact goes beyond the classroom, empowering individuals to navigate the complexities of the world and make informed decisions. By incorporating science into education, we equip students with the tools and skills they need to thrive in an ever-changing society.

Entertainment and Recreation

Entertainment and recreation play a crucial role in our daily lives, providing us with much-needed relaxation and enjoyment. Science has revolutionized these aspects of our lives, making them more diverse, accessible, and immersive than ever before.

One of the most prominent uses of science in entertainment is the development of virtual reality (VR) technology. Through VR, we can transport ourselves to various virtual worlds, experiencing everything from thrilling adventures to peaceful getaways. This technology is made possible through scientific advancements in computer graphics, optics, and human-computer interaction.

Science has also brought us innovative forms of entertainment, such as 3D movies and augmented reality (AR) games. These technologies combine scientific principles with creative storytelling, allowing us to immerse ourselves in captivating visual experiences.

Beyond virtual realms, science has enhanced traditional forms of entertainment. The development of high-definition televisions and surround sound systems has elevated our movie-watching and gaming experiences, bringing us closer to the action and enhancing our enjoyment.

In the realm of recreational activities, science has provided us with various tools and equipment that enhance our performance and safety. Sports gear, such as advanced tennis rackets and golf clubs, are designed using scientific principles to optimize our performance. Scientific research has led to the development of protective equipment like helmets and padding, ensuring our safety during physical activities.

Science has even influenced the way we enjoy music. From the invention of musical instruments to the advancements in sound recording and production, scientific principles have shaped the way we create, listen, and appreciate music.

Science has revolutionized entertainment and recreation, providing us with immersive experiences, innovative technologies, and enhanced equipment. Through scientific advancements, we can enjoy a wide range of entertainment options and engage in recreational activities safely and with optimal performance. Embrace the wonders of science and let it enrich your daily life through entertainment and recreation.

Safety and Security

Safety and security are paramount in our daily lives, and science plays a crucial role in ensuring our well-being. From the moment we wake up to the time we go to sleep, science is at work, safeguarding us in various ways. One of the key uses of science in ensuring our safety and security is through advanced surveillance systems.

These systems utilize cutting-edge technology, such as facial recognition and motion sensors, to monitor and detect any potential threats or suspicious activities. This helps in preventing crime and protecting public spaces.

Science also contributes to our safety through advancements in the field of medicine. Medical researchers and scientists work tirelessly to develop vaccines, medicines, and treatments that safeguard us from diseases and ailments. From flu shots to life-saving surgeries, science enables us to live healthier and longer lives.

Furthermore, science plays a pivotal role in enhancing transportation safety. Through the development of innovative technologies, such as anti-lock braking systems and airbags, science has significantly reduced the risk of accidents and injuries on the road. Advancements in aviation technology have made air travel safer than ever before.

In the realm of cybersecurity, science is essential in protecting our personal information and digital assets. Scientists continuously innovate and develop robust encryption algorithms and security protocols to safeguard our data from cyber threats and hacking attempts.

Science is indispensable when it comes to ensuring our safety and security in various aspects of our lives. From surveillance systems to medical breakthroughs, transportation safety, and cybersecurity, science empowers us to live in a safer and more secure world.

Research and Innovation

Research and innovation are essential components of our daily lives, contributing to advancements in science that impact our world in numerous ways. Science plays a crucial role in improving technology, healthcare, communication, transportation, and much more. Through research and innovation, scientists and inventors continuously strive to enhance our daily lives.

In the field of medicine, research and innovation have led to the development of life-saving drugs and treatments, prolonging and improving the quality of life for countless individuals. Scientists constantly explore new avenues to combat diseases, inventing innovative techniques and therapies that have revolutionized healthcare.

Moreover, research and innovation have transformed the way we communicate and access information. Through scientific advancements, we now have instant access to vast amounts of knowledge through the internet and various technological devices. This has facilitated global connectivity, allowing us to connect with people from all corners of the world.

Transportation has also greatly benefited from research and innovation. From the invention of automobiles to the development of sustainable energy sources, science has enabled us to travel faster, more efficiently, and in a more environmentally friendly manner. Research in the field of aerospace has led to the exploration of space, expanding our understanding of the universe.

Research and innovation are vital in improving our daily lives. They drive progress in various fields, including medicine, technology, communication, and transportation. Through continuous scientific exploration, we can look forward to even more advancements that will shape the future of our world. So, let's embrace research and innovation as catalysts for a brighter and more prosperous tomorrow.

Given these points

Science is not just a subject taught in schools; it is a fundamental part of our daily lives. From the moment we wake up to the moment we go to bed, science influences and improves every aspect of our existence.

Whether it's the advancements in medicine that keep us healthy, the technology that connects us with the world, or the innovations that make our lives more comfortable, science is the driving force behind it all. By understanding and appreciating the practical uses of science in our daily life, we can fully embrace the incredible achievements of human knowledge and continue to push the boundaries of what is possible.

Comments (0)

Comments are currently closed. Subscribe to get notified when comments are open.

Join now our growing comunity!

Advantages and Disadvantages of Science

How Much Science Influences Engineering

Where Science Came From: Unraveling the Origins of Scientific Inquiry

How Science and Religion Collaborate: Unveiling the Harmony

Exploring the Fascinating World of Science in 12th Grade

Can Science Be Proven: Unveiling the Truth Behind Scientific Certainty

Are Science and Chemistry Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Science in 11th Grade: Unveiling the Curriculum

The Impact of Science on Society

Unveiling the Mysteries: Can Science Explain Gravity?

Are Science Fiction and Fantasy the Same? Exploring the Differences and Similarities

Science and Faith: A Harmonious Coexistence

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Virtual Tour
Staff Directory
En Español

Explaining How Research Works

We’ve heard “follow the science” a lot during the pandemic. But it seems science has taken us on a long and winding road filled with twists and turns, even changing directions at times. That’s led some people to feel they can’t trust science. But when what we know changes, it often means science is working.

Expaling How Research Works Infographic en español

Explaining the scientific process may be one way that science communicators can help maintain public trust in science. Placing research in the bigger context of its field and where it fits into the scientific process can help people better understand and interpret new findings as they emerge. A single study usually uncovers only a piece of a larger puzzle.

Questions about how the world works are often investigated on many different levels. For example, scientists can look at the different atoms in a molecule, cells in a tissue, or how different tissues or systems affect each other. Researchers often must choose one or a finite number of ways to investigate a question. It can take many different studies using different approaches to start piecing the whole picture together.

Sometimes it might seem like research results contradict each other. But often, studies are just looking at different aspects of the same problem. Researchers can also investigate a question using different techniques or timeframes. That may lead them to arrive at different conclusions from the same data.

Using the data available at the time of their study, scientists develop different explanations, or models. New information may mean that a novel model needs to be developed to account for it. The models that prevail are those that can withstand the test of time and incorporate new information. Science is a constantly evolving and self-correcting process.

Scientists gain more confidence about a model through the scientific process. They replicate each other’s work. They present at conferences. And papers undergo peer review, in which experts in the field review the work before it can be published in scientific journals. This helps ensure that the study is up to current scientific standards and maintains a level of integrity. Peer reviewers may find problems with the experiments or think different experiments are needed to justify the conclusions. They might even offer new ways to interpret the data.

It’s important for science communicators to consider which stage a study is at in the scientific process when deciding whether to cover it. Some studies are posted on preprint servers for other scientists to start weighing in on and haven’t yet been fully vetted. Results that haven't yet been subjected to scientific scrutiny should be reported on with care and context to avoid confusion or frustration from readers.

We’ve developed a one-page guide, "How Research Works: Understanding the Process of Science" to help communicators put the process of science into perspective. We hope it can serve as a useful resource to help explain why science changes—and why it’s important to expect that change. Please take a look and share your thoughts with us by sending an email to [email protected].

Below are some additional resources:

Discoveries in Basic Science: A Perfectly Imperfect Process
When Clinical Research Is in the News
What is Basic Science and Why is it Important?
What is a Research Organism?
What Are Clinical Trials and Studies?
Basic Research – Digital Media Kit
Decoding Science: How Does Science Know What It Knows? (NAS)
Can Science Help People Make Decisions ? (NAS)

Connect with Us

More Social Media from NIH

How does research impact your everyday life?

“Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought.” – Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

What would the modern world look like without the bedrock of research?

First and foremost – without research, there’s no way you’d possibly be reading this right now, as the Internet was pioneered and developed (via a whole heap of exhaustive research…) by the European Organization for Nuclear Research , or CERN, the same association that produced the Large Hadron Collider.

Without research, we’d likely also be utterly defenceless to the brutal forces of nature. For example, without meteorology, we’d be unable to predict the path of violent storms, hurricanes and tornadoes, while a lack of volcanology research would leave a huge proportion of the world susceptible to the destruction of volcanic eruptions.

And it doesn’t end there.

Medical technology and discovery would be non-existent – no MRi , no anaesthetic, no birth control, no X-Ray machine, no insulin, no IVF, no penicillin, no germ theory, no DNA, and no smallpox vaccination – which, by the way would have wiped out one out of every nine babies had Jenner not researched and found a cure.

Source: University of Surrey

So not only is research an invaluable tool for building on crucial knowledge, it’s also the most reliable way we can begin to understand the complexities of various issues; to maintain our integrity as we disprove lies and uphold important truths; to serve as the seed for analysing convoluted sets of data; as well as to serve as ‘nourishment’, or exercise for the mind.

“…Aside from the pure pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, research is linked to problem solving,” John Armstrong, a respected global higher education and research professional, writes for The Conversation. “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,” he continues. “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.”

Ultimately, when we begin to look at research for what it truly is – a catalyst for solving complex issues – we begin to understand the impact it truly has on our everyday lives. The University of Surrey , set just a 10 minute walk from the centre of Guildford – ranked the 8 th best place to live in the UK in the Halifax Quality of Life Survey – is a prime example of a university producing high-impact research for the benefit of our global society.

Surrey’s experienced research team found that pollution levels inside cars were found to be up to 40 percent higher while sitting in queues, or at red lights, when compared to free-flowing traffic conditions. And with the World Health Organisation (WHO) placing outdoor air pollution among the top 10 health risks currently facing humans, linking to seven million premature deaths each year, Surrey took on the research challenge of finding an effective solution…

…And boy, did they get the results!

“Where possible and the weather conditional allowing, it is one of the best ways to limit your exposure by keeping windows shut, fans turned off and to try and increase the distance between you and the car in front while at traffic jams or stationary at traffic lights,” says Dr Prashant Kumar, Senior Author of the study. “If the fan or heater needs to be on, the best setting would be to have the air re-circulating within the car without drawing air from outdoors.”

Researchers actually found that closed windows or re-circulated air can reduce in-car pollutants by as much as 76 percent, highlighting how Surrey’s research outcomes could bring a wealth of invaluable global benefits.

As further testament to Surrey’s impactful research success, a study that uncovered high levels of Vitamin D inadequacy among UK adolescents has been published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition , and has now been used to inform crucial national guidance from Public Health England.

“The research has found that adolescence, the time when bone growth is most important in laying down the foundations for later life, is a time when Vitamin D levels are inadequate,” says Dr Taryn Smith, Lead Author of the study. The study forms part of a four-year, EU-funded project, ODIN, which aims to investigate safe and effective ways of boosting Vitamin D intake through food fortification and bio-fortification.

“The ODIN project is investigating ways of improving Vitamin D intake through diet,” continues Dr Smith, “and since it is difficult to obtain Vitamin D intakes of over 10ug/day from food sources alone, it is looking at ways of fortifying our food to improve the Vitamin D levels of the UK population as a whole.”

But the impact of Surrey’s research is broad and all-encompassing, with on-going projects into things like radiotherapy, dementia, blue light and human attentiveness, disaster monitoring, sustainable development, digital storytelling, and beyond. And benefits of research produced at the University of Surrey is not meant for the UK population alone; these are the issues that face us as an increasingly international and interconnected society, making research produced by world-class institutions like Surrey the tools to pave the way to bigger, brighter and healthier global future.

Find out more about studying for a postgraduate degree at Surrey by registering for one of Surrey’s Webinars .

Follow Surrey on Facebook , Twitter , Instagram , YouTube , Pinterest and LinkedIn

Feature image via Shutterstock

Liked this then you’ll love these….

The global knowledge economy

Why Study Sustainability and Environmental Sciences

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

Understanding Science 101
Misconceptions

Science affects our everyday lives in many ways.

Misconception: Science isn’t important in my life.

Correction: Science is deeply interwoven with our everyday lives. Read more about it.

What has science done for you lately?

Plenty. If you think science doesn’t matter much to you, think again. Science affects us all, every day of the year, from the moment we wake up, all day long, and through the night. Your digital alarm clock, the weather report, the asphalt you drive on, the bus you ride in, your decision to eat a baked potato instead of fries, your cell phone, the antibiotics that treat your sore throat, the clean water that comes from your faucet, and the light that you turn off at the end of the day have all been brought to you courtesy of science. The modern world would not be modern at all without the understandings and technology enabled by science.

To make it clear how deeply science is interwoven with our lives, just try imagining a day without scientific progress. Just for starters, without modern science, there would be:

no plastic. The first completely synthetic plastic was made by a chemist in the early 1900s, and since then, chemistry has developed a wide variety of plastics suited for all sorts of jobs, from blocking bullets to making slicker dental floss.
no modern agriculture. Science has transformed the way we eat today. In the 1940s, biologists began developing high-yield varieties of corn, wheat, and rice, which, when paired with new fertilizers and pesticides developed by chemists, dramatically increased the amount of food that could be harvested from a single field, ushering in the Green Revolution. These science-based technologies triggered striking changes in agriculture, massively increasing the amount of food available to feed the world and simultaneously transforming the economic structure of agricultural practices.
no modern medicine. In the late 1700s, Edward Jenner first convincingly showed that vaccination worked. In the 1800s, scientists and doctors established the theory that many diseases are caused by germs. And in the 1920s, a biologist discovered the first antibiotic. From the eradication of smallpox, to the prevention of nutritional deficiencies, to successful treatments for once deadly infections, the impact of modern medicine on global health has been powerful. In fact, without science, many people alive today would have instead died of diseases that are now easily treated.

Scientific knowledge can improve the quality of life at many different levels — from the routine workings of our everyday lives to global issues. Science informs public policy and personal decisions on energy, conservation, agriculture, health, transportation, communication, defense, economics, leisure, and exploration. It’s almost impossible to overstate how many aspects of modern life are impacted by scientific knowledge. Here we’ll discuss just a few of these examples. You can investigate:

Fueling technology

Making strides in medicine
Getting personal
Shaping society

Or just click the Next button to dive right in!

Take a sidetrip

Learn more about innovation on the Understanding Global Change site .

Summing up science and society

Subscribe to our newsletter

The science flowchart
Science stories
Grade-level teaching guides
Teaching resource database
Journaling tool

Research and Its Importance for Daily Life Essay

Introduction, impact of research, qualities of effective research, role of beliefs and values.

Research plays an important role in science. This is normally done to obtain detailed knowledge about certain aspects before an invention. Scientific research involves the study of diseases and other parameters to invent medicine and vaccines. Therefore, without research, there will be no inventions and therefore a big blow to health. Essentially research fulfils purposes that are designed before the exercise. However, apart from that, research has other implications on reality and daily lives. As a result, the effects of research go beyond the purpose it is meant for. This paper aims to take an analytical look at the concept of research. The paper will begin with a detailed look at the concept of research. Thereafter, the several similarities between different aspects of research will be analyzed. The impact of research on our daily life will also be reviewed.

Research has a lot of impact on the daily functioning of life. First and foremost, research leads to a better life by producing results that can be used to make life better. Especially as far as scientific research is concerned, the invention of vaccines and medicines makes diseases to be less of a threat to society (Calderon & Slavin 2001). Therefore, through the process of research, various methods of handling life’s problems and making the world a better place to live in are facilitated. Secondly, the very process of research affects society in several ways. The impact of the process of research has two dimensions.

The first part is the negative part in which the process of research has certain consequences for society. Unethical practices harm society. Since research is done on people in society, the practices adopted by the researchers have a lot of impacts. Scientific research has left some people with serious illnesses and injuries sometimes; it is like experimenting with people’s life. However, the process of research also has positive effects on society (McGill 1981). This is mainly because of employment opportunities, awareness and education. Research offers vast opportunities to the members of society to learn and obtain understanding about certain issues. At the same time, the participants of the research are remunerated making them earn a living from the same.

Several factors denote effective and valid research. To conduct valid or effective research, therefore, several considerations must be in place. First is the aspect of ethics, for research to be valid it must be conducted ethically. This involves the practices adopted for the research (Cresswell 2003). If the research involves risks, this must be communicated to the participants in advance. At the same time plans must be in place to compensate all those that will be affected in the course of the research. The disbursing of information is necessary before the research. This is important to take care of deception which is rampant in research. In general, proper preparation and education of the participants is the key to successful research. Another crucial requirement is the availability of resources for research.

Several forms of research involve a different processes. As a result, not all forms of research involve vigour. For instance, scientific research on diseases is more demanding than research on recreational issues. This is due to the context of the studies and the parameters involved. For instance, scientific research involves several processes and procedures which tend to take more resources. Recreational issues, on the other hand, are less involved due to the nature of the subject. The research can therefore be conducted with much ease.

Beliefs and values have a lot of impact on the process of research. People’s beliefs, therefore, influence the outcome and process of research. This is due to the relevance that beliefs and values have on people’s perception and philosophy of life. For instance, certain topics are considered sacred and secret in certain societies (Bryant 2005). Their beliefs don’t allow them to discuss certain things. Therefore in the process of collecting information from such people, it becomes very difficult to deal with them. People’s values also play a huge role. Some people are flexible in certain areas than others. Therefore, when conducting research one must understand the values of all participants. This is because their values determine how they approach certain issues. Religion plays a great role in determining the beliefs and values of people.

Research is part and parcel of life, in fact without research life will not be as it is. To live better life research is necessary; this is because research leads to innovation and invention. As far as science is concerned research leads to the invention of vaccines and drugs. Other areas of research also lead to a better understanding of the concepts involved. However, it is not only the results of research that benefit society but also the process of research. Some several opportunities and benefits that come with the process of research. As a result, the role of research in society goes beyond its real purpose. For research to be effective and valid several factors must be considered. Chief among them is the aspect of ethics. Different forms of research involve different forms of approaches. As a result, certain forms of research are more demanding than others. The influence of values and beliefs is notable as far as research is concerned. The paper has discussed the concept of research in detail. The process and impact of research have also been discussed.

Bryant, M. (2005). Managing an Effective and Ethical Research Project . London: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Calderon, M. & Slavin, R. (2001). Effective programs for Latino students. New York: Routledge.

Cresswell, J. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches. New York: SAGE.

McGill, N. (1981). Effective research: a handbook for health planners. Washington: Institute for Health Planning.

Targeting of Coronavirus Vaccines’ Distribution
Do Vaccines Cause Autism?
The Companies Investing Heavily in Vaccine
Market Condition Survey and Grading
Dynamic Nature of Discovery: Crystal Skulls
The Indispensability Argument Putting Forward by Quine and Putnam
Problems of Data Analysis in Qualitative Research
Pressure in Work, University and Life
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, December 29). Research and Its Importance for Daily Life. https://ivypanda.com/essays/research-and-its-importance-for-daily-life/

"Research and Its Importance for Daily Life." IvyPanda , 29 Dec. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/research-and-its-importance-for-daily-life/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Research and Its Importance for Daily Life'. 29 December.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Research and Its Importance for Daily Life." December 29, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/research-and-its-importance-for-daily-life/.

1. IvyPanda . "Research and Its Importance for Daily Life." December 29, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/research-and-its-importance-for-daily-life/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Research and Its Importance for Daily Life." December 29, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/research-and-its-importance-for-daily-life/.

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
Dialogues Clin Neurosci
v.15(4); 2013 Dec

Memory: from the laboratory to everyday life

Daniel l. schacter.

Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

One of the key goals of memory research is to develop a basic understanding of the nature and characteristics of memory processes and systems. Another important goal is to develop useful applications of basic research to everyday life. This editorial considers two lines of work that illustrate some of the prospects for applying memory research to everyday life: interpolated quizzing to enhance learning in educational settings, and specificity training to enhance memory and associated functions in individuals who have difficulties remembering details of their past experiences.

The study of memory lias progressed rapidly over the past few decades, and as illustrated by the papers in the current issue, it remains a thriving endeavor with many exciting new discoveries and ideas. But memory is not only a target for laboratory study; it is also fundamentally important in many domains of everyday life. This point is nicely illustrated by several articles in this volume addressing memory changes in neurological and psychiatric conditions that can have a profound impact on an individual's ability to function in daily life. Memory research has also been applied extensively in legal settings, where such issues as how to construct effective lineups and how to deal with the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony are of paramount importance. 1 , 2 In this editorial, I discuss briefly some recent applications of memory research in educational and clinical settings that show promise for providing meaningful benefits in everyday life.

Enhancing attention and memory in educational settings

During the past several years, a rapidly expanding number of studies have attempted to apply principles and methods of cognitive psychology to educational settings. For example, one basic question concerns whether memory research can be used to increase the effectiveness with which students study for exams. In a recent comprehensive review, Dunlosky and colleagues 3 evaluated the effectiveness of ten different study methods, and characterized each one as being of either high, moderate, or low utility based on available research. Some of the popular methods commonly embraced by students—including rereading, summarizing, and highlighting—received low utility assessments. Only two techniques, both supported by data from numerous laboratory studies, received high utility assessments: distributed study, which involves spreading out study activities so that more time intervenes between repetitions of the to-be-learned information (as opposed to mass study or “cramming”), and practice testing, where students are intermittently given brief quizzes about what they have learned prior to taking a formal test.

The beneficial effects of practice testing for students are based mainly on studies demonstrating that the act of retrieving information can be a highly effective means of strengthening memory for the retrieved information. 4 Recent work in my laboratory has used a variant of the practice testing technique in an attempt to enhance attention and memory during video recorded lectures. 5 Students frequently experience lapses of attention both during classroom 6 and video 7 lectures. For example, when probed during either a classroom or online lecture regarding whether they are attending to the lecture or mind wandering to other topics, students indicated on approximately 40% of probes that they were mind wandering; not surprisingly, the extent of mind wandering was negatively correlated with retention of lecture content. 6 - 8

Our study 5 focused on video recorded lectures because they are a key element in online education, which has exploded during recent years, partly as a result of the development of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Consequently, understanding how to enhance learning from video lectures could have important implications for online education. Participants watched a 21-minute video recorded statistics lecture divided into four equal segments. After each lecture segment, all participants did math problems for a minute, after which the tested group received brief quizzes on each lecture segment that took about 2 minutes each; the nontested group continued to work on math problems for an additional 2 minutes and only received a test for the final segment; and the restudy group was shown, but not tested on, the same material as the tested group for each of the segments preceding the final segment. After the final lecture segment, all three groups received a quiz for that segment, and a few minutes later they also received a final test for the entire lecture. At random times during the lecture, participants in all groups were probed about whether they were paying attention to the lecture or mind wandering off to other topics.

Participants in the nontested and re-study groups indicated that they were mind wandering in response to about 40% of the probes, but the incidence of mind wandering was cut in half, to about 20%, in the tested group. Moreover, participants in the tested group retained significantly more information from the final segment of the lecture than did participants in the other two groups, and they also retained significantly more information on the final test of the entire lecture than did the other groups. While it is encouraging that interpolated quizzing can dramatically reduce the incidence of mind wandering and increase retention, the results reported must be treated with some caution, both because they were obtained only with a single lecture on a single topic, and also because it is unclear whether the benefits of interpolated quizzing persist across multiple lectures or in actual online (or live) classes. There is reason for optimism, however, because other kinds of practice testing have produced increased learning in classroom settings. 9

Increasing the specificity of memory

Consider next some recent research concerning a phenomenon that has been associated with a variety of troublesome symptoms in depressed individuals: reduced specificity of autobiographical memories. Several studies have shown that when asked to recall memories of everyday life experiences, depressed individuals tend to provide less specific detail about what happened during those experiences than do nondepressed controls. 10 This reduced specificity has been linked with problems such as excessive rumination and difficulties handling everyday interpersonal situations. 10 - 12 In light of these findings, a natural question concerns whether it is possible to increase memory specificity in depressed individuals, and whether such increases are associated with improvements in any of the problematic symptoms that had been linked with reduced memory specificity in previous research.

Recent studies 13 , 14 have addressed this question by demonstrating that several sessions of training that attempts to boost the specificity of memory retrieval in depressed patients (ie, practice with feedback in generating detailed, specific memories) increases the posttraining specificity of patients' autobiographical memories, even when controlling for associated improvements in depression. Neshat-Doost et al 13 reported that the gains from specificity training were maintained at a 2-month follow-up, and no improvements were evident in a control group. Raes et al 14 showed that increases in memory specificity after training were associated with improvements in everyday social problem solving and rumination. Although further research needs to be carried out to pinpoint exactly what features of memory specificity training are responsible for the observed improvements, the results to date are encouraging, and highlight how basic knowledge of the memory characteristics of a clinical population can be used to formulate an effective intervention.

Targeting autobiographical memory specificity seems especially useful because a growing number of studies have emphasized that autobiographical or episodic memory is used not just as a basis for remembering past experiences, but also for imagining possible future experiences 15 and related functions such as personal and social problem solving. 16 - 19 Consistent with these findings, recent research in our lab provides evidence that an induction aimed at increasing memory specificity in young and old adults had beneficial effects on both groups' performance of subsequent tasks that required either remembering past experiences or imagining possible future experiences. 20 Importantly, the effects of the induction were selective in two ways. First, the specificity induction (compared with a control induction) produced increases in the number of episodic details (eg, who, what, where, when) that participants remembered or imagined, but had no effect on the number of remembered or imagined semantic details (eg, general facts, commentary, impressions). Second, the influence of the specificity induction was restricted to memory and imagination tasks; it had no effect on a task that required participants to describe a picture of an everyday scene. These findings suggest that the induction targeted episodic memory in particular, and more generally, that specificity inductions can be used as experimental tools to distinguish among cognitive processes and representations that contribute to memory and related functions.

Concluding comments

The research reviewed in the preceding sections highlights ways in which memory research can be applied to educational and clinical settings. An important next step for this kind of research will be to investigate the neural mechanisms that mediate the observed effects on cognitive processes. How can we characterize the neural changes associated with improved attention and memory as a result of interpolated quizzing during lectures? What kinds of changes in brain activity are associated with the improvements produced by memory specificity training and how can they help to pinpoint the specific processes that are affected? Recent work in the domain of cognitive control has revealed that extensive training on a video game that requires multitasking skills led not only to improved cognitive performance in individuals ranging in age from their 20s to their 70s, but also to associated changes in brain activity that were predictive of cognitive improvements 6 months later. 21 Moreover, the study also yielded evidence that training served to remediate age-related deficits in neural markers of cognitive control. Applying such a cognitive neuroscience approach to the phenomena considered here should enhance our understanding of both theoretical and applied aspects of memory function.

A person in a striped T-shirt typing on a laptop with a coffee and a pair of headphones in the foreground and a phone, glasses, notebook and pen in the background

What you do every day matters: The power of routines

Assistant Professor in Health Sciences, Queen's University, Ontario

Disclosure statement

Megan Edgelow receives funding from the Canadian Occupational Therapy Foundation and the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Queen's University, Ontario provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation CA.

Queen's University, Ontario provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

The word “routine” can bring to mind words like mundane or ordinary. During the pandemic’s disruptions to daily life , routines may have felt boring and restrictive. However, as an occupational therapist and researcher of the impact of activity and participation on mental health , I know that routines can be powerful tools. They can support cognitive function, boost health and provide meaningful activities and social opportunities.

Early in the pandemic, researchers pointed to the value of daily routines to cope with change. As the two-year anniversary of the pandemic coincides with the relaxation of public health measures across the country, reflecting on routines and their value is useful when moving toward a “new normal.”

Routines support cognitive function

First, having a daily routine and regular habits supports cognitive function and may even free people up to be more creative. Research has found that having regular work processes allows workers to spend less cognitive energy on recurring tasks, which can support focus and creativity for more complex tasks.

Think of typical morning routines that existed before the pandemic: helping family members get on their way, taking a usual route to work, grabbing a warm beverage along the way, saying hello to coworkers, flipping on a computer or opening a calendar. Having habits like these can set the stage for a productive work day.

A woman with a briefcase and a child with backpack holding hands, seen from behind walking out a door.

A review of the daily rituals of influential artists found that many artists have well defined work routines which may support their creativity rather than constrain it. Memory research shows that regular routines and habits can support older adults to function better in their home environments.

If taking medications at the same time and putting the keys in their spot is part of a daily routine, less energy will be spent looking for lost objects and worrying about maintaining one’s health, freeing up time for other things people want to do in their day.

Routines promote health

Regular routines can also help people feel like they have control over their daily lives and that they can take positive steps in managing their health. For example, making time for exercise within routines can help meet recommended daily activity levels . This is especially relevant now, since research shows that people who reduced their activity levels during the pandemic could experience enduring health effects.

Three women on yoga mats on grass, stretching

As people increase activity outside their homes, they might consider taking transit to school and work, returning to organized fitness activities and the gym and opportunities to include movement throughout the day. Other ways that routines can support health include regular meal preparation and getting enough sleep , activities that seem simple but can pay dividends in healthy aging over a lifetime.

Routines provide meaning

Regular routines can also go beyond the streamlining of daily tasks and add some spice to life. Evidence indicates that a health-promoting activity like walking can offer chances to enjoy nature, explore new places and socialize.

Research on the concept of flow , a state of full absorption in the present moment, shows that activities like sports, games, fine arts and music can be fulfilling and reinforcing. Regular participation in meaningful and engaging activities can also contribute positively to mental health .

Small steps to build routines

Scattered scrabble tiles, with seven standing tiles reading 'routine'

If you think your daily routines could use a tune up, consider some small steps:

• Use a day-timer or smart phone app to organize your activities and put the things you want to do in your schedule.

• Choose a regular time to wake up and to go to bed and try to stick to it most days of the week.

• Make physical activity manageable with neighbourhood walks or bike rides a few times a week.

• Start a new hobby or re-engage in a past one, like playing sports or games, making arts and crafts, playing an instrument or singing.

• Keep an eye out for meaningful activities that may be popping back up in your community, like a book club at the library or a social walking group.

Routines have the power to help us manage our health and our work, home and community lives. Two years after the pandemic changed everyone’s lives, people now have an opportunity to consider the routines they want to keep and the meaningful things they need in their daily lives to stay productive, happy and healthy.

Mental health
Productivity
Coronavirus
Healthy habits

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

Communications Coordinator

Head, School of Psychology

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Explaining research performance: investigating the importance of motivation

Original Paper
Open access
Published: 23 May 2024
Volume 4 , article number 105 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Silje Marie Svartefoss ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5072-1293 1 nAff4 ,
Jens Jungblut 2 ,
Dag W. Aksnes 1 ,
Kristoffer Kolltveit 2 &
Thed van Leeuwen 3

421 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In this article, we study the motivation and performance of researchers. More specifically, we investigate what motivates researchers across different research fields and countries and how this motivation influences their research performance. The basis for our study is a large-N survey of economists, cardiologists, and physicists in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK. The analysis shows that researchers are primarily motivated by scientific curiosity and practical application and less so by career considerations. There are limited differences across fields and countries, suggesting that the mix of motivational aspects has a common academic core less influenced by disciplinary standards or different national environments. Linking motivational factors to research performance, through bibliometric data on publication productivity and citation impact, our data show that those driven by practical application aspects of motivation have a higher probability for high productivity. Being driven by career considerations also increases productivity but only to a certain extent before it starts having a detrimental effect.

Theories of Motivation in Education: an Integrative Framework

How to design bibliometric research: an overview and a framework proposal

Interest Gaps in the Labor Market: Comparing People’s Vocational Interests with National Job Demands

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Motivation and abilities are known to be as important factors in explaining employees’ job performance of employees (Van Iddekinge et al. 2018 ), and in the vast scientific literature on motivation, it is common to differentiate between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors (Ryan and Deci 2000 ). In this context, path-breaking individuals are said to often be intrinsically motivated (Jindal-Snape and Snape 2006 ; Thomas and Nedeva 2012 ; Vallerand et al. 1992 ), and it has been found that the importance of these of types of motivations differs across occupations and career stages (Duarte and Lopes 2018 ).

In this article, we address the issue of motivation for one specific occupation, namely: researchers working at universities. Specifically, we investigate what motivates researchers across fields and countries (RQ1) and how this motivation is linked to their research performance (RQ2). The question of why people are motivated to do their jobs is interesting to address in an academic context, where work is usually harder to control, and individuals tend to have a lot of much freedom in structuring their work. Moreover, there have been indications that academics possess an especially high level of motivation for their tasks that is not driven by a search for external rewards but by an intrinsic satisfaction from academic work (Evans and Meyer 2003 ; Leslie 2002 ). At the same time, elements of researchers’ performance are measurable through indicators of their publication activity: their productivity through the number of outputs they produce and the impact of their research through the number of citations their publications receive (Aksnes and Sivertsen 2019 ; Wilsdon et al. 2015 ).

Elevating research performance is high on the agenda of many research organisations (Hazelkorn 2015 ). How such performance may be linked to individuals’ motivational aspects has received little attention. Thus, a better understanding of this interrelation may be relevant for developing institutional strategies to foster environments that promote high-quality research and research productivity.

Previous qualitative research has shown that scientists are mainly intrinsically motivated (Jindal-Snape and Snape 2006 ). Other survey-based contributions suggest that there can be differences in motivations across disciplines (Atta-Owusu and Fitjar 2021 ; Lam 2011 ). Furthermore, the performance of individual scientists has been shown to be highly skewed in terms of publication productivity and citation rates (Larivière et al. 2010 ; Ruiz-Castillo and Costas 2014 ). There is a large body of literature explaining these differences. Some focus on national and institutional funding schemes (Hammarfelt and de Rijcke 2015 ; Melguizo and Strober 2007 ) and others on the research environment, such as the presence of research groups and international collaboration (Jeong et al. 2014 ), while many studies address the role of academic rank, age, and gender (see e.g. Baccini et al. 2014 ; Rørstad and Aksnes 2015 ). Until recently, less emphasis has been placed on the impact of researchers’ motivation. Some studies have found that different types of motivations drive high levels of research performance (see e.g. Horodnic and Zaiţ 2015 ; Ryan and Berbegal-Mirabent 2016 ). However, researchers are only starting to understand how this internal drive relates to research performance.

While some of the prior research on the impact of motivation depends on self-reported research performance evaluations (Ryan 2014 ), the present article combines survey responses with actual bibliometric data. To investigate variation in research motivation across scientific fields and countries, we draw on a large-N survey of economists, cardiologists, and physicists in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK. To investigate how this motivation is linked to their research performance, we map the survey respondents’ publication and citation data from the Web of Science (WoS).

This article is organised as follows. First, we present relevant literature on research performance and motivation. Next, the scientific fields and countries are then presented before elaborating on our methodology. In the empirical analysis, we investigate variations in motivation across fields, gender, age, and academic position and then relate motivation to publications and citations as our two measures of research performance. In the concluding section, we discuss our findings and implications for national decision-makers and individual researchers.

Motivation and research performance

As noted above, the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation play an important role in the literature on motivation and performance. Here, intrinsic motivation refers to doing something for its inherent satisfaction rather than for some separable consequence. Extrinsic motivation refers to doing something because it leads to a separable outcome (Ryan and Deci 2000 ).

Some studies have found that scientists are mainly intrinsically motivated (Jindal-Snape and Snape 2006 ; Lounsbury et al. 2012 ). Research interests, curiosity, and a desire to contribute to new knowledge are examples of such motivational factors. Intrinsic motives have also been shown to be crucial when people select research as a career choice (Roach and Sauermann 2010 ). Nevertheless, scientists are also motivated by extrinsic factors. Several European countries have adopted performance-based research funding systems (Zacharewicz et al. 2019 ). In these systems, researchers do not receive direct financial bonuses when they publish, although such practices may occur at local levels (Stephan et al. 2017 ). Therefore, extrinsic motivation for such researchers may include salary increases, peer recognitions, promotion, or expanded access to research resources (Lam 2011 ). According to Tien and Blackburn ( 1996 ), both types of motivations operate simultaneously, and their importance vary and may depend on the individual’s circumstances, personal situation, and values.

The extent to which different kinds of motivations play a role in scientists’ performance has been investigated in several studies. In these studies, bibliometric indicators based on the number of publications are typically used as outcome measures. Such indicators play a critical role in various contexts in the research system (Wilsdon et al. 2015 ), although it has also been pointed out that individuals can have different motivations to publish (Hangel and Schmidt-Pfister 2017 ).

Based on a survey of Romanian economics and business administration academics combined with bibliometric data, Horodnic and Zait ( 2015 ) found that intrinsic motivation was positively correlated with research productivity, while extrinsic motivation was negatively correlated. Their interpretations of the results are that researchers motivated by scientific interest are more productive, while researchers motivated by extrinsic forces will shift their focus to more financially profitable activities. Similarly, based on the observation that professors continue to publish even after they have been promoted to full professor, Finkelstein ( 1984 ) concluded that intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivational factors have a decisive role regarding the productivity of academics.

Drawing on a survey of 405 research scientists working in biological, chemical, and biomedical research departments in UK universities, Ryan ( 2014 ) found that (self-reported) variations in research performance can be explained by instrumental motivation based on financial incentives and internal motivation based on the individual’s view of themselves (traits, competencies, and values). In the study, instrumental motivation was found to have a negative impact on research performance: As the desire for financial rewards increase, the level of research performance decreases. In other words, researchers mainly motivated by money will be less productive and effective in their research. Contrarily, internal motivation was found to have a positive impact on research performance. This was explained by highlighting that researchers motivated by their self-concept set internal standards that become a reference point that reinforces perceptions of competency in their environments.

Nevertheless, it has also been argued that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for publishing are intertwined (Ma 2019 ). According to Tien and Blackburn ( 1996 ), research productivity is neither purely intrinsically nor purely extrinsically motivated. Publication activity is often a result of research, which may be intrinsically motivated or motivated by extrinsic factors such as a wish for promotion, where the number of publications is often a part of the assessment (Cruz-Castro and Sanz-Menendez 2021 ; Tien 2000 , 2008 ).

The negative relationship between external/instrumental motivation and performance and the positive relationship between internal/self-concept motivation and performance are underlined by Ryan and Berbegal-Mirabent ( 2016 ). Drawing on a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of a random sampling of 300 of the original respondents from Ryan ( 2014 ), they find that scientists working towards the standards and values they identify with, combined with a lack of concern for instrumental rewards, contribute to higher levels of research performance.

Based on the above, this article will address two research questions concerning different forms of motivation and the relationship between motivation and research performance.

How does the motivation of researchers vary across fields and countries?

How do different types of motivations affect research performance?

In this study, the roles of three different motivational factors are analysed. These are scientific curiosity, practical and societal applications, and career progress. The study aims to assess the role of these specific motivational factors and not the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction more generally. Of the three factors, scientific curiosity most strongly relates to intrinsic motivation; practical and societal applications also entail strong intrinsic aspects. On the other hand, career progress is linked to extrinsic motivation.

In addition to variation in researchers’ motivations by field and country, we consider differences in relation to age, position and gender. Additionally, when investigating how motivation relates to scientific performance we control for the influence of age, gender, country and funding. These are dimensions where differences might be found in motivational factors given that scientific performance, particularly publication productivity, has been shown to differ along these dimensions (Rørstad and Aksnes 2015 ).

Research context: three fields, five countries

To address the research question about potential differences across fields and countries, the study is based on a sample consisting of researchers in three different fields (cardiology, economics, and physics) and five countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK). Below, we describe this research context in greater detail.

The fields represent three different domains of science: medicine, social sciences, and the natural sciences, where different motivational factors may be at play. This means that the fields cover three main areas of scientific investigations: the understanding of the world, the functioning of the human body, and societies and their functions. The societal role and mission of the fields also differ. While a primary aim of cardiology research and practice is to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease, physics research may drive technology advancements, which impacts society. Economics research may contribute to more effective use of limited resources and the management of people, businesses, markets, and governments. In addition, the fields also differ in publication patterns (Piro et al. 2013 ). The average number of publications per researcher is generally higher in cardiology and physics than in economics (Piro et al. 2013 ). Moreover, cardiologists and physicists mainly publish in international scientific journals (Moed 2005 ; Van Leeuwen 2013 ). In economics, researchers also tend to publish books, chapters, and articles in national languages, in addition to international journal articles (Aksnes and Sivertsen 2019 ; van Leeuwen et al. 2016 ).

We sampled the countries with a twofold aim. On the one hand, we wanted to have countries that are comparable so that differences in the development of the science systems, working conditions, or funding availability would not be too large. On the other hand, we also wanted to assure variation among the countries regarding these relevant framework conditions to ensure that our findings are not driven by a specific contextual condition.

The five countries in the study are all located in the northwestern part of Europe, with science systems that are foremost funded by block grant funding from the national governments (unlike, for example, the US, where research grants by national funding agencies are the most important funding mechanism) (Lepori et al. 2023 ).

In all five countries, the missions of the universities are composed of a blend of education, research, and outreach. Furthermore, the science systems in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands have a relatively strong orientation towards the Anglo-Saxon world in the sense that publishing in the national language still exists, but publishing in English in internationally oriented journals in which English is the language of publications is the norm (Kulczycki et al. 2018 ). These framework conditions ensure that those working in the five countries have somewhat similar missions to fulfil in their professions while also belonging to a common mainly Anglophone science system.

However, in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands, research findings in some social sciences, law, and the humanities are still oriented on publishing in various languages. Hence, we avoided selecting the humanities field for this study due to a potential issue with cross-country comparability (Sivertsen 2019 ; Sivertsen and Van Leeuwen 2014 ; Van Leeuwen 2013 ).

Finally, the chosen countries vary regarding their level of university autonomy. When combining the scores for organisational, financial, staffing, and academic autonomy presented in the latest University Autonomy in Europe Scorecard presented by the European University Association (EUA), the UK, the Netherlands, and Denmark have higher levels of autonomy compared to Norway and Sweden, with Swedish universities having less autonomy than their Norwegian counterparts (Pruvot et al. 2023 ). This variation is relevant for our study, as it ensures that our findings are not driven by response from a higher education system with especially high or low autonomy, which can influence the motivation and satisfaction of academics working in it (Daumiller et al. 2020 ).

Data and methods

The data used in this article are a combination of survey data and bibliometric data retrieved from the WoS. The WoS database was chosen for this study due to its comprehensive coverage of research literature across all disciplines, encompassing the three specific research areas under analysis. Additionally, the WoS database is well-suited for bibliometric analyses, offering citation counts essential for this study.

Two approaches were used to identify the sample for the survey. Initially, a bibliometric analysis of the WoS using journal categories (‘Cardiac & cardiovascular systems’, ‘Economics’, and ‘Physics’) enabled the identification of key institutions with a minimum number of publications within these journal categories. Following this, relevant organisational units and researchers within these units were identified through available information on the units’ webpages. Included were employees in relevant academic positions (tenured academic personnel, post-docs, and researchers, but not PhD students, adjunct positions, guest researchers, or administrative and technical personnel).

Second, based on the WoS data, people were added to this initial sample if they had a minimum number of publications within the field and belonged to any of the selected institutions, regardless of unit affiliation. For economics, the minimum was five publications within the selected period (2011–2016). For cardiology and physics, where the individual publication productivity is higher, the minimum was 10 publications within the same period. The selection of the minimum publication criteria was based on an analysis of publication outputs in these fields between 2011 and 2016. The thresholds were applied to include individuals who are more actively engaged in research while excluding those with more peripheral involvement. The higher thresholds for cardiology and physics reflect the greater frequency of publications (and co-authorship) observed in these fields.

The benefit of this dual-approach strategy to sampling is that we obtain a more comprehensive sample: the full scope of researchers within a unit and the full scope of researchers that publish within the relevant fields. Overall, 59% of the sample were identified through staff lists and 41% through the second step involving WoS data.

The survey data were collected through an online questionnaire first sent out in October 2017 and closed in December 2018. In this period, several reminders were sent to increase the response rate. Overall, the survey had a response rate of 26.1% ( N = 2,587 replies). There were only minor variations in response rates between scientific fields; the variations were larger between countries. Tables 1 and 2 provide an overview of the response rate by country and field.

Operationalisation of motivation

Motivation was measured by a question in the survey asking respondents what motivates or inspires them to conduct research, of which three dimensions are analysed in the present paper. The two first answer categories were related to intrinsic motivation (‘Curiosity/scientific discovery/understanding the world’ and ‘Application/practical aims/creating a better society’). The third answer category was more related to extrinsic motivation (‘Progress in my career [e.g. tenure/permanent position, higher salary, more interesting/independent work]’). Appendix Table A1 displays the distribution of respondents and the mean value and standard deviation for each item.

These three different aspects of motivation do not measure the same phenomenon but seem to capture different aspects of motivation (see Pearson’s correlation coefficients in Appendix Table A2 ). There is no correlation between curiosity/scientific discovery, career progress, and practical application. However, there is a weak but significant positive correlation between career progress and practical application. These findings indicate that those motivated by career considerations to some degrees also are motivated by practical application.

In addition to investigating how researchers’ motivation varies by field and country, we consider the differences in relation to age, position and gender as well. Field of science differentiates between economics, cardiology, physics, and other fields. The country variables differentiate between the five countries. Age is a nine-category variable. The position variable differentiates between full professors, associate professors, and assistant professors. The gender variable has two categories (male or female). For descriptive statistics on these additional variables, see Appendix Table A3 .

Publication productivity and citation impact

To analyse the respondents’ bibliometric performance, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) in-house WoS database was used. We identified the publication output of each respondent during 2011–2017 (limited to regular articles, reviews, and letters). For 16% of the respondents, no publications were identified in the database. These individuals had apparently not published in international journals covered by the database. However, in some cases, the lack of publications may be due to identification problems (e.g. change of names). Therefore, we decided not to include the latter respondents in the analysis.

Two main performance measures were calculated: publication productivity and citation impact. As an indicator of productivity, we counted the number of publications for each individual (as author or co-author) during the period. To analyse the citation impact, a composite measure using three different indicators was used: total number of citations (total citations counts for all articles they have contributed to during the period, counting citations up to and including 2017), normalised citation score (MNCS), and proportion of publications among the 10% most cited articles in their fields (Waltman and Schreiber 2013 ). Here, the MNCS is an indicator for which the citation count of each article is normalised by subject, article type, and year, where 1.00 corresponds to the world average (Waltman et al. 2011 ). Based on these data, averages for the total publication output of each respondent were calculated. By using three different indicators, we can avoid biases or limitations attached to each of them. For example, using the MNCS, a respondent with only one publication would appear as a high impact researcher if this article was highly cited. However, when considering the additional indicator, total citation counts, this individual would usually perform less well.

The bibliometric scores were skewedly distributed among the respondents. Rather than using the absolute numbers, in this paper, we have classified the respondents into three groups according to their scores on the indicators. Here, we have used percentile rank classes (tertiles). Percentile statistics are increasingly applied in bibliometrics (Bornmann et al. 2013 ; Waltman and Schreiber 2013 ) due to the presence of outliers and long tails, which characterise both productivity and citation distributions.

As the fields analysed have different publication patterns, the respondents within each field were ranked according to their scores on the indicators, and their percentile rank was determined. For the productivity measure, this means that there are three groups that are equal in terms of number of individuals included: 1: Low productivity (the group with the lowest publication numbers, 0–33 percentile), 2: Medium productivity (33–67 percentile), and 3: High productivity (67–100 percentile). For the citation impact measure, we conducted a similar percentile analysis for each of the three composite indicators. Then everyone was assigned to one of the three percentile groups based on their average score: 1: Low citation impact (the group with lowest citation impact, 0–33 percentile), 2: Medium citation impact (33–67 percentile), and 3: High citation impact (67–100 percentile), cf. Table 3 . Although it might be argued that the application of tertile groups rather than absolute numbers leads to a loss of information, the advantage is that the results are not influenced by extreme values and may be easier to interpret.

Via this approach, we can analyse the two important dimensions of the respondents’ performance. However, it should be noted that the WoS database does not cover the publication output of the fields equally. Generally, physics and cardiology are very well covered, while the coverage of economics is somewhat lower due to different publication practices (Aksnes and Sivertsen 2019 ). This problem is accounted for in our study by ranking the respondents in each field separately, as described above. In addition, not all respondents may have been active researchers during the entire 2011–2017 period, which we have not adjusted for. Despite these limitations, the analysis provides interesting information on the bibliometric performance of the respondents at an aggregated level.

Regression analysis

To analyse the relationship between motivation and performance, we apply multinomial logistic regression rather then ordered logistic regression because we assume that the odds for respondents belonging in each category of the dependent variables are not equal (Hilbe 2017 ). The implication of this choice of model is that the model tests the probability of respondents being in one category compared to another (Hilbe 2017 ). This means that a reference or baseline category must be selected for each of the dependent variables (productivity and citation impact). Furthermore, the coefficient estimates show how the probability of being in one of the other categories decreases or increases compared to being in the reference category.

For this analysis, we selected the medium performers as the reference or baseline category for both our dependent variables. This enables us to evaluate how the independent variables affect the probability of being in the low performers group compared to the medium performers and the high performers compared to the medium performers.

To evaluate model fit, we started with a baseline model where only types of motivations were included as independent variables. Subsequently, the additional variables were introduced into the model, and based on measures for model fit (Pseudo R 2 , -2LL, and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)), we concluded that the model with all additional variables included provides the best fit to the data for both the dependent variables (see Appendix Tables A5 and A6 ). Additional control variables include age, gender, country, and funding. We include these variables as controls to obtain robust effects of motivation and not effects driven by other underlying factors. The type of funding was measured by variables where the respondent answered the following question: ‘How has your research been funded the last five years?’ The funding variable initially consisted of four categories: ‘No source’, ‘Minor source’, ‘Moderate source’, and ‘Major source’. In this analysis, we have combined ‘No source’ and ‘Minor source’ into one category (0) and ‘Moderate source’ and ‘Major source’ into another category (1). Descriptive statistics for the funding variables are available in Appendix Table A4 . We do not control for the influence of field due to how the scientific performance variables are operationalised, the field normalisation implies that there are no variations across fields. We also do not control for position, as this variable is highly correlated with age, and we are therefore unable to include these two variables in the same model.

The motivation of researchers

In the empirical analysis, we first investigate variation in motivation and then relate it to publications and citations as our two measures of research performance.

As Fig. 1 shows, the respondents are mainly driven by curiosity and the wish to make scientific discoveries. This is by far the most important motivation. Practical application is also an important source of motivation, while making career progress is not identified as being very important.

Motivation of researchers– percentage

As Table 4 shows, at the level of fields, there are no large differences, and the motivational profiles are relatively similar. However, physicists tend to view practical application as somewhat less important than cardiologists and economists. Moreover, career progress is emphasised most by economists. Furthermore, as table 5 shows, there are some differences in motivation between countries. For curiosity/scientific discovery and practical application, the variations across countries are minor, but researchers in Denmark tend to view career progress as somewhat more important than researchers in the other countries.

Furthermore, as table 6 shows, women seem to view practical application and career progress as a more important motivation than men; these differences are also significant. Similar gender disparities have also been reported in a previous study (Zhang et al. 2021 ).

There are also some differences in motivation across the additional variables worth mentioning, as Table 7 shows. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, there is a significant moderate negative correlation between age, position, and career progress. This means that the importance of career progress as a motivation seems to decrease with increased age or a move up the position hierarchy.

In the second part of the analysis, we relate motivation to research performance. We first investigate publications and productivity using the percentile groups. Here, we present the results we use using predicted probabilities because they are more easily interpretable than coefficient estimates. For the model with productivity percentile groups as the dependent variable, the estimates for career progress were negative when comparing the medium productivity group to the high productivity group and the medium productivity group to the low productivity group. This result indicates that the probability of being in the high and low productivity groups decreases compared to the medium productivity group as the value of career progress increases, which may point towards a curvilinear relationship between the variables. A similar pattern was also found in the model with the citation impact group as the dependent variable, although it was not as apparent.

As a result of this apparent curvilinear relationship, we included quadric terms for career progress in both models, and these were significant. Likelihood ratio tests also show that the models with quadric terms included have a significant better fit to the data. Furthermore, the AIC was also lower for these models compared to the initial models where quadric terms were not included (see Appendix Tables A5 – A7 ). Consequently, we base our results on these models, which can be found in Appendix Table A7 . Due to a low number of respondents in the low categories of the scientific curiosity/discovery variable, we also combined the first three values into one to include it as a variable in the regression analysis, which results in a reduced three-value variable for scientific curiosity/discovery.

Results– productivity percentile group

Using the productivity percentile group as the dependent variable, we find that the motivational aspects of practical application and career progress have a significant effect on the probability of being in the low, medium, or high productivity group but not curiosity/scientific discovery. In Figs. 2 and 3 , each line represents the probability of being in each group across the scale of each motivational aspect.

Predicted probability for being in each of the productivity groups according to the value on the ‘practical application’ variable

Predicted probability of being in the low and high productivity groups according to the value on the ‘progress in my career’ variable

Figure 2 shows that at low values of application, there are no significant differences between the probability of being in either of the groups. However, from around value 3 of application, the differences between the probability of being in each group increases, and these are also significant. As a result, we concluded that high scores on practical application is related to increased probability of being in the high productivity group.

In Fig. 3 , we excluded the medium productivity group from the figure because there are no significant differences between this group and the high and low productivity group. Nevertheless, we found significant differences between the low productivity and the high productivity group. Since we added a quadric term for career progress, the two lines in Fig. 3 have a curvilinear shape. Figure 3 shows that there are only significant differences between the probability of being in the low or high productivity group at mid and high values of career progress. In addition, the probability of being in the high productivity group is at its highest value at mid values of career progress. This indicates that being motivated by career progress increases the probability of being in the high productivity group but only up to a certain point before it begins to have a negative effect on the probability of being in this group.

We also included age and gender as variables in the model, and Figs. 4 and 5 show the results. Figure 4 shows that age especially impacts the probability of being in the high productivity and low productivity groups. The lowest age category (< 30–34 years) has the highest probability for being in the low productivity group, while from the mid age category (50 years and above), the probability is highest for being in the high productivity group. This means that increased age is related to an increased probability of high productivity. The variable controlling for the effect of funding also showed some significant results (see Appendix Table A7 ). The most relevant finding is that receiving competitive grants from external public sources had a very strong and significant positive effect on being in the high productivity group and a medium-sized significant negative effect on being in the low productivity group. This shows that receiving external funding in the form of competitive grants has a strong effect on productivity.

Predicted probability of being in each of the productivity groups according to age

Figure 5 shows that there is a difference between male and female respondents. For females, there are no differences in the probability of being in either of the groups, while males have a higher probability of being in the high productivity group compared to the medium and low productivity groups.

Results– citation impact group

For the citation impact group as the dependent variable, we found that career progress has a significant effect on the probability of being in the low citation impact group or the high citation group but not curiosity/scientific discovery or practical application. Figure 6 shows how the probability of being in the high citation impact group increases as the value on career progress increases and is higher than that of being in the low citation impact group, but only up to a certain point. This indicates that career progress increases the probability of being in the high citation impact group to some degree but that too high values are not beneficial for high citation impact. However, it should also be noted that the effect of career progress is weak and that it is difficult to conclude on how very low or very high values of career progress affect the probability of being in the two groups.

Predicted probability for being in each of the citation impact groups according to the value on the ‘progress in my career’ variable

We also included age and gender as variables in the model, and we found a similar pattern as in the model with productivity percentile group as the dependent variable. However, the relationship between the variables is weaker in this model with the citation impact group as the dependent variable. Figure 7 shows that the probability of being in the high citation impact group increases with age, but there is no significant difference between the probability of being in the high citation impact group and the medium citation impact group. We only see significant differences when each of these groups is compared to the low citation impact group. In addition, the increase in probability is more moderate in this model.

Predicted probability of being in each of the citation impact groups according to age

Figure 8 shows that there are differences between male and female respondents. Male respondents have a significant higher probability of being in the medium or high citation impact group compared to the low citation impact group, but there is no significant difference in the probability between the high and medium citation impact groups. For female respondents, there are no significant differences. Similarly, for age, the effect also seems to be more moderate in this model compared to the model with productivity percentile groups as the dependent variable. In addition, the effect of funding sources is more moderate on citation impact compared to productivity (see Appendix Table A7 ). Competitive grants from external public sources still have the most relevant effect, but the effect size and level of significance is lower than for the model where productivity groups are the dependent variable. Respondents who received a large amount of external funding through competitive grants are more likely to be highly cited, but the effect size is much smaller, and the result is only significant at p < 0.1. Those who do not receive much funding from this source are more likely to be in the low impact group. Here, the effect size is large, and the coefficient is highly significant.

Predicted probability for being in each of the citation impact groups according to gender

Concluding discussion

This article aimed to explore researchers’ motivations and investigate the impact of motivation on research performance. By addressing these issues across several fields and countries, we provided new evidence on the motivation and performance of researchers.

Most researchers in our large-N survey found curiosity/scientific discovery to be a crucial motivational factor, with practical application being the second most supported aspect. Only a smaller number of respondents saw career progress as an important inspiration to conduct their research. This supports the notion that researchers are mainly motivated by core aspects of academic work such as curiosity, discoveries, and practical application of their knowledge and less so by personal gains (see Evans and Meyer 2003 ). Therefore, our results align with earlier research on motivation. In their interview study of scientists working at a government research institute in the UK, Jindal-Snape and Snape ( 2006 ) found that the scientists were typically motivated by the ability to conduct high quality, curiosity-driven research and de-motivated by the lack of feedback from management, difficulty in collaborating with colleagues, and constant review and change. Salaries, incentive schemes, and prospects for promotion were not considered a motivator for most scientists. Kivistö and colleagues ( 2017 ) also observed similar patterns in more recent survey data from Finnish academics.

As noted in the introduction, the issue of motivation has often been analysed in the literature using the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction. In our study, we have not applied these concepts directly. However, it is clear that the curiosity/scientific discovery item should be considered a type of intrinsic motivation, as it involves performing the activity for its inherent satisfaction. Moreover, the practical application item should probably be considered mainly intrinsic, as it involves creating a better society (for others) without primarily focusing on gains for oneself. The career progress item explicitly mentions personal gains such as position and higher salary and is, therefore, a type of extrinsic motivation. This means that our results support the notion that there are very strong elements of intrinsic motivation among researchers (Jindal-Snape and Snape 2006 ).

When analysing the three aspects of motivation, we found some differences. Physicists tend to view practical application as less important than researchers in the two other fields, while career progress was most emphasised by economists. Regarding country differences, our data suggest that career progress is most important for researchers in Denmark. Nevertheless, given the limited effect sizes, the overall picture is that motivational factors seem to be relatively similar regarding disciplinary and country dimensions.

Regarding gender aspects of motivation, our data show that women seem to view practical application and career progress as more important than men. One explanation for this could be the continued gender differences in academic careers, which tend to disadvantage women, thus creating a greater incentive for female scholars to focus on and be motivated by career progress aspects (Huang et al. 2020 ; Lerchenmueller and Sorenson 2018 ). Unsurprisingly, respondents’ age and academic position influenced the importance of different aspects of motivation, especially regarding career progress. Here, increased age and moving up the positional hierarchy are linked to a decrease in importance. This highlights that older academics and those in more senior positions drew more motivation from other sources that are not directly linked to their personal career gains. This can probably be explained by the academic career ladder plateauing at a certain point in time, as there are often no additional titles and very limited recognition beyond becoming a full professor. Finally, the type of funding that scholars received also had an influence on their productivity and, to a certain extent, citation impact.

Overall, there is little support that researchers across various fields and countries are very different when it comes to their motivation for conducting research. Rather, there seems to be a strong common core of academic motivation that varies mainly by gender and age/position. Rather than talking about researchers’ motivation per se, our study, therefore, suggests that one should talk about motivation across gender, at different stages of the career, and, to a certain degree, in different fields. Thus, motivation seems to be a multi-faceted construct, and the importance of different aspects of motivation vary between different groups.

In the second step of our analysis, we linked motivation to performance. Here, we focused on both scientific productivity and citation impact. Regarding the former, our data show that both practical application and career progress have a significant effect on productivity. The relationship between practical application aspects and productivity is linear, meaning that those who indicate that this aspect of motivation is very important to them have a higher probability of being in the high productivity group. The relationship between career aspects of motivation and productivity is curve linear, and we found only significant differences between the high and low productivity groups at mid and high values of the motivation scale. This indicates that being more motivated by career progress increases productivity but only to a certain extent before it starts having a detrimental effect. A common assumption has been that intrinsic motivation has a positive and instrumental effect and extrinsic motivation has a negative effect on the performance of scientists (Peng and Gao 2019 ; Ryan and Berbegal-Mirabent 2016 ). Our results do not generally support this, as motives related to career progress are positively linked with productivity only to a certain point. Possibly, this can be explained by the fact that the number of publications is often especially important in the context of recruitment and promotion (Langfeldt et al. 2021 ; Reymert et al. 2021 ). Thus, it will be beneficial from a scientific career perspective to have many publications when trying to get hired or promoted.

Regarding citation impact, our analysis highlights that only the career aspects of motivation have a significant effect. Similar to the results regarding productivity, being more motivated by career progress increases the probability of being in the high citation impact group, but only to a certain value when the difference stops being significant. It needs to be pointed out that the effect strength is weaker than in the analysis that focused on productivity. Thus, these results should be treated with greater caution.

Overall, our results shed light on some important aspects regarding the motivation of academics and how this translates into research performance. Regarding our first research question, it seems to be the case that there is not one type of motivation but rather different contextual mixes of motivational aspects that are strongly driven by gender and the academic position/age. We found only limited effects of research fields and even less pronounced country effects, suggesting that while situational, the mix of motivational aspects also has a common academic core that is less influenced by different national environments or disciplinary standards. Regarding our second research question, our results challenge the common assumption that intrinsic motivation has a positive effect and extrinsic motivation has a negative effect on the performance of scientists. Instead, we show that motives related to career are positively linked to productivity at least to a certain point. Our analysis regarding citation patterns achieved similar results. Combined with the finding regarding the importance of current academic position and age for specific patterns of motivation, it could be argued that the fact that the number of publications is often used as a measurement in recruitment and promotion makes academics that are more driven by career aspects publish more, as this is perceived as a necessary condition for success.

Our study has a clear focus on the research side of academic work. However, most academics do both teaching and research, which raises the question of how far our results can also inform our knowledge regarding the motivation for teaching. On the one hand, previous studies have highlighted that intrinsic motivation is also of high importance for the quality of teaching (see e.g. Wilkesmann and Lauer 2020 ), which fits well with our findings. At the same time, the literature also highlights persistent goal conflicts of academics (see e.g. Daumiller et al. 2020 ), given that extra time devoted to teaching often comes at the costs of publications and research. Given that other findings in the literature show that research performance continues to be of higher importance than teaching in academic hiring processes (Reymert et al. 2021 ), the interplay between research performance, teaching performance, and different types of motivation is most likely more complicated and demands further investigation.

While offering several relevant insights, our study still comes with certain limitations that must be considered. First, motivation is a complex construct. Thus, there are many ways one could operationalise it, and not one specific understanding so far seems to have emerged as best practice. Therefore, our approach to operationalisation and measurement should be seen as an addition to this broader field of measurement approaches, and we do not claim that this is the only sensible way of doing it. Second, we rely on self-reported survey data to measure the different aspects of motivation in our study. This means that aspects such as social desirability could influence how far academics claim to be motivated by certain aspects. For example, claiming to be mainly motivated by personal career gains may be considered a dubious motive among academics.

With respect to the bibliometric analyses, it is important to realise that we have lumped researchers into categories, thereby ‘smoothening’ the individual performances into group performances under the various variables. This has an effect that some extraordinary scores might have become invisible in our study, which might have been interesting to analyse separately, throwing light on the relationships we studied. However, breaking the material down to the lower level of analysis of individual researchers also comes with a limitation, namely that at the level of the individual academic, bibliometrics tend to become quite sensitive for the underlying numbers, which in itself is then hampered by the coverage of the database used, the publishing cultures in various countries and fields, and the age and position of the individuals. Therefore, the level of the individual academic has not been analysed in our study, how interesting and promising outcomes might have been. even though we acknowledge that such a study could yield interesting results.

Finally, our sample is drawn from northwestern European countries and a limited set of disciplines. We would argue that we have sufficient variation in countries and disciplines to make the results relevant for a broader audience context. While our results show rather small country or discipline differences, we are aware that there might be country- or discipline-specific effects that we cannot capture due to the sampling approach we used. Moreover, as we had to balance sufficient variation in framework conditions with the comparability of cases, the geographical generalisation of our results has limitations.

This article investigated what motivates researchers across different research fields and countries and how this motivation influences their research performance. The analysis showed that the researchers are mainly motivated by scientific curiosity and practical application and less so by career considerations. Furthermore, the analysis shows that researchers driven by practical application aspects of motivation have a higher probability of high productivity. Being driven by career considerations also increases productivity but only to a certain extent before it starts having a detrimental effect.

The article is based on a large-N survey of economists, cardiologists, and physicists in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK. Building on this study, future research should expand the scope and study the relationship between motivation and productivity as well as citation impact in a broader disciplinary and geographical context. In addition, we encourage studies that develop and validate our measurement and operationalisation of aspects of researchers’ motivation.

Finally, a long-term panel study design that follows respondents throughout their academic careers and investigates how far their motivational patterns shift over time would allow for more fine-grained analysis and thereby a richer understanding of the important relationship between motivation and performance in academia.

Data availability

The data set for this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Aksnes DW, Sivertsen G (2019) A criteria-based assessment of the coverage of Scopus and web of Science. J Data Inform Sci 4(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0001

Article Google Scholar

Atta-Owusu K, Fitjar RD (2021) What motivates academics for external engagement? Exploring the effects of motivational drivers and organizational fairness. Sci Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab075 . November, scab075

Baccini A, Barabesi L, Cioni M, Pisani C (2014) Crossing the hurdle: the determinants of individual. Sci Perform Scientometrics 101(3):2035–2062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1395-3

Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L, Mutz R (2013) The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: opportunities and limits. J Informetrics 7(1):158–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.10.001

Cruz-Castro L, Sanz-Menendez L (2021) What should be rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion. J Informetrics 15(3):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101196

Daumiller M, Stupnisky R, Janke S (2020) Motivation of higher education faculty: theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Int J Educational Res 99:101502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101502

Duarte H, Lopes D (2018) Career stages and occupations impacts on workers motivations. Int J Manpow 39(5):746–763. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-02-2017-0026

Evans IM, Meyer LH (2003) Motivating the professoriate: why sticks and carrots are only for donkeys. High Educ Manage Policy 15(3):151–167. https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v15-art29-en

Finkelstein MJ (1984) The American academic profession: a synthesis of social scientific inquiry since World War II. Ohio State University, Columbus

Google Scholar

Hammarfelt B, de Rijcke S (2015) Accountability in context: effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the Faculty of arts at Uppsala University. Res Evaluation 24(1):63–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu029

Hangel N, Schmidt-Pfister D (2017) Why do you publish? On the tensions between generating scientific knowledge and publication pressure. Aslib J Inform Manage 69(5):529–544. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0019

Hazelkorn E (2015) Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: the battle for world-class excellence. Palgrave McMillan, Basingstoke

Book Google Scholar

Hilbe JM (2017) Logistic regression models. Taylor & Francis Ltd, London

Horodnic IA, Zaiţ A (2015) Motivation and research productivity in a university system undergoing transition. Res Evaluation 24(3):282–292

Huang J, Gates AJ, Sinatra R, Barabási A-L (2020) Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(9):4609–4616. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117

Jeong S, Choi JY, Kim J-Y (2014) On the drivers of international collaboration: the impact of informal communication, motivation, and research resources. Sci Public Policy 41(4):520–531. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct079

Jindal-Snape D, Snape JB (2006) Motivation of scientists in a government research institute: scientists’ perceptions and the role of management. Manag Decis 44(10):1325–1343. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610715678

Kivistö J, Pekkola E, Lyytinen A (2017) The influence of performance-based management on teaching and research performance of Finnish senior academics. Tert Educ Manag 23(3):260–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1328529

Kulczycki E, Engels TCE, Pölönen J, Bruun K, Dušková M, Guns R et al (2018) Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics 116(1):463–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2711-0

Lam A (2011) What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: gold, ribbon or puzzle? Res Policy 40(10):1354–1368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002

Langfeldt L, Reymert I, Aksnes DW (2021) The role of metrics in peer assessments. Res Evaluation 30(1):112–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa032

Larivière V, Macaluso B, Archambault É, Gingras Y (2010) Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations. Res Evaluation 19(1):45–53. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820210X492495

Lepori B, Jongbloed B, Hicks D (2023) Introduction to the handbook of public funding of research: understanding vertical and horizontal complexities. In: Lepori B, Hicks BJ D (eds) Handbook of public funding of research. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 1–19

Chapter Google Scholar

Lerchenmueller MJ, Sorenson O (2018) The gender gap in early career transitions in the life sciences. Res Policy 47(6):1007–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.009

Leslie DW (2002) Resolving the dispute: teaching is academe’s core value. J High Educ 73(1):49–73

Lounsbury JW, Foster N, Patel H, Carmody P, Gibson LW, Stairs DR (2012) An investigation of the personality traits of scientists versus nonscientists and their relationship with career satisfaction: relationship of personality traits and career satisfaction of scientists and nonscientists. R&D Manage 42(1):47–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00665.x

Ma L (2019) Money, morale, and motivation: a study of the output-based research support scheme. Univ Coll Dublin Res Evaluation 28(4):304–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz017

Melguizo T, Strober MH (2007) Faculty salaries and the maximization of prestige. Res High Educt 48(6):633–668

Moed HF (2005) Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer, Dordrecht

Netherlands Observatory of Science (NOWT) (2012) Report to the Dutch Ministry of Science, Education and Culture (OC&W). Den Haag 1998

Peng J-E, Gao XA (2019) Understanding TEFL academics’ research motivation and its relations with research productivity. SAGE Open 9(3):215824401986629. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019866295

Piro FN, Aksnes DW, Rørstad K (2013) A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 64(2):307–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22746

Pruvot EB, Estermann T, Popkhadze N (2023) University autonomy in Europe IV. The scorecard 2023. Retrieved from Brussels. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua autonomy scorecard.pdf

Reymert I, Jungblut J, Borlaug SB (2021) Are evaluative cultures national or global? A cross-national study on evaluative cultures in academic recruitment processes in Europe. High Educ 82(5):823–843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00659-3

Roach M, Sauermann H (2010) A taste for science? PhD scientists’ academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry. Res Policy 39(3):422–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.004

Rørstad K, Aksnes DW (2015) Publication rate expressed by age, gender and academic position– A large-scale analysis of Norwegian academic staff. J Informetrics 9(2):317–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.02.003

Ruiz-Castillo J, Costas R (2014) The skewness of scientific productivity. J Informetrics 8(4):917–934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.006

Ryan JC (2014) The work motivation of research scientists and its effect on research performance: work motivation of research scientists. R&D Manage 44(4):355–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12063

Ryan JC, Berbegal-Mirabent J (2016) Motivational recipes and research performance: a fuzzy set analysis of the motivational profile of high-performing research scientists. J Bus Res 69(11):5299–5304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.128

Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Sivertsen G (2019) Understanding and evaluating research and scholarly publishing in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). Data Inform Manage 3(2):61–71. https://doi.org/10.2478/dim-2019-0008

Sivertsen G, Van Leeuwen T (2014) Scholarly publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities and their relationship with research assessment

Stephan P, Veugelers R, Wang J (2017) Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics. Nature 544(7651):411–412. https://doi.org/10.1038/544411a

Thomas D, Nedeva M (2012) Characterizing researchers to study research funding agency impacts: the case of the European Research Council’s starting grants. Res Evaluation 21(4):257–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs020

Tien FF (2000) To what degree does the desire for promotion motivate faculty to perform research? Testing the expectancy theory. Res High Educt 41(6):723–752. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007020721531

Tien FF (2008) What kind of faculty are motivated to perform research by the desire for promotion? High Educ 55(1):17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9033-5

Tien FF, Blackburn RT (1996) Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty research productivity: measure refinement and theory testing. J High Educ 67(1):2. https://doi.org/10.2307/2943901

Vallerand RJ, Pelletier LG, Blais MR, Briere NM, Senecal C, Vallieres EF (1992) The academic motivation scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educ Psychol Meas 52(4):1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025

Van Iddekinge CH, Aguinis H, Mackey JD, DeOrtentiis PS (2018) A meta-analysis of the interactive, additive, and relative effects of cognitive ability and motivation on performance. J Manag 44(1):249–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317702220

Van Leeuwen T (2013) Bibliometric research evaluations, Web of Science and the social sciences and humanities: A problematic relationship? Bibliometrie - Praxis Und Forschung, September, Bd. 2(2013). https://doi.org/10.5283/BPF.173

Van Leeuwen T, van Wijk E, Wouters PF (2016) Bibliometric analysis of output and impact based on CRIS data: a case study on the registered output of a Dutch university. Scientometrics 106(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1788-y

Waltman L, Schreiber M (2013) On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 64(2):372–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22775

Waltman L, van Eck NJ, van Leeuwen TN, Visser MS, van Raan AFJ (2011) Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis. Scientometrics 87(3):467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0354-5

Wilkesmann U, Lauer S (2020) The influence of teaching motivation and new public management on academic teaching. Stud High Educ 45(2):434–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1539960

Wilsdon J, Allen L, Belfiore E, Campbell P, Curry S, Hill S, Jones R et al (2015) The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363

Zacharewicz T, Lepori B, Reale E, Jonkers K (2019) Performance-based research funding in EU member states—A comparative assessment. Sci Public Policy 46(1):105–115. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy041

Zhang L, Sivertsen G, Du H, Huang Y, Glänzel W (2021) Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research. Scientometrics 126(11):8861–8886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04171-y

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to the R-QUEST team for input and comments to the paper.

The authors disclosed the receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Research Council Norway (RCN) [grant number 256223] (R-QUEST).

Open access funding provided by University of Oslo (incl Oslo University Hospital)

Author information

Silje Marie Svartefoss

Present address: TIK Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo, 0317, Oslo, Norway

Authors and Affiliations

Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU), Økernveien 9, 0608, Oslo, Norway

Silje Marie Svartefoss & Dag W. Aksnes

Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, 0315, Oslo, Norway

Jens Jungblut & Kristoffer Kolltveit

Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, 2311, Leiden, The Netherlands

Thed van Leeuwen

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Silje Marie Svartefoss, Jens Jungblut, Dag W. Aksnes, Kristoffer Kolltveit, and Thed van Leeuwen. The first draft of the manuscript was written by all authors in collaboration, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silje Marie Svartefoss .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Informed consent

was retrieved from the participants in this study.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Svartefoss, S.M., Jungblut, J., Aksnes, D.W. et al. Explaining research performance: investigating the importance of motivation. SN Soc Sci 4 , 105 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-024-00895-9

Download citation

Received : 14 December 2023

Accepted : 15 April 2024

Published : 23 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-024-00895-9

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

Performance
Productivity
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Fats and Cholesterol

When it comes to dietary fat, what matters most is the type of fat you eat. Contrary to past dietary advice promoting low-fat diets , newer research shows that healthy fats are necessary and beneficial for health.

When food manufacturers reduce fat, they often replace it with carbohydrates from sugar, refined grains, or other starches. Our bodies digest these refined carbohydrates and starches very quickly, affecting blood sugar and insulin levels and possibly resulting in weight gain and disease. ( 1-3 )
Findings from the Nurses’ Health Study ( 4 ) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study ( 5 ) show that no link between the overall percentage of calories from fat and any important health outcome, including cancer, heart disease, and weight gain.

Rather than adopting a low-fat diet, it’s more important to focus on eating beneficial “good” fats and avoiding harmful “bad” fats. Fat is an important part of a healthy diet. Choose foods with “good” unsaturated fats, limit foods high in saturated fat, and avoid “bad” trans fat.

“Good” unsaturated fats — Monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats — lower disease risk. Foods high in good fats include vegetable oils (such as olive, canola, sunflower, soy, and corn), nuts, seeds, and fish.
“Bad” fats — trans fats — increase disease risk, even when eaten in small quantities. Foods containing trans fats are primarily in processed foods made with trans fat from partially hydrogenated oil. Fortunately, trans fats have been eliminated from many of these foods.
Saturated fats , while not as harmful as trans fats, by comparison with unsaturated fats negatively impact health and are best consumed in moderation. Foods containing large amounts of saturated fat include red meat, butter, cheese, and ice cream. Some plant-based fats like coconut oil and palm oil are also rich in saturated fat.
When you cut back on foods like red meat and butter, replace them with fish, beans, nuts, and healthy oils instead of refined carbohydrates.

Read more about healthy fats in this “Ask the Expert” with HSPH’s Dr. Walter Willett and Amy Myrdal Miller, M.S., R.D., formerly of The Culinary Institute of America

1. Siri-Tarino, P.W., et al., Saturated fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease: modulation by replacement nutrients. Curr Atheroscler Rep, 2010. 12(6): p. 384-90.

2. Hu, F.B., Are refined carbohydrates worse than saturated fat? Am J Clin Nutr, 2010. 91(6): p. 1541-2.

3. Jakobsen, M.U., et al., Intake of carbohydrates compared with intake of saturated fatty acids and risk of myocardial infarction: importance of the glycemic index. Am J Clin Nutr, 2010. 91(6): p. 1764-8.

4. Hu, F.B., et al., Dietary fat intake and the risk of coronary heart disease in women. N Engl J Med, 1997. 337(21): p. 1491-9.

5. Ascherio, A., et al., Dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease in men: cohort follow up study in the United States. BMJ, 1996. 313(7049): p. 84-90.

6. Hu, F.B., J.E. Manson, and W.C. Willett, Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr, 2001. 20(1): p. 5-19.

Terms of Use

The contents of this website are for educational purposes and are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The Nutrition Source does not recommend or endorse any products.

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Long-Overlooked Molecule That Will Define a Generation of Science

By Thomas Cech

Dr. Cech is a biochemist and the author of the forthcoming book “The Catalyst: RNA and the Quest to Unlock Life’s Deepest Secrets,” from which this essay is adapted.

From E=mc² to splitting the atom to the invention of the transistor, the first half of the 20th century was dominated by breakthroughs in physics.

Then, in the early 1950s, biology began to nudge physics out of the scientific spotlight — and when I say “biology,” what I really mean is DNA. The momentous discovery of the DNA double helix in 1953 more or less ushered in a new era in science that culminated in the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003, which decoded all of our DNA into a biological blueprint of humankind.

DNA has received an immense amount of attention. And while the double helix was certainly groundbreaking in its time, the current generation of scientific history will be defined by a different (and, until recently, lesser-known) molecule — one that I believe will play an even bigger role in furthering our understanding of human life: RNA.

You may remember learning about RNA (ribonucleic acid) back in your high school biology class as the messenger that carries information stored in DNA to instruct the formation of proteins. Such messenger RNA, mRNA for short, recently entered the mainstream conversation thanks to the role they played in the Covid-19 vaccines. But RNA is much more than a messenger, as critical as that function may be.

Other types of RNA, called “noncoding” RNAs, are a tiny biological powerhouse that can help to treat and cure deadly diseases, unlock the potential of the human genome and solve one of the most enduring mysteries of science: explaining the origins of all life on our planet.

Though it is a linchpin of every living thing on Earth, RNA was misunderstood and underappreciated for decades — often dismissed as nothing more than a biochemical backup singer, slaving away in obscurity in the shadows of the diva, DNA. I know that firsthand: I was slaving away in obscurity on its behalf.

In the early 1980s, when I was much younger and most of the promise of RNA was still unimagined, I set up my lab at the University of Colorado, Boulder. After two years of false leads and frustration, my research group discovered that the RNA we’d been studying had catalytic power. This means that the RNA could cut and join biochemical bonds all by itself — the sort of activity that had been thought to be the sole purview of protein enzymes. This gave us a tantalizing glimpse at our deepest origins: If RNA could both hold information and orchestrate the assembly of molecules, it was very likely that the first living things to spring out of the primordial ooze were RNA-based organisms.

That breakthrough at my lab — along with independent observations of RNA catalysis by Sidney Altman at Yale — was recognized with a Nobel Prize in 1989. The attention generated by the prize helped lead to an efflorescence of research that continued to expand our idea of what RNA could do.

In recent years, our understanding of RNA has begun to advance even more rapidly. Since 2000, RNA-related breakthroughs have led to 11 Nobel Prizes. In the same period, the number of scientific journal articles and patents generated annually by RNA research has quadrupled. There are more than 400 RNA-based drugs in development, beyond the ones that are already in use. And in 2022 alone, more than $1 billion in private equity funds was invested in biotechnology start-ups to explore frontiers in RNA research.

What’s driving the RNA age is this molecule’s dazzling versatility. Yes, RNA can store genetic information, just like DNA. As a case in point, many of the viruses (from influenza to Ebola to SARS-CoV-2) that plague us don’t bother with DNA at all; their genes are made of RNA, which suits them perfectly well. But storing information is only the first chapter in RNA’s playbook.

Unlike DNA, RNA plays numerous active roles in living cells. It acts as an enzyme, splicing and dicing other RNA molecules or assembling proteins — the stuff of which all life is built — from amino acid building blocks. It keeps stem cells active and forestalls aging by building out the DNA at the ends of our chromosomes.

RNA discoveries have led to new therapies, such as the use of antisense RNA to help treat children afflicted with the devastating disease spinal muscular atrophy. The mRNA vaccines, which saved millions of lives during the Covid pandemic, are being reformulated to attack other diseases, including some cancers . RNA research may also be helping us rewrite the future; the genetic scissors that give CRISPR its breathtaking power to edit genes are guided to their sites of action by RNAs.

Although most scientists now agree on RNA's bright promise, we are still only beginning to unlock its potential. Consider, for instance, that some 75 percent of the human genome consists of dark matter that is copied into RNAs of unknown function. While some researchers have dismissed this dark matter as junk or noise, I expect it will be the source of even more exciting breakthroughs.

We don’t know yet how many of these possibilities will prove true. But if the past 40 years of research have taught me anything, it is never to underestimate this little molecule. The age of RNA is just getting started.

Thomas Cech is a biochemist at the University of Colorado, Boulder; a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1989 for his work with RNA; and the author of “The Catalyst: RNA and the Quest to Unlock Life’s Deepest Secrets,” from which this essay is adapted.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Is college worth it? The answer for half of Americans is striking.

A college degree has often been sold as the key to a higher-quality, affluent life. But a new survey from the Pew Research Center suggests Americans have mixed views about that narrative – and data shows people without degrees have seen their earnings increase in the last decade.

Just 1 in 4 U.S. adults said it was extremely or very important to have a four-year degree if you want a well-paying job in the current economy. Forty percent of respondents said it wasn’t too important or important at all.

Mirroring those trends, just 22% of adults said the cost of getting a bachelor’s is worth it even if it means taking out student loans. Nearly half said the cost is only worth it when students don’t have to go into debt.

Graphics explain: How are college costs adding up these days and how much has tuition risen?

Given trends in the labor and economy – combined with skyrocketing tuition and student debt levels – the lackluster confidence among Americans isn’t surprising. For several decades until about 2014, for example, the earnings for young men without a degree trended downward. But the past decade “has marked a turning point,” according to the Pew analysis.

Workforce participation for these young men has stabilized and their earnings have risen. The share of them living in poverty has also fallen significantly. In 2011, for example, 17% of young men with just a high school diploma were living in poverty; in 2023, that rate dropped to 12%. Young women’s outcomes also improved in recent years.

The changing circumstances help explain why people's mindsets about the value of college have shifted. Roughly half of Americans, according to the Pew report, say a four-year degree is less important today than it was in the past to secure a well-paying job. A smaller percentage – about a third – say it’s more important now.

The skepticism is more pronounced among conservative Americans than people who identify as Democrats or somewhat Democrat. Most Republicans (57%) said it was less important to have a four-year degree. Still, Americans from both parties are more likely to say the importance of a college degree has declined than to say it's increased.

The findings come as the Biden administration works to forgive certain borrowers’ federal student loan debt, which now totals more than $1.6 trillion. On top of barriers to covering tuition, college life has been altered this year by an uptick in culture war tensions on campus, from bans on diversity, equity and inclusion programming to student protests prompted by the Israel-Hamas war. These challenges have fueled debates about whether college is worth it.

Still, the research shows that earnings for degree holders have also trended upward. The income gaps between college graduates and those with just high school degrees or incomplete credentials have persisted.

And while employment prospects for young men without a degree improved in the past decade, their median annual earnings remain below their 1973 adjusted levels.

Financial aid crisis: How FAFSA 'fixes' have turned College Decision Day into chaos

IMAGES

Importance of Research in Daily Life
1 The Importance of Research in Daily Life
Why is Research Important for Undergraduate Students?
7 Reasons Why Research Is Important
IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH IN DAILY LIFE I Discussion I Practical Research 1
What is research|| Significance and importance|| In daily life

VIDEO

Why Basic Research is Important
Why is research important in palliative care and hospices?
Research in 3 Minutes: Peer Review
THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH
HOW TO READ and ANALYZE A RESEARCH STUDY
Importance of Research

COMMENTS

Importance Of Research In Daily Life
As a student, research plays an important role in our daily life. It helps us to gain knowledge and understanding of the world around us. It also allows us to develop new skills and perspectives. In addition, research helps us to innovate and create new things. Research is essential for students because it helps us to learn about the world ...
10 Importance of Research in Our Daily Life
Here are the following 10 importance of research in our daily life: 1. Expanding Knowledge Base. Research acts as a door to education and continuous learning. Regardless of your expertise, there is always more to discover about a subject.
How Research Powers Our Day-to-Day: An Unseen Influence
In this article, we delve into the importance of research in daily life, making tangible the link between the seemingly abstract world of research and our everyday experiences. The Hidden Guide in Our Decision Making. One of the most immediate ways research impacts our lives is by informing our daily decision-making.
2.1 Why Is Research Important?
Discuss how scientific research guides public policy. Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions. Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people's authority, and blind luck.
A Guide to Using the Scientific Method in Everyday Life
A brief history of the scientific method. The scientific method has its roots in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Philosophers Francis Bacon and René Descartes are often credited with formalizing the scientific method because they contrasted the idea that research should be guided by metaphysical pre-conceived concepts of the nature of reality—a position that, at the time, was ...
7 Reasons Why Research Is Important
Why Research Is Necessary and Valuable in Our Daily Lives. It's a tool for building knowledge and facilitating learning. It's a means to understand issues and increase public awareness. It helps us succeed in business. It allows us to disprove lies and support truths. It is a means to find, gauge, and seize opportunities.
10 Reasons Why Research is Important
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.
What Is the Importance of Research? 5 Reasons Why Research is Critical
Builds up credibility. People are willing to listen and trust someone with new information on one condition - it's backed up. And that's exactly where research comes in. Conducting studies on new and unfamiliar subjects, and achieving the desired or expected outcome, can help people accept the unknown.
2.1: Why Is Research Important?
Discuss how scientific research guides public policy. Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions. Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people's authority, and blind luck.
The Importance of Research in the Advancement of Society
The Importance of Research in the Advancement of Society. Thanks to the internet and other technologies, life moves at a very fast pace. We're constantly adapting and learning new ways to do things-as well as expecting and even demanding innovation from our scientists, executives, and leaders. Without research, our demands would go ...
Benefits of science
Benefits of science. The process of science is a way of building knowledge about the universe — constructing new ideas that illuminate the world around us. Those ideas are inherently tentative, but as they cycle through the process of science again and again and are tested and retested in different ways, we become increasingly confident in them.
2.8: Why Is Research Important?
By the end of this section, you will be able to: Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behavior. Discuss how scientific research guides public policy. Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions. Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world.
10 Practical Uses of Science in Our Daily Life
Transportation and Travel. Science plays a crucial role in transportation and travel, impacting our daily lives in numerous ways. Firstly, advancements in science have revolutionized the way we travel, with the invention of various modes of transportation such as cars, airplanes, and trains. These innovations have made it quicker and more ...
Explaining How Research Works
Placing research in the bigger context of its field and where it fits into the scientific process can help people better understand and interpret new findings as they emerge. A single study usually uncovers only a piece of a larger puzzle. Questions about how the world works are often investigated on many different levels.
What Is Research and Why We Do It
A demand for research may in fact originate directly from the civil society. Researchers may be involved in initiatives that disseminate research and innovation to the general public. This interaction is increasingly important today, due to the profound impact of research on humans, their daily life, and human relations.
Why does research matter?
Abstract. A working knowledge of research - both how it is done, and how it can be used - is important for everyone involved in direct patient care and the planning & delivery of eye programmes. A research coordinator collecting data from a health extension worker. ethiopia. The mention of 'research' can be off-putting and may seem ...
How does research impact your everyday life?
Source: University of Surrey. "The research has found that adolescence, the time when bone growth is most important in laying down the foundations for later life, is a time when Vitamin D levels are inadequate," says Dr Taryn Smith, Lead Author of the study. The study forms part of a four-year, EU-funded project, ODIN, which aims to ...
What has science done for you lately?
Scientific knowledge can improve the quality of life at many different levels — from the routine workings of our everyday lives to global issues. Science informs public policy and personal decisions on energy, conservation, agriculture, health, transportation, communication, defense, economics, leisure, and exploration.
What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?
Abstractspiepr Abs1. Every day people do research as they gather information to learn about something of interest. In the scientific world, however, research means something different than simply gathering information. Scientific research is characterized by its careful planning and observing, by its relentless efforts to understand and explain ...
Research and Its Importance for Daily Life Essay
This paper aims to take an analytical look at the concept of research. The paper will begin with a detailed look at the concept of research. Thereafter, the several similarities between different aspects of research will be analyzed. The impact of research on our daily life will also be reviewed. We will write a custom essay on your topic.
(PDF) A history of research conducted in daily life
This is an extended and updated version of a historical review on research conducted. in daily life (Wilhelm, Perrez, & Pawlik, 2012), that we wrote for the Handbook of Research. Methods in Daily ...
Memory: from the laboratory to everyday life
Abstract. One of the key goals of memory research is to develop a basic understanding of the nature and characteristics of memory processes and systems. Another important goal is to develop useful applications of basic research to everyday life. This editorial considers two lines of work that illustrate some of the prospects for applying memory ...
The value of field research in academia
From anthropology to zoology, immersion within communities, cultural settings, and study systems is integral to research and learning (1, 2). Fieldwork, the direct observation and collection of data in natural settings, enables researchers to collect relevant data, connect theory to complex social and ecological systems, and apply research findings to the real world (1). However, in addition ...
What you do every day matters: The power of routines
Routines promote health. Regular routines can also help people feel like they have control over their daily lives and that they can take positive steps in managing their health. For example ...
Explaining research performance: investigating the importance of
In this article, we study the motivation and performance of researchers. More specifically, we investigate what motivates researchers across different research fields and countries and how this motivation influences their research performance. The basis for our study is a large-N survey of economists, cardiologists, and physicists in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK. The ...
Vitamins and Minerals
RDA is the average daily dietary intake sufficient to meet the nutrient requirement of 97-98% of healthy individuals in a particular group according to stage of life and gender. ** May play a role in the human body, but adequate research regarding its nutritional importance is not available so RDA or AI has not been set.
Water
It's important to note that this amount is not a daily target, but a general guide. ... potentially leading to dehydration, research does not fully support this. The data suggest that more than 180 mg of caffeine daily (about two cups of brewed coffee) may increase urination in the short-term in some people, but will not necessarily lead to ...
Fats and Cholesterol
When it comes to dietary fat, what matters most is the type of fat you eat. Contrary to past dietary advice promoting low-fat diets, newer research shows that healthy fats are necessary and beneficial for health.. When food manufacturers reduce fat, they often replace it with carbohydrates from sugar, refined grains, or other starches. Our bodies digest these refined carbohydrates and starches ...
Opinion
Dr. Cech is a biochemist and the author of the forthcoming book "The Catalyst: RNA and the Quest to Unlock Life's Deepest Secrets," from which this essay is adapted. From E=mc² to splitting ...
Is college worth it? Americans are split about cost and debt.
A college degree has often been sold as the key to a higher-quality, affluent life. But a new survey from the Pew Research Center suggests Americans have mixed views about that narrative - and ...