plan for future research

to learn about a field of study

to understand current knowledge on a subject

to formulate questions & identify a research problem

to focus the purpose of one's research

to contribute new knowledge to a field

personal knowledge

intellectual curiosity

to prepare for architectural program writing

academic degrees

grant applications

proposal writing

academic research

planning

funding

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

• Introduction

Literature review

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Proposal Format

The proposal will usually have a  title page  that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

Introduction The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.. Your introduction should:

• Introduce your  topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and  research questions To guide your  introduction , include information about:  
• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights will your research contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong  literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or  synthesize  prior scholarship

Research design and methods

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your project. Next, your  research design  or  methodology  section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions. Write up your projected, if not actual, results.

Contribution to knowledge

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Lastly, your research proposal must include correct  citations  for every source you have used, compiled in a  reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use free APA citation generators like BibGuru. Databases have a citation button you can click on to see your citation. Sometimes you have to re-format it as the citations may have mistakes. 

• << Previous: Writing a Literature Review
• Next: Thesis Submission Instructions >>

Edit this Guide

Log into Dashboard

Use of RIT resources is reserved for current RIT students, faculty and staff for academic and teaching purposes only. Please contact your librarian with any questions.

Help is Available

Email a Librarian

A librarian is available by e-mail at [email protected]

Meet with a Librarian

Call reference desk voicemail.

A librarian is available by phone at (585) 475-2563 or on Skype at llll

Or, call (585) 475-2563 to leave a voicemail with the reference desk during normal business hours .

Chat with a Librarian

Future foresight and planning resources infoguide url.

https://infoguides.rit.edu/ffp

Use the box below to email yourself a link to this guide

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to secondary sidebar
• Skip to footer

career-advice.jobs.ac.uk

Making A Five Year Research Plan

Many academics will be asked by their institutions to produce a research plan that will take them up to the date of the next REF-style audit. In this exercise universities want their researchers to conduct ‘blue skies’ thinking that will fulfil their institutional strategic needs. However, scholars have their own agendas too. Here’s some advice on how to make your five-year research plan work for you.

Thinking backwards:

Preparing a five-year plan is a good opportunity for you to tie up loose ends. Doing your PhD you will have come across numerous avenues of research that did not make the final draft. So you will probably have several half-started projects or ideas that have a lot of potential. You might now be able to schedule time to complete these projects. If they are worthwhile to the development of your discipline, enhancing your own scholarly identity and furthering your career, then they are definitely worth pursuing.

Thinking forwards:

This is also an exciting opportunity to plan and develop new projects. It is vital to think big and to show your current employers or any future employers that you can deliver significant research projects. However, be realistic. Take into account the teaching commitments that will distract you from research and the competitive nature of funding and publication opportunities.

Planning ahead – career and research:

Using this method of five-year planning, you can tie your research profile to your developing career. Do you want to move to another institution or gain promotion in your current one? If so, think of ways in which your research plan can improve your chances of doing just that. Undertaking an audit of your progress so far and your future plans is a perfect activity for the new year!

Institutional needs:

Your university (and future employers) will want to see that you’ve thought about three major areas: internationalisation, third stream income and impact . They may also have their own particular areas of focus that you can refer to.

Your research mentor will want to see that any projects are realistically costed. Do not just imagine what you want to research but how you will pay for it. If you suggest a piece of research that can be accomplished without teaching relief, practical resources, or travel costs then you can complete it when you like, but some funding will be required for most projects. Try to achieve a balance between internal funding from your institution and external funding from other sources.

Collaborations:

You don’t always have to design, undertake and complete a research project alone. Scientists are much better at collaborative work than their humanities counterparts. Not only can collaborations be personally rewarding through developing connections and even friendships with like-minded individuals, but also much larger projects can be considered.

When thinking of your research plans, focus on the output that you will produce. This might be a traditional publication, a monograph, edited collection or journal, but could be something different such as a documentary, a museum exhibition, a website, a series of public lectures or a database. These outputs can be tied to the strategic agenda of your university, and to your career development ambitions.

What did you think of our article? - please rate

Share this article

Reader Interactions

You may also like:, leave a reply cancel reply.

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Please enter an answer in digits: 14 + 19 =

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

Illustration by James Round

How to plan a research project

Whether for a paper or a thesis, define your question, review the work of others – and leave yourself open to discovery.

by Brooke Harrington   + BIO

is professor of sociology at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. Her research has won international awards both for scholarly quality and impact on public life. She has published dozens of articles and three books, most recently the bestseller Capital without Borders (2016), now translated into five languages.

Edited by Sam Haselby

Need to know

‘When curiosity turns to serious matters, it’s called research.’ – From Aphorisms (1880-1905) by Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Planning research projects is a time-honoured intellectual exercise: one that requires both creativity and sharp analytical skills. The purpose of this Guide is to make the process systematic and easy to understand. While there is a great deal of freedom and discovery involved – from the topics you choose, to the data and methods you apply – there are also some norms and constraints that obtain, no matter what your academic level or field of study. For those in high school through to doctoral students, and from art history to archaeology, research planning involves broadly similar steps, including: formulating a question, developing an argument or predictions based on previous research, then selecting the information needed to answer your question.

Some of this might sound self-evident but, as you’ll find, research requires a different way of approaching and using information than most of us are accustomed to in everyday life. That is why I include orienting yourself to knowledge-creation as an initial step in the process. This is a crucial and underappreciated phase in education, akin to making the transition from salaried employment to entrepreneurship: suddenly, you’re on your own, and that requires a new way of thinking about your work.

What follows is a distillation of what I’ve learned about this process over 27 years as a professional social scientist. It reflects the skills that my own professors imparted in the sociology doctoral programme at Harvard, as well as what I learned later on as a research supervisor for Ivy League PhD and MA students, and then as the author of award-winning scholarly books and articles. It can be adapted to the demands of both short projects (such as course term papers) and long ones, such as a thesis.

At its simplest, research planning involves the four distinct steps outlined below: orienting yourself to knowledge-creation; defining your research question; reviewing previous research on your question; and then choosing relevant data to formulate your own answers. Because the focus of this Guide is on planning a research project, as opposed to conducting a research project, this section won’t delve into the details of data-collection or analysis; those steps happen after you plan the project. In addition, the topic is vast: year-long doctoral courses are devoted to data and analysis. Instead, the fourth part of this section will outline some basic strategies you could use in planning a data-selection and analysis process appropriate to your research question.

Step 1: Orient yourself

Planning and conducting research requires you to make a transition, from thinking like a consumer of information to thinking like a producer of information. That sounds simple, but it’s actually a complex task. As a practical matter, this means putting aside the mindset of a student, which treats knowledge as something created by other people. As students, we are often passive receivers of knowledge: asked to do a specified set of readings, then graded on how well we reproduce what we’ve read.

Researchers, however, must take on an active role as knowledge producers . Doing research requires more of you than reading and absorbing what other people have written: you have to engage in a dialogue with it. That includes arguing with previous knowledge and perhaps trying to show that ideas we have accepted as given are actually wrong or incomplete. For example, rather than simply taking in the claims of an author you read, you’ll need to draw out the implications of those claims: if what the author is saying is true, what else does that suggest must be true? What predictions could you make based on the author’s claims?

In other words, rather than treating a reading as a source of truth – even if it comes from a revered source, such as Plato or Marie Curie – this orientation step asks you to treat the claims you read as provisional and subject to interrogation. That is one of the great pieces of wisdom that science and philosophy can teach us: that the biggest advances in human understanding have been made not by being correct about trivial things, but by being wrong in an interesting way . For example, Albert Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics, but his arguments about it with his fellow physicist Niels Bohr have led to some of the biggest breakthroughs in science, even a century later.

Step 2: Define your research question

Students often give this step cursory attention, but experienced researchers know that formulating a good question is sometimes the most difficult part of the research planning process. That is because the precise language of the question frames the rest of the project. It’s therefore important to pose the question carefully, in a way that’s both possible to answer and likely to yield interesting results. Of course, you must choose a question that interests you, but that’s only the beginning of what’s likely to be an iterative process: most researchers come back to this step repeatedly, modifying their questions in light of previous research, resource limitations and other considerations.

Researchers face limits in terms of time and money. They, like everyone else, have to pose research questions that they can plausibly answer given the constraints they face. For example, it would be inadvisable to frame a project around the question ‘What are the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict?’ if you have only a week to develop an answer and no background on that topic. That’s not to limit your imagination: you can come up with any question you’d like. But it typically does require some creativity to frame a question that you can answer well – that is, by investigating thoroughly and providing new insights – within the limits you face.

In addition to being interesting to you, and feasible within your resource constraints, the third and most important characteristic of a ‘good’ research topic is whether it allows you to create new knowledge. It might turn out that your question has already been asked and answered to your satisfaction: if so, you’ll find out in the next step of this process. On the other hand, you might come up with a research question that hasn’t been addressed previously. Before you get too excited about breaking uncharted ground, consider this: a lot of potentially researchable questions haven’t been studied for good reason ; they might have answers that are trivial or of very limited interest. This could include questions such as ‘Why does the area of a circle equal π r²?’ or ‘Did winter conditions affect Napoleon’s plans to invade Russia?’ Of course, you might be able to make the argument that a seemingly trivial question is actually vitally important, but you must be prepared to back that up with convincing evidence. The exercise in the ‘Learn More’ section below will help you think through some of these issues.

Finally, scholarly research questions must in some way lead to new and distinctive insights. For example, lots of people have studied gender roles in sports teams; what can you ask that hasn’t been asked before? Reinventing the wheel is the number-one no-no in this endeavour. That’s why the next step is so important: reviewing previous research on your topic. Depending on what you find in that step, you might need to revise your research question; iterating between your question and the existing literature is a normal process. But don’t worry: it doesn’t go on forever. In fact, the iterations taper off – and your research question stabilises – as you develop a firm grasp of the current state of knowledge on your topic.

Step 3: Review previous research

In academic research, from articles to books, it’s common to find a section called a ‘literature review’. The purpose of that section is to describe the state of the art in knowledge on the research question that a project has posed. It demonstrates that researchers have thoroughly and systematically reviewed the relevant findings of previous studies on their topic, and that they have something novel to contribute.

Your own research project should include something like this, even if it’s a high-school term paper. In the research planning process, you’ll want to list at least half a dozen bullet points stating the major findings on your topic by other people. In relation to those findings, you should be able to specify where your project could provide new and necessary insights. There are two basic rhetorical positions one can take in framing the novelty-plus-importance argument required of academic research:

• Position 1 requires you to build on or extend a set of existing ideas; that means saying something like: ‘Person A has argued that X is true about gender; this implies Y, which has not yet been tested. My project will test Y, and if I find evidence to support it, that will change the way we understand gender.’
• Position 2 is to argue that there is a gap in existing knowledge, either because previous research has reached conflicting conclusions or has failed to consider something important. For example, one could say that research on middle schoolers and gender has been limited by being conducted primarily in coeducational environments, and that findings might differ dramatically if research were conducted in more schools where the student body was all-male or all-female.

Your overall goal in this step of the process is to show that your research will be part of a larger conversation: that is, how your project flows from what’s already known, and how it advances, extends or challenges that existing body of knowledge. That will be the contribution of your project, and it constitutes the motivation for your research.

Two things are worth mentioning about your search for sources of relevant previous research. First, you needn’t look only at studies on your precise topic. For example, if you want to study gender-identity formation in schools, you shouldn’t restrict yourself to studies of schools; the empirical setting (schools) is secondary to the larger social process that interests you (how people form gender identity). That process occurs in many different settings, so cast a wide net. Second, be sure to use legitimate sources – meaning publications that have been through some sort of vetting process, whether that involves peer review (as with academic journal articles you might find via Google Scholar) or editorial review (as you’d find in well-known mass media publications, such as The Economist or The Washington Post ). What you’ll want to avoid is using unvetted sources such as personal blogs or Wikipedia. Why? Because anybody can write anything in those forums, and there is no way to know – unless you’re already an expert – if the claims you find there are accurate. Often, they’re not.

Step 4: Choose your data and methods

Whatever your research question is, eventually you’ll need to consider which data source and analytical strategy are most likely to provide the answers you’re seeking. One starting point is to consider whether your question would be best addressed by qualitative data (such as interviews, observations or historical records), quantitative data (such as surveys or census records) or some combination of both. Your ideas about data sources will, in turn, suggest options for analytical methods.

You might need to collect your own data, or you might find everything you need readily available in an existing dataset someone else has created. A great place to start is with a research librarian: university libraries always have them and, at public universities, those librarians can work with the public, including people who aren’t affiliated with the university. If you don’t happen to have a public university and its library close at hand, an ordinary public library can still be a good place to start: the librarians are often well versed in accessing data sources that might be relevant to your study, such as the census, or historical archives, or the Survey of Consumer Finances.

Because your task at this point is to plan research, rather than conduct it, the purpose of this step is not to commit you irrevocably to a course of action. Instead, your goal here is to think through a feasible approach to answering your research question. You’ll need to find out, for example, whether the data you want exist; if not, do you have a realistic chance of gathering the data yourself, or would it be better to modify your research question? In terms of analysis, would your strategy require you to apply statistical methods? If so, do you have those skills? If not, do you have time to learn them, or money to hire a research assistant to run the analysis for you?

Please be aware that qualitative methods in particular are not the casual undertaking they might appear to be. Many people make the mistake of thinking that only quantitative data and methods are scientific and systematic, while qualitative methods are just a fancy way of saying: ‘I talked to some people, read some old newspapers, and drew my own conclusions.’ Nothing could be further from the truth. In the final section of this guide, you’ll find some links to resources that will provide more insight on standards and procedures governing qualitative research, but suffice it to say: there are rules about what constitutes legitimate evidence and valid analytical procedure for qualitative data, just as there are for quantitative data.

Circle back and consider revising your initial plans

As you work through these four steps in planning your project, it’s perfectly normal to circle back and revise. Research planning is rarely a linear process. It’s also common for new and unexpected avenues to suggest themselves. As the sociologist Thorstein Veblen wrote in 1908 : ‘The outcome of any serious research can only be to make two questions grow where only one grew before.’ That’s as true of research planning as it is of a completed project. Try to enjoy the horizons that open up for you in this process, rather than becoming overwhelmed; the four steps, along with the two exercises that follow, will help you focus your plan and make it manageable.

Key points – How to plan a research project

• Planning a research project is essential no matter your academic level or field of study. There is no one ‘best’ way to design research, but there are certain guidelines that can be helpfully applied across disciplines.
• Orient yourself to knowledge-creation. Make the shift from being a consumer of information to being a producer of information.
• Define your research question. Your question frames the rest of your project, sets the scope, and determines the kinds of answers you can find.
• Review previous research on your question. Survey the existing body of relevant knowledge to ensure that your research will be part of a larger conversation.
• Choose your data and methods. For instance, will you be collecting qualitative data, via interviews, or numerical data, via surveys?
• Circle back and consider revising your initial plans. Expect your research question in particular to undergo multiple rounds of refinement as you learn more about your topic.

Good research questions tend to beget more questions. This can be frustrating for those who want to get down to business right away. Try to make room for the unexpected: this is usually how knowledge advances. Many of the most significant discoveries in human history have been made by people who were looking for something else entirely. There are ways to structure your research planning process without over-constraining yourself; the two exercises below are a start, and you can find further methods in the Links and Books section.

The following exercise provides a structured process for advancing your research project planning. After completing it, you’ll be able to do the following:

• describe clearly and concisely the question you’ve chosen to study
• summarise the state of the art in knowledge about the question, and where your project could contribute new insight
• identify the best strategy for gathering and analysing relevant data

In other words, the following provides a systematic means to establish the building blocks of your research project.

Exercise 1: Definition of research question and sources

This exercise prompts you to select and clarify your general interest area, develop a research question, and investigate sources of information. The annotated bibliography will also help you refine your research question so that you can begin the second assignment, a description of the phenomenon you wish to study.

Jot down a few bullet points in response to these two questions, with the understanding that you’ll probably go back and modify your answers as you begin reading other studies relevant to your topic:

• What will be the general topic of your paper?
• What will be the specific topic of your paper?

b) Research question(s)

Use the following guidelines to frame a research question – or questions – that will drive your analysis. As with Part 1 above, you’ll probably find it necessary to change or refine your research question(s) as you complete future assignments.

• Your question should be phrased so that it can’t be answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
• Your question should have more than one plausible answer.
• Your question should draw relationships between two or more concepts; framing the question in terms of How? or What? often works better than asking Why ?

c) Annotated bibliography

Most or all of your background information should come from two sources: scholarly books and journals, or reputable mass media sources. You might be able to access journal articles electronically through your library, using search engines such as JSTOR and Google Scholar. This can save you a great deal of time compared with going to the library in person to search periodicals. General news sources, such as those accessible through LexisNexis, are acceptable, but should be cited sparingly, since they don’t carry the same level of credibility as scholarly sources. As discussed above, unvetted sources such as blogs and Wikipedia should be avoided, because the quality of the information they provide is unreliable and often misleading.

To create an annotated bibliography, provide the following information for at least 10 sources relevant to your specific topic, using the format suggested below.

Name of author(s):

Publication date:

Title of book, chapter, or article:

If a chapter or article, title of journal or book where they appear:

Brief description of this work, including main findings and methods ( c 75 words):

Summary of how this work contributes to your project ( c 75 words):

Brief description of the implications of this work ( c 25 words):

Identify any gap or controversy in knowledge this work points up, and how your project could address those problems ( c 50 words):

Exercise 2: Towards an analysis

Develop a short statement ( c 250 words) about the kind of data that would be useful to address your research question, and how you’d analyse it. Some questions to consider in writing this statement include:

• What are the central concepts or variables in your project? Offer a brief definition of each.
• Do any data sources exist on those concepts or variables, or would you need to collect data?
• Of the analytical strategies you could apply to that data, which would be the most appropriate to answer your question? Which would be the most feasible for you? Consider at least two methods, noting their advantages or disadvantages for your project.

Links & books

One of the best texts ever written about planning and executing research comes from a source that might be unexpected: a 60-year-old work on urban planning by a self-trained scholar. The classic book The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) by Jane Jacobs (available complete and free of charge via this link ) is worth reading in its entirety just for the pleasure of it. But the final 20 pages – a concluding chapter titled ‘The Kind of Problem a City Is’ – are really about the process of thinking through and investigating a problem. Highly recommended as a window into the craft of research.

Jacobs’s text references an essay on advancing human knowledge by the mathematician Warren Weaver. At the time, Weaver was director of the Rockefeller Foundation, in charge of funding basic research in the natural and medical sciences. Although the essay is titled ‘A Quarter Century in the Natural Sciences’ (1960) and appears at first blush to be merely a summation of one man’s career, it turns out to be something much bigger and more interesting: a meditation on the history of human beings seeking answers to big questions about the world. Weaver goes back to the 17th century to trace the origins of systematic research thinking, with enthusiasm and vivid anecdotes that make the process come alive. The essay is worth reading in its entirety, and is available free of charge via this link .

For those seeking a more in-depth, professional-level discussion of the logic of research design, the political scientist Harvey Starr provides insight in a compact format in the article ‘Cumulation from Proper Specification: Theory, Logic, Research Design, and “Nice” Laws’ (2005). Starr reviews the ‘research triad’, consisting of the interlinked considerations of formulating a question, selecting relevant theories and applying appropriate methods. The full text of the article, published in the scholarly journal Conflict Management and Peace Science , is available, free of charge, via this link .

Finally, the book Getting What You Came For (1992) by Robert Peters is not only an outstanding guide for anyone contemplating graduate school – from the application process onward – but it also includes several excellent chapters on planning and executing research, applicable across a wide variety of subject areas. It was an invaluable resource for me 25 years ago, and it remains in print with good reason; I recommend it to all my students, particularly Chapter 16 (‘The Thesis Topic: Finding It’), Chapter 17 (‘The Thesis Proposal’) and Chapter 18 (‘The Thesis: Writing It’).

Spirituality and religion

How to find new spiritual practices

Even if religion isn’t for you, there’s a world of rituals and tools to lift yourself up and connect to something greater

by Morgan Shipley

Emerging therapies

How to look after your emotional health

Find out which of your emotional needs you’ve been neglecting and use tips from human givens therapy to address them

by Denise Winn

How to get the most out of caregiving

Giving care is hard, but it’s one of the most meaningful things you can do. Here’s how to change up your perspective

by Elissa Strauss

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten simple rules for giving an effective academic job talk

* E-mail: [email protected] (SAS); [email protected] (JOLS)

¶ ‡ SAS, LLS, and MRA contributed equally to this work. CEGA, ACB, ACRG, MJ, GSK, JSM, JM, and ROM also contributed equally to this work.

Affiliation Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Human Genetics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America

• Shayna A. Sura, 
• Lauren L. Smith, 
• Monique R. Ambrose, 
• C. Eduardo Guerra Amorim, 
• Annabel C. Beichman, 
• Ana C. R. Gomez, 
• Mark Juhn, 
• Gaurav S. Kandlikar, 
• Julie S. Miller, 

Published: July 25, 2019

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007163
• Reader Comments

Citation: Sura SA, Smith LL, Ambrose MR, Amorim CEG, Beichman AC, Gomez ACR, et al. (2019) Ten simple rules for giving an effective academic job talk. PLoS Comput Biol 15(7): e1007163. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007163

Editor: Fran Lewitter, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, UNITED STATES

Copyright: © 2019 Sura et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (to SAS, ACB, and JSM under grant #DGE-1144087, and to GSK and JSM under grant #DGE-1650604), the NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellowship in Biology (to JSM under grant #DBI-1812292), and NSF research grants OCE-1335657 and DEB-1557022 (to JOL-S and ACRG). ACRG was supported by the CAPES Science Without Borders Doctoral Fellowship. ROM and JOL-S were supported by the US Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (RC-2635). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

You’ve finally completed your dissertation research and have your PhD in hand—yay! Maybe you’re also in the middle of a postdoctoral position. If you’re reading this article, chances are you are actively searching for and applying for faculty positions. (Check out reference [ 1 ] if you’re early in the application process and [ 2 ] for additional advice!) Unfortunately, many graduate students and postdocs are not taught the skills necessary for acquiring a faculty position after passing the “looks good on paper” part of the application and securing an on-campus interview. One of the last crucial steps in earning a faculty position is your academic job talk. No matter how great of a scientist you are, if you cannot give a compelling job talk, chances are low that you will be hired. Yet many candidates receive little guidance on how to ace this unique and vital test.

To help address this gap, we have put together these ten simple rules that will help you give an effective job talk. To be clear, these are rules developed for the academic job talk in a research-heavy department, which is typically in a seminar format. These rules are not targeted toward other formats such as chalk talks or teaching demonstrations, although some pointers may still apply. We are a group primarily composed of University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) faculty, postdocs, and graduate students who participated in two recent job searches in the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department. We evaluated ten job talks over the span of 2 months and discussed their strengths and weaknesses in a weekly seminar course. These ten rules are based on our discussions of what worked (and what didn’t) across the variety of job talks we observed, as well as our various experiences on the job market and search committees over the years.

Rule 1: Know your audience

As with any seminar or presentation, when preparing your job talk, you want to target your specific audience. Therefore, you need to consider the background knowledge and interests of the audience members. Learn as much as you can about the position and what institutional needs the position is meant to address within the department and broader university. If you’re applying for a position within a specific department, what is the scope of the research in that department? Does it have a mission statement? Are any strategic aims or future plans publicly available? Does the department work closely with other academic units on campus, and does the position you’ve applied for have any formal ties to other units? To answer some of these questions, you should read the job ad closely, read about the current faculty’s research, and look through the department’s web page (see also Rule 7 [Understand your potential new workplace] and 8 [Understand your new colleagues] from reference [ 3 ]). If you’re lucky enough to have network connections to the department, use them now to get insights before you visit. We also recommend that after you receive an invitation to interview, you consider setting up a phone call with the chair of the search committee to inquire about the job and ask any specific questions you have regarding the job or department. In particular, it is a good idea to ask what the search committee is looking for—it may have been a long time since the job ad was released, and the search committee’s focus may have shifted from what was initially stated. We recommend a phone conversation as opposed to an emailed list of questions because it saves time; also, people are often more candid and may provide more useful insights over the phone. Depending on when your job talk occurs during your interview schedule, you might even make small changes to customize your talk based on interviews and meetings with department members prior to your talk.

Rule 2: Sell yourself

The faculty and search committee are trying to choose the candidate they’ll be most excited to have as a new colleague, so you need to showcase the reasons you’re their best choice! It is smart to include an explicit introduction about yourself—i.e., the kind of science you do, your grand aims, and your approach to research. You want to communicate your identity as a researcher and, if appropriate given your career stage and research plans, how this differentiates you from your mentors (reference [ 4 ] is an excellent resource).

You also want to convey other traits as a scientist and potential colleague. Reflect on the qualities that make you an exceptional researcher (creative, persistent, thoughtful, rigorous, multidisciplinary, etc.), as well as the specific traits that your audience will be looking for, and try to demonstrate them subtly to the audience over the course of the talk via examples in your work. Consider ways to demonstrate your fundamental strengths as a scientist, such as the ability to question your methods and results to pursue deeper and more robust conclusions. If you have any particular successes on your record, such as big grants or markers of professional stature, don’t be shy about mentioning them (but don’t brag!). Having your publication citations and/or grants listed in smaller text at the bottom of corresponding slides is one way to show your accomplishments without explicitly mentioning them. Finally, you can casually highlight additional non-research skills (e.g., mentoring, outreach, collaborations) throughout your talk. For example, give credit to an excellent mentee who contributed to the data collection or to a gifted collaborator who added a component to your study. Your application materials likely included many of these things, but if you can find ways to incorporate them in your talk, a broader audience can see the full package of who you are.

Keep in mind Rule 1 (Know your audience) when deciding how best to showcase yourself, as different disciplines and subfields may vary in their perceptions of what makes a good scientist. For example, disciplines may vary in their appreciation for deep thought into specific mechanisms and experimental designs versus mathematical elegance and rigor. Others may prize applied over fundamental research or vice versa. This may be especially challenging if your research is interdisciplinary, so make sure to investigate what factors are valued most highly by the decision makers in the audience for your talk so you can design your talk to emphasize those aspects of your work.

Rule 3: Impress the in-crowd…

Likely there will be people in the audience who work in the same field as you. Make sure to impress these experts with your knowledge and convince them you are worthy of being their colleague. You want to show them you have the sophistication and skills necessary to tackle advanced problems. Therefore, it’s a good idea to do at least one “deep dive” during your talk in which you include one or two “muscle-flexing” slides. By this we mean slides with technical content that the general audience member may not be able to fully understand but for which you can flex your intellectual muscles and showcase your skills. Importantly, do not bluff or bluster in this section—a technical error in your deep dive would be fatal.

These deep dives shouldn’t be long, or you risk losing most of your audience. However, a glimpse into the more advanced aspects of your work will convey that you’re able to play in the big leagues in your field. Just make sure to reengage your audience after this show of prowess, ideally providing a big-picture summary of what you’ve just shown.

Rule 4: … but also appeal to the out-crowd

In addition to impressing the specialists in the audience, you want to make sure the people who work outside your discipline are able to follow and enjoy your presentation. When preparing your talk, consider how you can present and frame the material so that even audience members from far-flung disciplines are engaged and can appreciate the broader relevance of your presentation. Be attuned to the breadth of the department you’re visiting, as this can present various communication challenges. The diverse interests of faculty in a broad department (e.g., biology) can make it difficult to make your research program appealing to everyone. However, it can also be difficult communicating to a more focused department (e.g., molecular genetics) if your research is not exactly in line with what everyone else does. It helps to summarize the important findings of your research as you present them, in addition to their implications and why they are exciting, in case not everyone followed the technical aspects of your results. You can also make it easier for audience members from other fields to follow your talk by avoiding excess jargon and keeping your messages clear.

Emphasize the themes in your work that relate to the job and department you’re interviewing for. If applicable and appropriate, it can help to subtly highlight connections between your research to research of other members of the department who have different specialties. But be careful not to overdo this, as it can become distracting.

Rule 5: Play the hand you’ve got to optimal effect

Strategic choice of topics to include in your talk from among your entire research portfolio is critical for giving an effective and memorable job talk. Depending upon what career stage you are in (just finished PhD, postdoc, assistant professor, etc.), you may have a smaller or larger research portfolio. For an hour-long job talk, it is unlikely you will be able to effectively discuss everything you have ever done. And that’s okay, because that is what a CV is for!

For your job talk, you need to assess your portfolio of published work, unpublished but completed work, and ongoing projects to determine which projects showcase your work most effectively and best match what the department is looking for in a future colleague. The most effective talk structures we observed were ones that focused on 2–3 research studies and that combined higher-level information with a few “deep dives” into the nitty gritty of a particular study ( Fig 1 ). This talk structure will help you satisfy Rules 3 and 4 above, which discuss how you want your whole audience to understand and appreciate your talk, while also presenting the “meat” of your research and impressing those most familiar with your field. If you feel that this design doesn’t convey the breadth or quantity of your productivity, consider adding a slide or two on the conceptual structure of your full research program in which you can show (with all your best citations) how all the pieces fit together.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

You want to start broad during the introduction to get everyone on board and then go into more depth on a few specific studies, including some “deep dives” to show off expert knowledge. Finally, you want to conclude your talk on a broad scale similar to your introduction. The dashed lines indicate flexibility in how many specific studies you incorporate into your talk, based upon your own research portfolio.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007163.g001

In addition to presenting on your past and ongoing research, you need to clearly articulate your plan for your future research program. Tell the audience (and your potential future colleagues!) about your vision for your research lab both in the immediate future (next couple of years) and in the long term (5–10 years from now). This should also help differentiate you and your research from your previous mentors and their research programs. A critical part of establishing and maintaining a research program is your ability to generate funding. If you have already secured funding for your future research plans or you have a track record of successfully acquiring funding, then this is a great opportunity to bring this to your audience’s attention. If you don’t have independent funding yet, you can still demonstrate your awareness of the funding landscape and which funding opportunities are likely to support your research program. For example, in your future directions section, you might briefly touch on how one (or more) of your research questions aligns well with promising funding opportunities in your field, such as open research grants.

In organizing the structure of your talk and your transitions between topics, strive for a cohesive narrative that will make your talk more enjoyable to follow and easier to recall afterwards. What’s the progression of your research? How did one study lead to the next, and what shaped your decisions about how to proceed? What ideas do you have for future research at this new job? Telling a story is always a great way to keep your audience engaged and makes your science more memorable.

Rule 6: Give a good talk

A classic early paper in this series [ 5 ] provides ten useful rules for giving a good presentation. Read it! Showing you are a competent oral communicator is a vital component of giving an academic job talk. In addition to the universal suggestions from [ 5 ] (such as practicing for fluidity without over-rehearsing, making eye contact with the audience, and being enthusiastic and excited about your work), there are a few other pointers to bear in mind for a job talk. First, be aware that your job talk will be judged as an indicator of your ability to teach. Teaching is a crucial element of most academic jobs, but interview schedules often don’t allow time to address it explicitly, so this doubles your incentive to give a clear and engaging presentation. Bonus points if you are able to expand people’s understanding of technical aspects of your work—for instance, with a lucid explanation of your deep dive. Second, the job talk is a direct measure of your ability to sell your work and to act as an ambassador for the department in your future speaking engagements. Third, Rule 4 from [ 5 ] is “Make the take-home message persistent,” and this is a particular priority in the swirl of an academic search in which four or five candidates may visit over the span of a few weeks. We found that a strong thematic structure, including outline and summary slides, was an effective way to emphasize and reiterate your key points and make them memorable for the audience.

Our next three pointers are more pragmatic, but they are still useful to consider. First, be sure to ask for guidance on talk length if you’re unsure. For an hour-long seminar, the actual presentation length is typically 45–50 minutes, allowing for the fact that your host may burn precious minutes introducing you, and being certain to leave time for questions. Second, you should also make sure you understand the audiovisual equipment setup in the room where you are giving your presentation. If there isn’t seminar preparation time on your schedule, ask for it! This way, you can ensure your presentation is loaded properly, your presentation slides appear how you expect, and you are able to navigate through them without glitches. It is a good idea to save your presentation in multiple formats in case you encounter compatibility issues with the primary format (e.g., if your presentation is in PowerPoint, also save a PDF backup version). Third, don’t give your presentation while hungry. You want to exude energy and confidence, which may be difficult if you give a seminar later in the afternoon after many meetings and haven’t eaten since lunch—so take note of your schedule and, if necessary, bring a snack to revive your energy levels before your talk.

The pragmatic pointers we mentioned are great for planning ahead, but overall, you should be adaptable. Problems can arise unexpectedly, and it’s possible you’ll be delayed by interruptions or a lengthy introduction. Do your best to not get flustered, to handle yourself with grace, and to end your talk on time. Make a note of places in your talk where you can go into greater depth if you’re running ahead of schedule or places (particularly toward the end) where you can skim over the details more quickly if you’re behind schedule.

Rule 7: Be kind to your audience’s eyes

Your slides should enhance your presentation, not distract from what you are saying. Make sure your slide aesthetics are appealing to the audience. Your slides should be clear and concise, without too much text. When you have text-heavy slides, you lose some proportion of your audience’s attention while they read the text instead of listening to your words. So only display text that emphasizes the key points you will say out loud. Also, since the figures and images you present are especially important, you will want to construct figures specifically for your slides, keeping in mind that formatting for a presentation is typically different from formatting for a published paper. Refer to Box 1 for additional advice on qualities of good slides and common mistakes to avoid. You should also check out [ 5 , 6 ] for additional advice, noting that the rules in [ 6 ] are not specific to figures for presentations.

Box 1. Qualities of good slides versus slide qualities to be avoided

Slide qualities to aim for:

• ○. Minimal text.
• ○. Figures that are readable and easily understood.
• ○. Figures created specifically for talks (rather than pulled directly from a paper). Talk figures are generally simpler than figure panels from a paper, with fewer items per plot, a focus on the key points, larger labels and axes, etc. Avoid having to tell your audience to ignore parts of the figure by remaking the figure without extraneous information.
• ○. If you have a complicated figure, you can animate your slides to build up the complexity as you explain it to the audience. For example, you can start by showing only a very simple plot and then layer on additional pieces of information as you explain them.
• ○. Clean background.
• ○. Consistent design throughout the talk.
• ○. Color-blind-friendly color palettes or alternative ways to distinguish differences on figures besides just color (e.g., using dotted versus solid lines to represent different measures in a plot).
• ○. Simple visual markers (silhouettes or clip art) that link ideas across slides and jog your audience’s memory (e.g., a human silhouette next to parameters estimated from human data and a mouse silhouette next to data estimated from mice).

Slide qualities to avoid:

• Too much text.
• Text that’s too small to read or overlaid on an image so that it’s not legible.
• Busy background (e.g., photograph) that distracts from the text and/or figures you’re showing on the slide.
• Figures with no or unreadable axis labels.
• Poor color combinations, including combinations that are difficult for color-blind viewers to make out (e.g., red/green, blue/green).
• Visual markers that don’t convey any meaningful information, such as changing fonts and background colors. Even minor inconsistencies are distracting and convey a lack of attention to detail.

Rule 8: Embody the future

Remember that you are the exciting next generation of scientists! Make sure to share your enthusiasm and your fresh ideas for research. Emphasize how your work is new and innovative, whether by showing new solutions to old problems or by describing ways to approach problems that have only recently been recognized. If appropriate, highlight how you will harness the latest technologies and methodological developments to advance your research. This will get the audience thinking about applications to their own research programs and how you’d be a valuable colleague to have around.

You can also emphasize other forward-looking traits you would bring to the job. Maybe you have developed a new online resource or are using a new mentoring or teaching style that helps make research more broadly accessible for students. Find ways to showcase how you are moving science forward and how you’ll be a dynamic force for years to come.

Rule 9: Don’t blow it in the question-and-answer session

You’re almost done with your job talk, so don’t blow it during the question-and-answer (Q&A) session! You want to leave your audience with the best final impression and show that you can think and speak clearly in unscripted moments.

Here are some tips for a strong finish. When someone asks you a question, it can be helpful to paraphrase the question before beginning your answer. This gives you some extra time to compose your own thoughts and make sure you understood the question and ensures the rest of the audience hears the question. Regarding your actual responses, one cardinal rule is to never bluff. If you don’t know the answer, you can say so, but then show how you would think through the question, or relate it to something you have done or know about. If somebody voices a fair criticism, then acknowledge it and discuss approaches to addressing it. If you can, convey enthusiasm in this situation—if it’s truly an idea you’ve never considered, then treat this as an exciting and valuable scientific exchange, not an oral exam you are failing.

Remember that your audience likely includes people from outside your area of expertise, so it is possible you will get questions that seem to have missed key ideas from your talk. As with all questions, make sure you understand what the questioner is asking, and then take advantage of the opportunity to address any misunderstandings in a respectful, productive way. This is a great chance to demonstrate your ability to explain concepts clearly and concisely.

If there are predictable follow-up questions to your presentation, it can be helpful to have a few extra slides prepared. For example, if you presented a mathematical model using a schematic diagram, you may want to have a backup slide that shows the actual equations in case someone asks for more detail. If there is an extra data set or analysis that you’d love to include but just don’t have the time, then a spare slide or two might enable you to deliver a home-run response if you get asked the right question.

Finally, remember to handle yourself with grace during the Q&A session. Be poised, calm, and respectful, and demonstrate your intellectual maturity—all of these are qualities people admire and are seeking in a future colleague. Another past article in this series gives rules for building your scientific reputation [ 7 ]; Rules 1, 2, and 3 are useful during both the Q&A session and the whole interview process! Which brings us to Rule 10.

Rule 10: Be professional

Throughout this whole process, remember you are asking the host department to hire you as a (hopefully) long-term colleague in a small, tight-knit unit. Therefore, it is important to present a good image of yourself. You should dress appropriately for your job talk (i.e., not too casually). Even if you end up being a bit overdressed, it is better to leave that impression rather than showing up underdressed and being remembered as not having taken the job talk seriously. Be conscious of your body language and use of slang throughout your job talk and in any interactions you have during your visit. Humor can be a wonderful way to humanize and enliven your talk, but don’t overdo it, and steer well clear of anything potentially offensive. While you are answering questions, or if you happen to be interrupted during your talk, remember to show yourself in the best light by being polite and calm, even if an audience member is being confrontational or rude.

You are an amazing and productive scientist (you wouldn’t have been invited to give a job talk if you weren’t!), but it’s important to be clear about your specific contributions to the various research projects you present, particularly when the research is part of a big collaboration. It’s essential to acknowledge your collaborators, especially junior mentees. This shows your audience that you are ready to mentor undergraduates, graduates, postdocs, etc., and most importantly, that you do not take collaborators’ contributions for granted or claim them as your own. It’s also good practice to acknowledge relevant previous work that your research and ideas are building upon, as you never know who is in your audience, and you don’t want anyone to feel you are uninformed about or taking credit for this prior research. Again, you’re asking to be hired into an academic family, and you want your new family members to be comfortable and excited about pursuing new research opportunities with you.

Finally, it is a nice touch to write thank-you notes after your visit (but see Rule 10 from [ 3 ] for an alternative opinion). These notes can be sent by email within a few days after the end of your job interview. How many you send is up to you, but we suggest sending follow-up notes to at least the search chair and the other key players in your interview visit. And don’t forget about all the people who helped coordinate the logistical details for your visit!

In summary, the academic job talk is unlike most other seminars in its goals, context, and aspects of its execution. We have outlined some rules to help you put your best face forward in the job market (and to help all of us get the most out of the job search experience). There are additional resources online (e.g., [ 8 ] and [ 9 ] as two examples), and people should glean whatever insights they can from these sources. So do your preparation, nail the talk, and go get that job!

Acknowledgments

This paper arose from discussions in a graduate seminar course jointly led by KEL and JOL-S. We thank other participants in the course including Katie Gostic, Natalie Lozano, and Bernard Kim for their thoughts on these topics.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 8. Reis RM. Giving a job talk in the sciences. 30 March 2011 [cited 2019 May 15]. In: The Chronicle of Higher Education [Internet]. Available from: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Giving-a-Job-Talk-in-the/45375 .
• 9. Aguilar SJ. Tips for a successful job talk. 10 January 2018 [cited 2019 May 15]. In: Inside Higher Ed [Internet]. Available from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2018/01/10/advice-giving-effective-job-presentation-opinion .

• Appointments

• Resume Reviews

• Undergraduates
• PhDs & Postdocs
• Faculty & Staff
• Prospective Students
• Online Students
• Career Champions
• I’m Exploring
• Architecture & Design
• Education & Academia
• Engineering
• Fashion, Retail & Consumer Products
• Fellowships & Gap Year
• Fine Arts, Performing Arts, & Music
• Government, Law & Public Policy
• Healthcare & Public Health
• International Relations & NGOs
• Life & Physical Sciences
• Marketing, Advertising & Public Relations
• Media, Journalism & Entertainment
• Non-Profits
• Pre-Health, Pre-Law and Pre-Grad
• Real Estate, Accounting, & Insurance
• Social Work & Human Services
• Sports & Hospitality
• Startups, Entrepreneurship & Freelancing
• Sustainability, Energy & Conservation
• Technology, Data & Analytics
• DACA and Undocumented Students
• First Generation and Low Income Students
• International Students
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Transfer Students
• Students of Color
• Students with Disabilities
• Explore Careers & Industries
• Make Connections & Network
• Search for a Job or Internship
• Write a Resume/CV
• Write a Cover Letter
• Engage with Employers
• Research Salaries & Negotiate Offers
• Find Funding
• Develop Professional and Leadership Skills
• Apply to Graduate School
• Apply to Health Professions School
• Apply to Law School
• Self-Assessment
• Experiences
• Post-Graduate
• Jobs & Internships
• Career Fairs
• For Employers
• Meet the Team
• Peer Career Advisors
• Career Services Policies
• Walk-Ins & Pop-Ins
• Strategic Plan 2022-2025

Research statements for faculty job applications

The purpose of a research statement.

The main goal of a research statement is to walk the search committee through the evolution of your research, to highlight your research accomplishments, and to show where your research will be taking you next. To a certain extent, the next steps that you identify within your statement will also need to touch on how your research could benefit the institution to which you are applying. This might be in terms of grant money, faculty collaborations, involving students in your research, or developing new courses. Your CV will usually show a search committee where you have done your research, who your mentors have been, the titles of your various research projects, a list of your papers, and it may provide a very brief summary of what some of this research involves. However, there can be certain points of interest that a CV may not always address in enough detail.

• What got you interested in this research?
• What was the burning question that you set out to answer?
• What challenges did you encounter along the way, and how did you overcome these challenges?
• How can your research be applied?
• Why is your research important within your field?
• What direction will your research take you in next, and what new questions do you have?

While you may not have a good sense of where your research will ultimately lead you, you should have a sense of some of the possible destinations along the way. You want to be able to show a search committee that your research is moving forward and that you are moving forward along with it in terms of developing new skills and knowledge. Ultimately, your research statement should complement your cover letter, CV, and teaching philosophy to illustrate what makes you an ideal candidate for the job. The more clearly you can articulate the path your research has taken, and where it will take you in the future, the more convincing and interesting it will be to read.

Separate research statements are usually requested from researchers in engineering, social, physical, and life sciences, but can also be requested for researchers in the humanities. In many cases, however, the same information that is covered in the research statement is often integrated into the cover letter for many disciplines within the humanities and no separate research statement is requested within the job advertisement. Seek advice from current faculty and new hires about the conventions of your discipline if you are in doubt.

Timeline: Getting Started with Your Research Statement

You can think of a research statement as having three distinct parts. The first part will focus on your past research and can include the reasons you started your research, an explanation as to why the questions you originally asked are important in your field, and a summary some of the work you did to answer some of these early questions.

The middle part of the research statement focuses on your current research. How is this research different from previous work you have done, and what brought you to where you are today? You should still explain the questions you are trying to ask, and it is very important that you focus on some of the findings that you have (and cite some of the publications associated with these findings). In other words, do not talk about your research in abstract terms, make sure that you explain your actual results and findings (even if these may not be entirely complete when you are applying for faculty positions), and mention why these results are significant.

The final part of your research statement should build on the first two parts. Yes, you have asked good questions and used good methods to find some answers, but how will you now use this foundation to take you into your future? Since you are hoping that your future will be at one of the institutions to which you are applying, you should provide some convincing reasons why your future research will be possible at each institution, and why it will be beneficial to that institution and to their students.

While you are focusing on the past, present, and future or your research, and tailoring it to each institution, you should also think about the length of your statement and how detailed or specific you make the descriptions of your research. Think about who will be reading it. Will they all understand the jargon you are using? Are they experts in the subject, or experts in a range of related subjects? Can you go into very specific detail, or do you need to talk about your research in broader terms that make sense to people outside of your research field, focusing on the common ground that might exist? Additionally, you should make sure that your future research plans differ from those of your PI or advisor, as you need to be seen as an independent researcher. Identify 4-5 specific aims that can be divided into short-term and long-term goals. You can give some idea of a 5-year research plan that includes the studies you want to perform, but also mention your long-term plans so that the search committee knows that this is not a finite project.

Another important consideration when writing about your research is realizing that you do not perform research in a vacuum. When doing your research, you may have worked within a team environment at some point or sought out specific collaborations. You may have faced some serious challenges that required some creative problem-solving to overcome. While these aspects are not necessarily as important as your results and your papers or patents, they can help paint a picture of you as a well-rounded researcher who is likely to be successful in the future even if new problems arise, for example.

Follow these general steps to begin developing an effective research statement:

Step 1: Think about how and why you got started with your research. What motivated you to spend so much time on answering the questions you developed? If you can illustrate some of the enthusiasm you have for your subject, the search committee will likely assume that students and other faculty members will see this in you as well. People like to work with passionate and enthusiastic colleagues. Remember to focus on what you found, what questions you answered, and why your findings are significant. The research you completed in the past will have brought you to where you are today; also be sure to show how your research past and research present are connected. Explore some of the techniques and approaches you have successfully used in your research, and describe some of the challenges you overcame. What makes people interested in what you do, and how have you used your research as a tool for teaching or mentoring students? Integrating students into your research may be an important part of your future research at your target institutions. Conclude describing your current research by focusing on your findings, their importance, and what new questions they generate.

Step 2: Think about how you can tailor your research statement for each application. Familiarize yourself with the faculty at each institution, and explore the research that they have been performing. You should think about your future research in terms of the students at the institution. What opportunities can you imagine that would allow students to get involved in what you do to serve as a tool for teaching and training them, and to get them excited about your subject? Do not talk about your desire to work with graduate students if the institution only has undergraduates! You will also need to think about what equipment or resources that you might need to do your future research. Again, mention any resources that specific institutions have that you would be interested in utilizing (e.g., print materials, super electron microscopes, archived artwork). You can also mention what you hope to do with your current and future research in terms of publication (whether in journals or as a book); try to be as specific and honest as possible. Finally, be prepared to talk about how your future research can help bring in grants and other sources of funding, especially if you have a good track record of receiving awards and fellowships. Mention some grants that you know have been awarded to similar research, and state your intention to seek this type of funding.

Step 3: Ask faculty in your department if they are willing to share their own research statements with you. To a certain extent, there will be some subject-specific differences in what is expected from a research statement, and so it is always a good idea to see how others in your field have done it. You should try to draft your own research statement first before you review any statements shared with you. Your goal is to create a unique research statement that clearly highlights your abilities as a researcher.

Step 4: The research statement is typically a few (2-3) pages in length, depending on the number of images, illustrations, or graphs included.  Once you have completed the steps above, schedule an appointment with a career advisor to get feedback on your draft. You should also try to get faculty in your department to review your document if they are willing to do so.

Additional Resources

For further tips, tricks, and strategies for writing a research statement for faculty jobs, see the resources below:

• The PhD Career Training Platform is an eLearning platform with on-demand, self-paced modules that allow PhDs and postdocs to make informed decisions about their career path and learn successful job search strategies from other PhDs. Select the University of Pennsylvania from the drop-down menu, log in using your University ID, and click the “Faculty Careers” tab to learn more about application documents for a faculty job search.
• Writing an Effective Research Statement
• Research Statements for Humanities PhDs
• Tips to Get Started on Your Research Statement (video)

Explore other application documents:

Write Your Research Plan

In this part, we give you detailed information about writing an effective Research Plan. We start with the importance and parameters of significance and innovation.

We then discuss how to focus the Research Plan, relying on the iterative process described in the Iterative Approach to Application Planning Checklist shown at Draft Specific Aims  and give you advice for filling out the forms.

You'll also learn the importance of having a well-organized, visually appealing application that avoids common missteps and the importance of preparing your just-in-time information early.

While this document is geared toward the basic research project grant, the R01, much of it is useful for other grant types.

Table of Contents

Research plan overview and your approach, craft a title, explain your aims, research strategy instructions, advice for a successful research strategy, graphics and video, significance, innovation, and approach, tracking for your budget, preliminary studies or progress report, referencing publications, review and finalize your research plan, abstract and narrative.

Your application's Research Plan has two sections:

• Specific Aims —a one-page statement of your objectives for the project.
• Research Strategy —a description of the rationale for your research and your experiments in 12 pages for an R01.

In your Specific Aims, you note the significance and innovation of your research; then list your two to three concrete objectives, your aims.

Your Research Strategy is the nuts and bolts of your application, where you describe your research rationale and the experiments you will conduct to accomplish each aim. Though how you organize it is largely up to you, NIH expects you to follow these guidelines.

• Organize using bold headers or an outline or numbering system—or both—that you use consistently throughout.
• Start each section with the appropriate header: Significance, Innovation, or Approach.
• Organize the Approach section around your Specific Aims.

Format of Your Research Plan

To write the Research Plan, you don't need the application forms. Write the text in your word processor, turn it into a PDF file, and upload it into the application form when it's final.

Because NIH may return your application if it doesn't meet all requirements, be sure to follow the rules for font, page limits, and more. Read the instructions at NIH’s Format Attachments .

For an R01, the Research Strategy can be up to 12 pages, plus one page for Specific Aims. Don't pad other sections with information that belongs in the Research Plan. NIH is on the lookout and may return your application to you if you try to evade page limits.

Follow Examples

As you read this page, look at our Sample Applications and More  to see some of the different strategies successful PIs use to create an outstanding Research Plan.

Keeping It All In Sync

Writing in a logical sequence will save you time.

Information you put in the Research Plan affects just about every other application part. You'll need to keep everything in sync as your plans evolve during the writing phase.

It's best to consider your writing as an iterative process. As you develop and finalize your experiments, you will go back and check other parts of the application to make sure everything is in sync: the "who, what, when, where, and how (much money)" as well as look again at the scope of your plans.

In that vein, writing in a logical sequence is a good approach that will save you time. We suggest proceeding in the following order:

• Create a provisional title.
• Write a draft of your Specific Aims.
• Start with your Significance and Innovation sections.
• Then draft the Approach section considering the personnel and skills you'll need for each step.
• Evaluate your Specific Aims and methods in light of your expected budget (for a new PI, it should be modest, probably under the $250,000 for NIH's modular budget).
• As you design experiments, reevaluate your hypothesis, aims, and title to make sure they still reflect your plans.
• Prepare your Abstract (a summary of your Specific Aims).
• Complete the other forms.

Even the smaller sections of your application need to be well-organized and readable so reviewers can readily grasp the information. If writing is not your forte, get help.

To view writing strategies for successful applications, see our Sample Applications and More . There are many ways to create a great application, so explore your options.

Within the character limit, include the important information to distinguish your project within the research area, your project's goals, and the research problem.

Giving your project a title at the outset can help you stay focused and avoid a meandering Research Plan. So you may want to launch your writing by creating a well-defined title.

NIH gives you a 200 character limit, but don’t feel obliged to use all of that allotment. Instead, we advise you to keep the title as succinct as possible while including the important information to distinguish your project within the research area. Make your title reflect your project's goals, the problem your project addresses, and possibly your approach to studying it. Make your title specific: saying you are studying lymphocyte trafficking is not informative enough.

For examples of strong titles, see our Sample Applications and More .

After you write a preliminary title, check that

• My title is specific, indicating at least the research area and the goals of my project.
• It is 200 characters or less.
• I use as simple language as possible.
• I state the research problem and, possibly, my approach to studying it.
• I use a different title for each of my applications. (Note: there are exceptions, for example, for a renewal—see Apply for Renewal  for details.)
• My title has appropriate keywords.

Later you may want to change your initial title. That's fine—at this point, it's just an aid to keep your plans focused.

Since all your reviewers read your Specific Aims, you want to excite them about your project.

If testing your hypothesis is the destination for your research, your Research Plan is the map that takes you there.

You'll start by writing the smaller part, the Specific Aims. Think of the one-page Specific Aims as a capsule of your Research Plan. Since all your reviewers read your Specific Aims, you want to excite them about your project.

For more on crafting your Specific Aims, see Draft Specific Aims .

Write a Narrative

Use at least half the page to provide the rationale and significance of your planned research. A good way to start is with a sentence that states your project's goals.

For the rest of the narrative, you will describe the significance of your research, and give your rationale for choosing the project. In some cases, you may want to explain why you did not take an alternative route.

Then, briefly describe your aims, and show how they build on your preliminary studies and your previous research. State your hypothesis.

If it is likely your application will be reviewed by a study section with broad expertise, summarize the status of research in your field and explain how your project fits in.

In the narrative part of the Specific Aims of many outstanding applications, people also used their aims to

• State the technologies they plan to use.
• Note their expertise to do a specific task or that of collaborators.
• Describe past accomplishments related to the project.
• Describe preliminary studies and new and highly relevant findings in the field.
• Explain their area's biology.
• Show how the aims relate to one another.
• Describe expected outcomes for each aim.
• Explain how they plan to interpret data from the aim’s efforts.
• Describe how to address potential pitfalls with contingency plans.

Depending on your situation, decide which items are important for you. For example, a new investigator would likely want to highlight preliminary data and qualifications to do the work.

Many people use bold or italics to emphasize items they want to bring to the reviewers' attention, such as the hypothesis or rationale.

Detail Your Aims

After the narrative, enter your aims as bold bullets, or stand-alone or run-on headers.

• State your plans using strong verbs like identify, define, quantify, establish, determine.
• Describe each aim in one to three sentences.
• Consider adding bullets under each aim to refine your objectives.

How focused should your aims be? Look at the example below.

Spot the Sample

Read the Specific Aims of the Application from Drs. Li and Samulski , "Enhance AAV Liver Transduction with Capsid Immune Evasion."

• Aim 1. Study the effect of adeno-associated virus (AAV) empty particles on AAV capsid antigen cross-presentation in vivo .
• Aim 2. Investigate AAV capsid antigen presentation following administration of AAV mutants and/or proteasome inhibitors for enhanced liver transduction in vivo .
• Aim 3. Isolate AAV chimeric capsids with human hepatocyte tropism and the capacity for cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL) evasion.

After finishing the draft Specific Aims, check that

• I keep to the one-page limit.
• Each of my two or three aims is a narrowly focused, concrete objective I can achieve during the grant.
• They give a clear picture of how my project can generate knowledge that may improve human health.
• They show my project's importance to science, how it addresses a critical research opportunity that can move my field forward.
• My text states how my work is innovative.
• I describe the biology to the extent needed for my reviewers.
• I give a rationale for choosing the topic and approach.
• I tie the project to my preliminary data and other new findings in the field.
• I explicitly state my hypothesis and why testing it is important.
• My aims can test my hypothesis and are logical.
• I can design and lead the execution of two or three sets of experiments that will strive to accomplish each aim.
• As much as possible, I use language that an educated person without expertise can understand.
• My text has bullets, bolding, or headers so reviewers can easily spot my aims (and other key items).

For each element listed above, analyze your text and revise it until your Specific Aims hit all the key points you'd like to make.

After the list of aims, some people add a closing paragraph, emphasizing the significance of the work, their collaborators, or whatever else they want to focus reviewers' attention on.

Your Research Strategy is the bigger part of your application's Research Plan (the other part is the Specific Aims—discussed above.)

The Research Strategy is the nuts and bolts of your application, describing the rationale for your research and the experiments you will do to accomplish each aim. It is structured as follows:

• Significance
• You can either include this information as a subsection of Approach or integrate it into any or all of the three main sections.
• If you do the latter, be sure to mark the information clearly, for example, with a bold subhead.
• Possible other sections, for example, human subjects, vertebrate animals, select agents, and others (these do not count toward the page limit).

Though how you organize your application is largely up to you, NIH does want you to follow these guidelines:

• Add bold headers or an outlining or numbering system—or both—that you use consistently throughout.
• Start each of the Research Strategy's sections with a header: Significance, Innovation, and Approach.

For an R01, the Research Strategy is limited to 12 pages for the three main sections and the preliminary studies only. Other items are not included in the page limit.

Find instructions for R01s in the SF 424 Application Guide—go to NIH's SF 424 (R&R) Application and Electronic Submission Information for the generic SF 424 Application Guide or find it in your notice of funding opportunity (NOFO).

For most applications, you need to address Rigor and Reproducibility by describing the experimental design and methods you propose and how they will achieve robust and unbiased results. The requirement applies to research grant, career development, fellowship, and training applications.

If you're responding to an institute-specific program announcement (PA) (not a parent program announcement) or a request for applications (RFA), check the NIH Guide notice, which has additional information you need. Should it differ from the NOFO, go with the NIH Guide .

Also note that your application must meet the initiative's objectives and special requirements. NIAID program staff will check your application, and if it is not responsive to the announcement, your application will be returned to you without a review.

When writing your Research Strategy, your goal is to present a well-organized, visually appealing, and readable description of your proposed project. That means your writing should be streamlined and organized so your reviewers can readily grasp the information. If writing is not your forte, get help.

There are many ways to create an outstanding Research Plan, so explore your options.

What Success Looks Like

Your application's Research Plan is the map that shows your reviewers how you plan to test your hypothesis.

It not only lays out your experiments and expected outcomes, but must also convince your reviewers of your likely success by allaying any doubts that may cross their minds that you will be able to conduct the research.

Notice in the sample applications how the writing keeps reviewers' eyes on the ball by bringing them back to the main points the PIs want to make. Write yourself an insurance policy against human fallibility: if it's a key point, repeat it, then repeat it again.

The Big Three

So as you write, put the big picture squarely in your sights. When reviewers read your application, they'll look for the answers to three basic questions:

• Can your research move your field forward?
• Is the field important—will progress make a difference to human health?
• Can you and your team carry out the work?

Add Emphasis

Savvy PIs create opportunities to drive their main points home. They don't stop at the Significance section to emphasize their project's importance, and they look beyond their biosketches to highlight their team's expertise.

Don't take a chance your reviewer will gloss over that one critical sentence buried somewhere in your Research Strategy or elsewhere. Write yourself an insurance policy against human fallibility: if it's a key point, repeat it, then repeat it again.

Add more emphasis by putting the text in bold, or bold italics (in the modern age, we skip underlining—it's for typewriters).

Here are more strategies from our successful PIs:

• While describing a method in the Approach section, they state their or collaborators' experience with it.
• They point out that they have access to a necessary piece of equipment.
• When explaining their field and the status of current research, they weave in their own work and their preliminary data.
• They delve into the biology of the area to make sure reviewers will grasp the importance of their research and understand their field and how their work fits into it.

You can see many of these principles at work in the Approach section of the Application from Dr. William Faubion , "Inflammatory cascades disrupt Treg function through epigenetic mechanisms."

• Reviewers felt that the experiments described for Aim 1 will yield clear results.
• The plans to translate those findings to gene targets of relevance are well outlined and focused.
• He ties his proposed experiments to the larger picture, including past research and strong preliminary data for the current application. 

Anticipate Reviewer Questions

Our applicants not only wrote with their reviewers in mind they seemed to anticipate their questions. You may think: how can I anticipate all the questions people may have? Of course you can't, but there are some basic items (in addition to the "big three" listed above) that will surely be on your reviewers' minds:

• Will the investigators be able to get the work done within the project period, or is the proposed work over ambitious?
• Did the PI describe potential pitfalls and possible alternatives?
• Will the experiments generate meaningful data?
• Could the resulting data prove the hypothesis?
• Are others already doing the work, or has it been already completed?

Address these questions; then spend time thinking about more potential issues specific to you and your research—and address those too.

For applications, a picture can truly be worth a thousand words. Graphics can illustrate complex information in a small space and add visual interest to your application.

Look at our sample applications to see how the investigators included schematics, tables, illustrations, graphs, and other types of graphics to enhance their applications.

Consider adding a timetable or flowchart to illustrate your experimental plan, including decision trees with alternative experimental pathways to help your reviewers understand your plans.

Plan Ahead for Video

If you plan to send one or more videos, you'll need to meet certain standards and include key information in your Research Strategy now.

To present some concepts or demonstrations, video may enhance your application beyond what graphics alone can achieve. However, you can't count on all reviewers being able to see or hear video, so you'll want to be strategic in how you incorporate it into your application.

Be reviewer-friendly. Help your cause by taking the following steps:

• Caption any narration in the video.
• Choose evocative still images from your video to accompany your summary.
• Write your summary of the video carefully so the text would make sense even without the video.

In addition to those considerations, create your videos to fit NIH’s technical requirements. Learn more in the SF 424 Form Instructions .

Next, as you write your Research Strategy, include key images from the video and a brief description.

Then, state in your cover letter that you plan to send video later. (Don't attach your files to the application.)

After you apply and get assignment information from the Commons, ask your assigned scientific review officer (SRO) how your business official should send the files. Your video files are due at least one month before the peer review meeting.

Know Your Audience's Perspective

The primary audience for your application is your peer review group. Learn how to write for the reviewers who are experts in your field and those who are experts in other fields by reading Know Your Audience .

Be Organized: A B C or 1 2 3?

In the top-notch applications we reviewed, organization ruled but followed few rules. While you want to be organized, how you go about it is up to you.

Nevertheless, here are some principles to follow:

• Start each of the Research Strategy's sections with a header: Significance, Innovation, and Approach—this you must do.

The Research Strategy's page limit—12 for R01s—is for the three main parts: Significance, Innovation, and Approach and your preliminary studies (or a progress report if you're renewing your grant). Other sections, for example, research animals or select agents, do not have a page limit.

Although you will emphasize your project's significance throughout the application, the Significance section should give the most details. Don't skimp—the farther removed your reviewers are from your field, the more information you'll need to provide on basic biology, importance of the area, research opportunities, and new findings.

When you describe your project's significance, put it in the context of 1) the state of your field, 2) your long-term research plans, and 3) your preliminary data.

In our Sample Applications , you can see that both investigators and reviewers made a case for the importance of the research to improving human health as well as to the scientific field.

Look at the Significance section of the Application from Dr. Mengxi Jiang , "Intersection of polyomavirus infection and host cellular responses," to see how these elements combine to make a strong case for significance.

• Dr. Jiang starts with a summary of the field of polyomavirus research, identifying critical knowledge gaps in the field.
• The application ties the lab's previous discoveries and new research plans to filling those gaps, establishing the significance with context.
• Note the use of formatting, whitespace, and sectioning to highlight key points and make it easier for reviewers to read the text.

After conveying the significance of the research in several parts of the application, check that

• In the Significance section, I describe the importance of my hypothesis to the field (especially if my reviewers are not in it) and human disease.
• I also point out the project's significance throughout the application.
• The application shows that I am aware of opportunities, gaps, roadblocks, and research underway in my field.
• I state how my research will advance my field, highlighting knowledge gaps and showing how my project fills one or more of them.
• Based on my scan of the review committee roster, I determine whether I cannot assume my reviewers will know my field and provide some information on basic biology, the importance of the area, knowledge gaps, and new findings.

If you are either a new PI or entering a new area: be cautious about seeming too innovative. Not only is innovation just one of five review criteria, but there might be a paradigm shift in your area of science. A reviewer may take a challenge to the status quo as a challenge to his or her world view.

When you look at our sample applications, you see that both the new and experienced investigators are not generally shifting paradigms. They are using new approaches or models, working in new areas, or testing innovative ideas.

After finishing the draft innovation section, check that

• I show how my proposed research is new and unique, e.g., explores new scientific avenues, has a novel hypothesis, will create new knowledge.
• Most likely, I explain how my project's research can refine, improve, or propose a new application of an existing concept or method.
• Make a very strong case for challenging the existing paradigm.
• Have data to support the innovative approach.
• Have strong evidence that I can do the work.

In your Approach, you spell out a few sets of experiments to address each aim. As we noted above, it's a good idea to restate the key points you've made about your project's significance, its place in your field, and your long-term goals.

You're probably wondering how much detail to include.

If you look at our sample applications as a guide, you can see very different approaches. Though people generally used less detail than you'd see in a scientific paper, they do include some experimental detail.

Expect your assigned reviewers to scrutinize your approach: they will want to know what you plan to do and how you plan to do it.

NIH data show that of the peer review criteria, approach has the highest correlation with the overall impact score.

Look at the Application from Dr. Mengxi Jiang , "Intersection of polyomavirus infection and host cellular responses," to see how a new investigator handled the Approach section.

For an example of an experienced investigator's well-received Approach section, see the Application from Dr. William Faubion , "Inflammatory cascades disrupt Treg function through epigenetic mechanisms."

Especially if you are a new investigator, you need enough detail to convince reviewers that you understand what you are undertaking and can handle the method.

• Cite a publication that shows you can handle the method where you can, but give more details if you and your team don't have a proven record using the method—and state explicitly why you think you will succeed.
• If space is short, you could also focus on experiments that highlight your expertise or are especially interesting. For experiments that are pedestrian or contracted out, just list the method.

Be sure to lay out a plan for alternative experiments and approaches in case you get negative or surprising results. Show reviewers you have a plan for spending the four or five years you will be funded no matter where the experiments lead.

See the Application from Drs. Li and Samulski , "Enhance AAV Liver Transduction with Capsid Immune Evasion," for a strong Approach section covering potential. As an example, see section C.1.3.'s alternative approaches.

Here are some pointers for organizing your Approach:

• Enter a bold header for each Specific Aim.
• Under each aim, describe the first set of experiments.
• If you get result X, you will follow pathway X; if you get result Y, you will follow pathway Y.
• Consider illustrating this with a flowchart.

Trim the fat—omit all information not needed to make your case. If you try to wow reviewers with your knowledge, they'll find flaws and penalize you heavily. Don't give them ammunition by including anything you don't need.

As you design your experiments, keep a running tab of the following essential data on a separate piece of paper:

• Who. A list of people who will help you for your Key Personnel section later.
• What. A list of equipment and supplies for the experiments you plan.
• Time. Notes on how long each step takes. Timing directly affects your budget as well as how many Specific Aims you can realistically achieve.

Jotting this information down will help you Create a Budget and complete other sections later.

After finishing a draft Approach section, check that

• I include enough background and preliminary data to give reviewers the context and significance of my plans.
• They can test the hypothesis (or hypotheses).
• I show alternative experiments and approaches in case I get negative or surprising results.
• My experiments can yield meaningful data to test my hypothesis (or hypotheses).
• As a new investigator, I include enough detail to convince reviewers I understand and can handle a method. I reviewed the sample applications to see how much detail to use.
• If I or my team has experience with a method, I cite it; otherwise I include enough details to convince reviewers we can handle it.
• I describe the results I anticipate and their implications.
• I omit all information not needed to state my case.
• I keep track of and explain who will do what, what they will do, when and where they will do it, how long it will take, and how much money it will cost.
• My timeline shows when I expect to complete my aims.

If you are applying for a new application, include preliminary studies; for a renewal or a revision (a competing supplement to an existing grant), prepare a progress report instead.

Describing Preliminary Studies

Your preliminary studies show that you can handle the methods and interpret results. Here's where you build reviewer confidence that you are headed in the right direction by pursuing research that builds on your accomplishments.

Reviewers use your preliminary studies together with the biosketches to assess the investigator review criterion, which reflects the competence of the research team.

Give alternative interpretations to your data to show reviewers you've thought through problems in-depth and are prepared to meet future challenges. If you don't do this, the reviewers will!

Though you may include other people's publications, focus on your preliminary data or unpublished data from your lab and the labs of your team members as much as you can.

As we noted above, you can put your preliminary data anywhere in the Research Strategy that you feel is appropriate, but just make sure your reviewers will be able to distinguish it. Alternatively, you can create a separate section with its own header.

Including a Progress Report

If you are applying for a renewal or a revision (a competing supplement to an existing grant), prepare a progress report instead of preliminary studies.

Create a header so your program officer can easily find it and include the following information:

• Project period beginning and end dates.
• Summary of the importance of your findings in relation to your Specific Aims.
• Account of published and unpublished results, highlighting your progress toward achieving your Specific Aims.

Note: if you submit a renewal application before the due date of your progress report, you do not need to submit a separate progress report for your grant. However, you will need to submit it, if your renewal is not funded.

After finishing the draft, check that

• I interpret my preliminary results critically.
• There is enough information to show I know what I'm talking about.
• If my project is complex, I give more preliminary studies.
• I show how my previous experience prepared me for the new project.
• It's clear which data are mine and which are not.

References show your breadth of knowledge of the field. If you leave out an important work, reviewers may assume you're not aware of it.

Throughout your application, you will reference all relevant publications for the concepts underlying your research and your methods.

Read more about your Bibliography and References Cited at Add a Bibliography and Appendix .

• Throughout my application I cite the literature thoroughly but not excessively, adding citations for all references important to my work.
• I cite all papers important to my field, including those from potential reviewers.
• I include fewer than 100 citations (if possible).
• My Bibliography and References Cited form lists all my references.
• I refer to unpublished work, including information I learned through personal contacts.
• If I do not describe a method, I add a reference to the literature.

Look over what you've written with a critical eye of a reviewer to identify potential questions or weak spots.

Enlist others to do that too—they can look at your application with a fresh eye. Include people who aren't familiar with your research to make sure you can get your point across to someone outside your field.

As you finalize the details of your Research Strategy, you will also need to return to your Specific Aims to see if you must revise. See Draft Specific Aims .

After you finish your Research Plan, you are ready to write your Abstract (called Project Summary/Abstract) and Project Narrative, which are attachments to the Other Project Information form.

These sections may be small, but they're important.

• All your peer reviewers read your Abstract and narrative.
• Staff and automated systems in NIH's Center for Scientific Review use them to decide where to assign your application, even if you requested an institute and study section.
• They show the importance and health relevance of your research to members of the public and Congress who are interested in what NIH is funding with taxpayer dollars.

Be sure to omit confidential or proprietary information in these sections! When your application is funded, NIH enters your title and Abstract in the public RePORTER database.

Think brief and simple: to the extent that you can, write these sections in lay language, and include appropriate keywords, e.g., immunotherapy, genetic risk factors.

As NIH referral officers use these parts to direct your application to an institute for possible funding, your description can influence the choice they make.

Write a succinct summary of your project that both a scientist and a lay person can understand (to the extent that you can).

• Use your Specific Aims as a template—shorten it and simplify the language.
• In the first sentence, state the significance of your research to your field and relevance to NIAID's mission: to better understand, treat, and prevent infectious, immunologic, and allergic diseases.
• Next state your hypothesis and the innovative potential of your research.
• Then list and briefly describe your Specific Aims and long-term objectives.

In your Project Narrative, you have only a few sentences to drive home your project's potential to improve public health.

Check out these effective Abstracts and Narratives from our R01  Sample Applications :

• Application from Dr. Mengxi Jiang , "Intersection of polyomavirus infection and host cellular responses"
• Application from Dr. William Faubion , "Inflammatory cascades disrupt Treg function through epigenetic mechanisms"
• My Project Summary/Abstract and Project Narrative (and title) are accessible to a broad audience.
• They describe the significance of my research to my field and state my hypothesis, my aims, and the innovative potential of my research.
• My narrative describes my project's potential to improve public health.
• I do not include any confidential or proprietary information.
• I do not use graphs or images.
• My Abstract has keywords that are appropriate and distinct enough to avoid confusion with other terms.
• My title is specific and informative.

Previous Step

Have questions.

A program officer in your area of science can give you application advice, NIAID's perspective on your research, and confirmation that your proposed research fits within NIAID’s mission.

Find contacts and instructions at When to Contact an NIAID Program Officer .

How to Write a Research Proposal: (with Examples & Templates)

Table of Contents

Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers’ plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed research that you intend to undertake. It provides readers with a snapshot of your project by describing what you will investigate, why it is needed, and how you will conduct the research.  

Your research proposal should aim to explain to the readers why your research is relevant and original, that you understand the context and current scenario in the field, have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, and that the research is feasible given the usual constraints.  

This article will describe in detail the purpose and typical structure of a research proposal , along with examples and templates to help you ace this step in your research journey.  

What is a Research Proposal ?  

A research proposal¹ ,²  can be defined as a formal report that describes your proposed research, its objectives, methodology, implications, and other important details. Research proposals are the framework of your research and are used to obtain approvals or grants to conduct the study from various committees or organizations. Consequently, research proposals should convince readers of your study’s credibility, accuracy, achievability, practicality, and reproducibility.   

With research proposals , researchers usually aim to persuade the readers, funding agencies, educational institutions, and supervisors to approve the proposal. To achieve this, the report should be well structured with the objectives written in clear, understandable language devoid of jargon. A well-organized research proposal conveys to the readers or evaluators that the writer has thought out the research plan meticulously and has the resources to ensure timely completion.  

Purpose of Research Proposals  

A research proposal is a sales pitch and therefore should be detailed enough to convince your readers, who could be supervisors, ethics committees, universities, etc., that what you’re proposing has merit and is feasible . Research proposals can help students discuss their dissertation with their faculty or fulfill course requirements and also help researchers obtain funding. A well-structured proposal instills confidence among readers about your ability to conduct and complete the study as proposed.  

Research proposals can be written for several reasons:³  

• To describe the importance of research in the specific topic  
• Address any potential challenges you may encounter  
• Showcase knowledge in the field and your ability to conduct a study  
• Apply for a role at a research institute  
• Convince a research supervisor or university that your research can satisfy the requirements of a degree program  
• Highlight the importance of your research to organizations that may sponsor your project  
• Identify implications of your project and how it can benefit the audience  

What Goes in a Research Proposal?    

Research proposals should aim to answer the three basic questions—what, why, and how.  

The What question should be answered by describing the specific subject being researched. It should typically include the objectives, the cohort details, and the location or setting.  

The Why question should be answered by describing the existing scenario of the subject, listing unanswered questions, identifying gaps in the existing research, and describing how your study can address these gaps, along with the implications and significance.  

The How question should be answered by describing the proposed research methodology, data analysis tools expected to be used, and other details to describe your proposed methodology.   

Research Proposal Example  

Here is a research proposal sample template (with examples) from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 4 The sections in all research proposals are essentially the same although different terminology and other specific sections may be used depending on the subject.  

Structure of a Research Proposal  

If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹  

1. Introduction  

This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research.  

2. Literature review  

This section contains descriptions of all the previous relevant studies pertaining to the research topic. Every study cited should be described in a few sentences, starting with the general studies to the more specific ones. This section builds on the understanding gained by readers in the Introduction section and supports it by citing relevant prior literature, indicating to readers that you have thoroughly researched your subject.  

3. Objectives  

Once the background and gaps in the research topic have been established, authors must now state the aims of the research clearly. Hypotheses should be mentioned here. This section further helps readers understand what your study’s specific goals are.  

4. Research design and methodology  

Here, authors should clearly describe the methods they intend to use to achieve their proposed objectives. Important components of this section include the population and sample size, data collection and analysis methods and duration, statistical analysis software, measures to avoid bias (randomization, blinding), etc.  

5. Ethical considerations  

This refers to the protection of participants’ rights, such as the right to privacy, right to confidentiality, etc. Researchers need to obtain informed consent and institutional review approval by the required authorities and mention this clearly for transparency.  

6. Budget/funding  

Researchers should prepare their budget and include all expected expenditures. An additional allowance for contingencies such as delays should also be factored in.  

7. Appendices  

This section typically includes information that supports the research proposal and may include informed consent forms, questionnaires, participant information, measurement tools, etc.  

8. Citations  

Important Tips for Writing a Research Proposal  

Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5  

The Planning Stage  

• Manage your time efficiently. Plan to have the draft version ready at least two weeks before your deadline and the final version at least two to three days before the deadline.
• What is the primary objective of your research?  
• Will your research address any existing gap?  
• What is the impact of your proposed research?  
• Do people outside your field find your research applicable in other areas?  
• If your research is unsuccessful, would there still be other useful research outcomes?  

  The Writing Stage  

• Create an outline with main section headings that are typically used.  
• Focus only on writing and getting your points across without worrying about the format of the research proposal , grammar, punctuation, etc. These can be fixed during the subsequent passes. Add details to each section heading you created in the beginning.   
• Ensure your sentences are concise and use plain language. A research proposal usually contains about 2,000 to 4,000 words or four to seven pages.  
• Don’t use too many technical terms and abbreviations assuming that the readers would know them. Define the abbreviations and technical terms.  
• Ensure that the entire content is readable. Avoid using long paragraphs because they affect the continuity in reading. Break them into shorter paragraphs and introduce some white space for readability.  
• Focus on only the major research issues and cite sources accordingly. Don’t include generic information or their sources in the literature review.  
• Proofread your final document to ensure there are no grammatical errors so readers can enjoy a seamless, uninterrupted read.  
• Use academic, scholarly language because it brings formality into a document.  
• Ensure that your title is created using the keywords in the document and is neither too long and specific nor too short and general.  
• Cite all sources appropriately to avoid plagiarism.  
• Make sure that you follow guidelines, if provided. This includes rules as simple as using a specific font or a hyphen or en dash between numerical ranges.  
• Ensure that you’ve answered all questions requested by the evaluating authority.  

Key Takeaways   

Here’s a summary of the main points about research proposals discussed in the previous sections:  

• A research proposal is a document that outlines the details of a proposed study and is created by researchers to submit to evaluators who could be research institutions, universities, faculty, etc.  
• Research proposals are usually about 2,000-4,000 words long, but this depends on the evaluating authority’s guidelines.  
• A good research proposal ensures that you’ve done your background research and assessed the feasibility of the research.  
• Research proposals have the following main sections—introduction, literature review, objectives, methodology, ethical considerations, and budget.  

Frequently Asked Questions  

Q1. How is a research proposal evaluated?  

A1. In general, most evaluators, including universities, broadly use the following criteria to evaluate research proposals . 6  

• Significance —Does the research address any important subject or issue, which may or may not be specific to the evaluator or university?  
• Content and design —Is the proposed methodology appropriate to answer the research question? Are the objectives clear and well aligned with the proposed methodology?  
• Sample size and selection —Is the target population or cohort size clearly mentioned? Is the sampling process used to select participants randomized, appropriate, and free of bias?  
• Timing —Are the proposed data collection dates mentioned clearly? Is the project feasible given the specified resources and timeline?  
• Data management and dissemination —Who will have access to the data? What is the plan for data analysis?  

Q2. What is the difference between the Introduction and Literature Review sections in a research proposal ?  

A2. The Introduction or Background section in a research proposal sets the context of the study by describing the current scenario of the subject and identifying the gaps and need for the research. A Literature Review, on the other hand, provides references to all prior relevant literature to help corroborate the gaps identified and the research need.  

Q3. How long should a research proposal be?  

A3. Research proposal lengths vary with the evaluating authority like universities or committees and also the subject. Here’s a table that lists the typical research proposal lengths for a few universities.  

Q4. What are the common mistakes to avoid in a research proposal ?  

A4. Here are a few common mistakes that you must avoid while writing a research proposal . 7  

• No clear objectives: Objectives should be clear, specific, and measurable for the easy understanding among readers.  
• Incomplete or unconvincing background research: Background research usually includes a review of the current scenario of the particular industry and also a review of the previous literature on the subject. This helps readers understand your reasons for undertaking this research because you identified gaps in the existing research.  
• Overlooking project feasibility: The project scope and estimates should be realistic considering the resources and time available.   
• Neglecting the impact and significance of the study: In a research proposal , readers and evaluators look for the implications or significance of your research and how it contributes to the existing research. This information should always be included.  
• Unstructured format of a research proposal : A well-structured document gives confidence to evaluators that you have read the guidelines carefully and are well organized in your approach, consequently affirming that you will be able to undertake the research as mentioned in your proposal.  
• Ineffective writing style: The language used should be formal and grammatically correct. If required, editors could be consulted, including AI-based tools such as Paperpal , to refine the research proposal structure and language.  

Thus, a research proposal is an essential document that can help you promote your research and secure funds and grants for conducting your research. Consequently, it should be well written in clear language and include all essential details to convince the evaluators of your ability to conduct the research as proposed.  

This article has described all the important components of a research proposal and has also provided tips to improve your writing style. We hope all these tips will help you write a well-structured research proposal to ensure receipt of grants or any other purpose.  

References  

• Sudheesh K, Duggappa DR, Nethra SS. How to write a research proposal? Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(9):631-634. Accessed July 15, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037942/  
• Writing research proposals. Harvard College Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships. Harvard University. Accessed July 14, 2024. https://uraf.harvard.edu/apply-opportunities/app-components/essays/research-proposals  
• What is a research proposal? Plus how to write one. Indeed website. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/research-proposal  
• Research proposal template. University of Rochester Medical Center. Accessed July 16, 2024. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/pediatrics/research/documents/Research-proposal-Template.pdf  
• Tips for successful proposal writing. Johns Hopkins University. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://research.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Tips-for-Successful-Proposal-Writing.pdf  
• Formal review of research proposals. Cornell University. Accessed July 18, 2024. https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/surveys/survey-assessment-review-group/research-proposals  
• 7 Mistakes you must avoid in your research proposal. Aveksana (via LinkedIn). Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-mistakes-you-must-avoid-your-research-proposal-aveksana-cmtwf/  

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

How to write a phd research proposal.

• What are the Benefits of Generative AI for Academic Writing?
• How to Avoid Plagiarism When Using Generative AI Tools
• What is Hedging in Academic Writing?  

How to Write Your Research Paper in APA Format

The future of academia: how ai tools are changing the way we do research, you may also like, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Future Research – Thesis Guide

Future Research – Thesis Guide

Table of Contents

Future Research

Definition:

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

How to Write Future Research in Thesis

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

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

Examples of Future Research in Thesis

SomeExamples of Future Research in Thesis are as follows:

Future Research:

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose of Future Research in Thesis

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

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

Applications of Future Research

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

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

Advantage of Future Research

Including future research in a thesis has several advantages:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Thesis Format – Templates and Samples

Conceptual Framework – Types, Methodology and...

Dissertation Methodology – Structure, Example...

Problem Statement – Writing Guide, Examples and...

Research Questions – Types, Examples and Writing...

Research Objectives – Types, Examples and...

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

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

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

Chapter 9 conclusions and recommendations for future research.

• How well have we achieved our original aim and objectives?

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

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

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

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

• What were the limitations of our study?

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

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

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

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

• What would we do differently next time?

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

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

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

• Implications for research practice and funding

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

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

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

• Recommendations for further research

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

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

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License .

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

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

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

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Suggestions for Future Research

Your dissertation needs to include suggestions for future research. Depending on requirements of your university, suggestions for future research can be either integrated into Research Limitations section or it can be a separate section.

You will need to propose 4-5 suggestions for future studies and these can include the following:

1. Building upon findings of your research . These may relate to findings of your study that you did not anticipate. Moreover, you may suggest future research to address unanswered aspects of your research problem.

2. Addressing limitations of your research . Your research will not be free from limitations and these may relate to formulation of research aim and objectives, application of data collection method, sample size, scope of discussions and analysis etc. You can propose future research suggestions that address the limitations of your study.

3. Constructing the same research in a new context, location and/or culture . It is most likely that you have addressed your research problem within the settings of specific context, location and/or culture. Accordingly, you can propose future studies that can address the same research problem in a different settings, context, location and/or culture.

4. Re-assessing and expanding theory, framework or model you have addressed in your research . Future studies can address the effects of specific event, emergence of a new theory or evidence and/or other recent phenomenon on your research problem.

My e-book,  The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance  offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline. John Dudovskiy

• Cookies & Privacy
• GETTING STARTED
• Introduction
• FUNDAMENTALS
• Acknowledgements
• Research questions & hypotheses
• Concepts, constructs & variables
• Research limitations
• Getting started
• Sampling Strategy
• Research Quality
• Research Ethics
• Data Analysis

FUTURE RESEARCH

Types of future research suggestion.

The Future Research section of your dissertation is often combined with the Research Limitations section of your final, Conclusions chapter. This is because your future research suggestions generally arise out of the research limitations you have identified in your own dissertation. In this article, we discuss six types of future research suggestion. These include: (1) building on a particular finding in your research; (2) addressing a flaw in your research; examining (or testing) a theory (framework or model) either (3) for the first time or (4) in a new context, location and/or culture; (5) re-evaluating and (6) expanding a theory (framework or model). The goal of the article is to help you think about the potential types of future research suggestion that you may want to include in your dissertation.

Before we discuss each of these types of future research suggestion, we should explain why we use the word examining and then put or testing in brackets. This is simply because the word examining may be considered more appropriate when students use a qualitative research design; whereas the word testing fits better with dissertations drawing on a quantitative research design. We also put the words framework or model in brackets after the word theory . We do this because a theory , framework and model are not the same things. In the sections that follow, we discuss six types of future research suggestion.

Addressing research limitations in your dissertation

Building on a particular finding or aspect of your research, examining a conceptual framework (or testing a theoretical model) for the first time, examining a conceptual framework (or testing a theoretical model) in a new context, location and/or culture.

• Expanding a conceptual framework (or testing a theoretical model)

Re-evaluating a conceptual framework (or theoretical model)

In the Research Limitations section of your Conclusions chapter, you will have inevitably detailed the potential flaws (i.e., research limitations) of your dissertation. These may include:

An inability to answer your research questions

Theoretical and conceptual problems

Limitations of your research strategy

Problems of research quality

Identifying what these research limitations were and proposing future research suggestions that address them is arguably the easiest and quickest ways to complete the Future Research section of your Conclusions chapter.

Often, the findings from your dissertation research will highlight a number of new avenues that could be explored in future studies. These can be grouped into two categories:

Your dissertation will inevitably lead to findings that you did not anticipate from the start. These are useful when making future research suggestions because they can lead to entirely new avenues to explore in future studies. If this was the case, it is worth (a) briefly describing what these unanticipated findings were and (b) suggesting a research strategy that could be used to explore such findings in future.

Sometimes, dissertations manage to address all aspects of the research questions that were set. However, this is seldom the case. Typically, there will be aspects of your research questions that could not be answered. This is not necessarily a flaw in your research strategy, but may simply reflect that fact that the findings did not provide all the answers you hoped for. If this was the case, it is worth (a) briefly describing what aspects of your research questions were not answered and (b) suggesting a research strategy that could be used to explore such aspects in future.

You may want to recommend that future research examines the conceptual framework (or tests the theoretical model) that you developed. This is based on the assumption that the primary goal of your dissertation was to set out a conceptual framework (or build a theoretical model). It is also based on the assumption that whilst such a conceptual framework (or theoretical model) was presented, your dissertation did not attempt to examine (or test) it in the field . The focus of your dissertations was most likely a review of the literature rather than something that involved you conducting primary research.

Whilst it is quite rare for dissertations at the undergraduate and master's level to be primarily theoretical in nature like this, it is not unknown. If this was the case, you should think about how the conceptual framework (or theoretical model) that you have presented could be best examined (or tested) in the field . In understanding the how , you should think about two factors in particular:

What is the context, location and/or culture that would best lend itself to my conceptual framework (or theoretical model) if it were to be examined (or tested) in the field?

What research strategy is most appropriate to examine my conceptual framework (or test my theoretical model)?

If the future research suggestion that you want to make is based on examining your conceptual framework (or testing your theoretical model) in the field , you need to suggest the best scenario for doing so.

More often than not, you will not only have set out a conceptual framework (or theoretical model), as described in the previous section, but you will also have examined (or tested) it in the field . When you do this, focus is typically placed on a specific context, location and/or culture.

If this is the case, the obvious future research suggestion that you could propose would be to examine your conceptual framework (or test the theoretical model) in a new context, location and/or culture. For example, perhaps you focused on consumers (rather than businesses), or Canada (rather than the United Kingdom), or a more individualistic culture like the United States (rather than a more collectivist culture like China).

When you propose a new context, location and/or culture as your future research suggestion, make sure you justify the choice that you make. For example, there may be little value in future studies looking at different cultures if culture is not an important component underlying your conceptual framework (or theoretical model). If you are not sure whether a new context, location or culture is more appropriate, or what new context, location or culture you should select, a review the literature will often help clarify where you focus should be.

Expanding a conceptual framework (or theoretical model)

Assuming that you have set out a conceptual framework (or theoretical model) and examined (or tested) it in the field , another series of future research suggestions comes out of expanding that conceptual framework (or theoretical model).

We talk about a series of future research suggestions because there are so many ways that you can expand on your conceptual framework (or theoretical model). For example, you can do this by:

Examining constructs (or variables) that were included in your conceptual framework (or theoretical model) but were not focused.

Looking at a particular relationship aspect of your conceptual framework (or theoretical model) further.

Adding new constructs (or variables) to the conceptual framework (or theoretical model) you set out (if justified by the literature).

It would be possible to include one or a number of these as future research suggestions. Again, make sure that any suggestions you make have are justified , either by your findings or the literature.

With the dissertation process at the undergraduate and master's level lasting between 3 and 9 months, a lot a can happen in between. For example, a specific event (e.g., 9/11, the economic crisis) or some new theory or evidence that undermines (or questions) the literature (theory) and assumptions underpinning your conceptual framework (or theoretical model). Clearly, there is little you can do about this. However, if this happens, reflecting on it and re-evaluating your conceptual framework (or theoretical model), as well as your findings, is an obvious source of future research suggestions.

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

3 scenarios for the future of research – which is most likely?

March 20, 2019 | 11 min read

By Alison Bert, DMA

Experts at AAAS weigh in on the new Research Futures study by Elsevier and Ipsos MORI

Caption: Experts debate the future of research at an interactive panel at the AAAS Annual Meeting in Washington, DC (from left): Dr. Peter Tindemans, Secretary General of EuroScience; Mary Woolley, President and CEO of Research!America; Prof. Sir Peter Gluckman, President Elect of the International Science Council; Dr. Joanne Tornow, Assistant Director for Biological Sciences at the National Science Foundation and, at the podium, Adrian Mulligan, Research Director for Customer Insights at Elsevier. (Photos by Alison Bert)

Imagine yourself 10 years from now. It’s 2029, and the world of research has changed – dramatically for some of you. But how?

Where will your research funding come from? Will your collaborators be academics or colleagues at a tech company?

Will you use artificial intelligence to determine your research hypothesis – and will journals use AI to decide whether to accept your paper? Will that “paper” even look like the manuscript you’re used to submitting?

If you’re a professor, will your students come to the university or study from afar?

These are just a few of the questions the new  Research Futures  scenario-planning study delves into. To forecast how research might be created and exchanged 10 years from now, investigators from Elsevier and Isos MORI examined the literature and market drivers, interviewed over 50 funders, futurists, publishers and technology experts and surveyed more than 2,000 researchers.

From the analysis, key themes emerged. The investigators then held creative workshops, and participants used this knowledge to develop three plausible scenarios    of the future:

Brave open world considers the rise of open science.

Tech titans looks at the growing influence of technology.

Eastern ascendance considers the role the East – and China in particular – might play.

Elsevier colleagues initially conceived this project to gain insights into how they could collaborate with the research community to build a better information system supporting research.

“We needed some information to inform our own decisions as an information analytics provider,” said Hannfried von Hindenburg, SVP of Global Communications, in introducing the panel. “But we felt we should make it public so that all of you could make your decisions based on this research.

“It’s meant to stimulate a discussion, and it’s meant to stimulate decision-making.”

That conversation continued when the report was released at the  Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) opens in new tab/window  in Washington, DC. A panel of research leaders – along with researchers in the audience – weighed in on which scenarios seemed most likely.

“Since we’re envisioning the future, there are no wrong answers,” said moderator Dr. Brad Fenwick, SVP of Global Strategic Alliances at Elsevier.

Hannfried von Hindenburg, SVP of Global Communications at Elsevier, introduces the report and panel at AAAS.

Exploring the future through a 3D lens

Adrian Mulligan summarizes key themes and scenarios in the report before seeking input from the panel and audience.

In his introduction to the report, lead investigator  Adrian Mulligan opens in new tab/window , Director of Research for Customer Insights at Elsevier, summarized the key points – starting with the “three dimensions” the experts  used to contemplate the future.

Three dimensions were used to contemplate the future: the progress of technology (blue); the degree of openness and sharing of research (orange); and those who support research and whether they would be aligned or fragmented (grey).

Blue represents the world of technology. “On one extreme, technology is revolutionary and drastically alters the way science is done,” Mulligan explained. “On the other, evolutionary tech is just like it is now, steadily progressing.”

Orange, meanwhile, represents the exchange of research and data and the degree to which it will be open or controlled, and gray represents whether organizations or nation states are aligned or fragmented.

Each of these elements combines with the others in a distinct way in the three future scenarios.

Scenario 1: Brave open world

In the Brave open world scenario, various factors converge for open collaboration.

“Brave open world” is characterized by open sharing of research, revolutionary technology and more convergence among stakeholders, Mulligan explained. For example, big tech partners with funders and research institutes to develop interoperable machine learning tools and platforms.

“In this scenario, all the actors and funders … come together to create an open platform in which science is shared,” he said. “Research articles are all open access, and the research article moves on from the current format to a more dynamic ‘notebook’ style that is more atomized and broken up.”

In addition, AI accelerates the speed and volume of research, and researchers are rewarded by a range of measures, including interdisciplinary collaboration, data dissemination and social impact.

Trust in science has increased because the public has greater access to published science, and researchers are expected present their work in a way that’s understandable to the lay person.

Scenario 2: Tech titans

In the Tech titans scenario, big tech companies take charge of the research landscape.

The “Tech titans” scenario is characterized by revolutionary technology, with the large tech companies becoming the main supporters, curators and distributors of knowledge. “The big technology companies step in and play a key role in the communication of science and the funding of research,” Mulligan said. “There are massive advances in AI in this world. Here, we see AI play such an important role that it changes society in essential ways. There are lots of job losses … in research as well.”

Much of research has become automated, driven by AI and data mining, and AI enables data-driven hypothesis generation – a practice we’re already experimenting with. Researchers often work closely with industry as independent consultants for large corporations.

Data sharing and machine learning have supported successful commercial breakthroughs, and the platforms the tech companies create have lowered the cost of doing research. However, there are concerns about data being held by private companies and not being made public – or medical advances not being evenly distributed. That competitive drive would likely spill onto the global stage.

“A number of countries are competing to deploy artificial intelligence, keeping it close to their chests in terms of the knowledge they have acquired in developing of new products,” Mulligan said. “And we find some countries struggling to adapt to making use of these new technologies.”

Meanwhile, it’s a politically fragmented world; state funding for research has been reduced, and industry and philanthropic organizations have stepped in to fill the gap, investing in challenge-led science.

Scenario 3: Eastern ascendance

In the Eastern ascendance scenario, China’s desire to transform into a knowledge-based economy has led to heavy public investment in R&D.

The third scenario – Eastern ascendance – is also a fragmented world, with a sharp division between the United States and China. “China has invested massively into research and development, and it’s really paying dividends for them,” Mulligan said. “In the West, we’re unable to keep up with what China is doing, and as a consequence, the sheer volume of that investment is really shaping the way research is being communicated and the advances that are being made.

“Actually, the world changes so much that China becomes a magnet for western researchers. So rather than Western researchers going to Oxford or MIT or the top universities in Europe, they’re heading towards China.

“Open science is embraced in this world,” he continued, “but only partly embraced because it’s quite a fragmented world. People are trying to take commercial advantage of the data and science that’s been communicated, so there’s a lack of global alignment on research projects. Everyone’s trying to do things in their own way.”

As a result, products like self-driving cars, or developments in personalized medicine, are not universally available.

In publishing, the Impact Factor continues to prevail and the subscription model plays a role. Meanwhile, big tech companies form  partnerships with publishers  to provide AI-enabled workflow and publishing tools.

Researchers or technology: which will drive new knowledge?

For the rest of the workshop, Dr. Fenwick posted questions from the survey, and audience members used their smart phones to register their answers in  Menti opens in new tab/window . For example:

Question:  “In 10 years, the creative force   driving forward new knowledge will be …”

Answer:  Researchers – Technology – Either equally likely

Mulligan started by alluding to the “robust intelligence of the ‘tech titan’ world” and the expanding role of AI in driving research: Could AI become so advanced that it could create new science? “We had a number of experts say that much of the hypotheses being generated will be coming from machines rather than humans,” he said. “The role of technology has the the potential to transform research.”

Two panelists challenged the question itself.

"The real idea underlying this statement is that AI will replace researchers completely, and this will not be the case," said Dr. Peter Tindemans, founding member and Secretary General of  EuroScience opens in new tab/window .

“I think it depends how you look at this,” said  Prof. Sir Peter Gluckman opens in new tab/window , President Elect of the  International Science Council opens in new tab/window  and former Chief Science Advisor for the Prime Minister of New Zealand. He referred to Prof.  Dan Sarewitz’s 2016 essay “Saving Science” in  The New Atlantis opens in new tab/window :

As Dan Sarewitz suggests … science is driven by technological development. Until the microscope was invented, you couldn’t look at the cell – etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. … Always new technologies allow new questions to be answered. So by definition, much science is driven ultimately by technological possibilities.

Dr.  Joanne Tornow opens in new tab/window , Assistant Director for Biological Sciences at the  National Science Foundation opens in new tab/window , countered with a vote for the researcher:

Technology by itself doesn’t answer the questions. It’s the researcher. … You have to have the technology – I agree. And technology is as disruptive and as transformational as an aha moment in understanding. But it doesn’t in and of itself solve a problem.

Dr. Fenwick then asked: “Where will the new idea to do the research come from? Where will the idea for the hypothesis come from? (How will it be decided whether) it’s worth researching? Will this be  in silico opens in new tab/window  or will it still be the PI that comes up with the idea?”

Dr. Tornow responded with still another question: “Where does new technology come from? New technology comes from ideas that researchers have. It’s kind of a virtuous cycle.”

Dr. Fenwick agreed that technology is often developed to meet the needs of science: “You wouldn’t build a collider if you didn’t have the scientific community saying I need this tool to answer this question.”

Then he played devil’s advocate: “On the other hand, I could make an argument that if we can’t digest all the science, but a machine can through machine learning, what if a machine came up with a question or hypothesis or a question worth asking and answering? Would we accept it?”

Not only would we accept it; researchers who enable their questions to be generated by AI would have a competitive advantage, Prof. Gluckman said. “Those researchers who do big data and use big-data tools tend to write papers that get into high impact journals,” he said. “And funders love big-data-based, meta-analysis type research.”

As the “chicken-and-egg” aspect of this conundrum became increasingly apparent, a woman in the audience aptly pointed out, “Someone had to write the algorithm.”

Ultimately, the panelists as well as the audience voted more in favor of researchers.

In the  Research Futures  survey of researchers, the most popular response was ‘researchers.’

Will students actually  go  to universities?

The next question dealt with the rising trend of distance learning in higher education:

Question:  “In 10 years, university student will be educated …

Answer:  Mostly on campus – Mostly remotely – Either equally likely.

Dr. Tindemans said there are pressing reasons for students to be on campus:

Students go to a university not just to learn something. Secondly, in many areas of study, you need to work together with your professors by doing experiments (and) other things together, and that is very difficult to organize another way. And the third thing is simply the status: a diploma is a link to what university and not just to a collection of exams you have passed online.

Mary Woolley opens in new tab/window , President and CEO of  Research!America opens in new tab/window , said the answer depends on the university and subjects being studied:

I would say there’s a context … of elite vs non-elite university and college institutions and education. For the elite, students would be more likely on campus. But for all the rest, which is a much higher percentage, I would think it would be increasingly remotely.

Dr. Fenwick pointed out that more elite universities in the US are “making a bet that they can do more distance learning.” As an example, he mentioned a university that bought a large education company, using Elsevier to create their learning platform.

Prof. Gluckman agreed that university education is likely to change, with a rise in interdisciplinary and team-based research, but added that other as yet uncertain factors would also impact these future scenarios. Prof. Gluckman foresees the probability of a more focused investment of government funding in a smaller proportion of research-intensive universities, with the other universities becoming more education-focused and offering more distance-learning options for current and continuing education. However, it’s not clear what form “lifelong re-learning and retraining” will take for many people, he said, “and I think we’re still a decade away from understanding how that’s going to evolve.”

Woolley mentioned “competing pressures” that could turn the tide either way: “the move toward interdisciplinary work and team science that really does require (in-person) interaction” versus the fact that “we’re getting much, much better at connecting remotely.” Ultimately, she said, it would depend on what fields people are studying, some of which will still require a presence on campus.

Similar to the panel’s responses, the audience’s were equally divided, as were those of the researchers who took the survey:

In the  Research Futures  survey of researchers, responses were divided almost equally.

“The best way to influence the future …”

In reflecting on the topic and what was learned from the study, Mulligan said: “You can think about the future, but the best way to influence the future is to create the future.”

Download the report and supporting material

The report  Research Futures: drivers and scenarios for the next decade  is freely available.

Download the summary report (including scenarios) opens in new tab/window

Download the full report (including the scenarios and essays) opens in new tab/window

Download the monitoring framework opens in new tab/window

Elements of the underlying study data are also freely available:

Visit Mendeley to view the list of references used for the literature review opens in new tab/window

View the full results and charts for the researcher survey opens in new tab/window

Find the results of the researcher survey on Mendeley Data opens in new tab/window

Contributor

Alison Bert, DMA

Executive Editor, Global Communications

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

The Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability has selected eight interconnected Solution Areas to focus its research efforts over the next decade. This new research plan amplifies the school’s ability to translate Stanford research into large-scale solutions and inform key decision makers in policy and business.

Selected based on extensive faculty input and assessment of where Stanford can make the most meaningful impact, the eight areas are: climate; water; energy; food; risk, resilience, and adaptation; nature; cities; and platforms and tools for monitoring and decision making.

“Solution Areas identify and leverage the critical junctions between the most pressing global sustainability challenges and the areas where Stanford has the talent and expertise to find solutions,” said Dean Arun Majumdar. “This collaborative all-campus approach expands and strengthens our commitment to using all the power we have – the knowledge, the education, the talent, the innovation, the resources, the influence – to build a thriving planet for future generations.”

‘Integrative Projects’ and ‘Flagship Destinations’

In each Solution Area, the school plans to build two types of research initiatives. One type, called Integrative Projects, will be managed by the school’s institutes, including the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment , the Precourt Institute for Energy , and a planned Sustainable Societies Institute.

Integrative Projects will be organized around decade-long research themes and dedicated to creating solutions through interdisciplinary collaboration, engagement with partners beyond Stanford, identifying significant knowledge gaps, and understanding systems.

According to Chris Field , the Perry L. McCarty Director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and a professor in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and the School of Humanities and Sciences , the new commitment to these areas “will provide both resources and coordination that expand Stanford faculty’s capacity to deliver sustainability solutions at scale.”

A second type of research initiative, called Flagship Destinations, is managed by Stanford’s Sustainability Accelerator . Flagship Destinations are targets for the pace and scale of work to address challenges facing Earth, climate, and society. For example, the school’s first Flagship Destination, announced in 2023 , calls for enabling the removal of billions of tons of planet-warming gases annually from Earth’s atmosphere by the middle of this century. By working backward from sustainability targets in consultation with faculty and external experts, this initiative seeks to rapidly translate Stanford research into policy and technology solutions. Additional Flagship Destinations will be announced later this week.

Whereas Integrative Projects are designed to produce knowledge and evidence that can eventually lead to solutions, Flagship Destination projects are intended to help verify and demonstrate that well-studied solutions can succeed at large scale so they can be launched out of Stanford and implemented for the benefit of humanity and our planet. Scalable solutions nurtured and launched through these projects could take the form of policy frameworks, open-source platforms, nonprofit organizations, new for-profit companies, and ongoing collaborations all committed to addressing pressing sustainability challenges.

“By working together in these Solution Areas across disciplines and with collaborators beyond the university, we maximize our ability to have positive impacts on the timeframe and scale needed for the planet and humanity,” said Scott Fendorf , senior associate dean for integrative initiatives and the Terry Huffington Professor in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability.

Workshops will be held with faculty and external experts to develop research strategies for each Solution Area on a rolling basis. Strategy workshops, opportunities to provide input on future Integrative Projects, and requests for proposals (open to all Stanford faculty) will be announced in the coming months.

Related message from leadership: Read a letter to faculty about the new Solution Areas from Dean Majumdar with Precourt Institute for Energy director William Chueh; Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment director Chris Field; Accelerator faculty director Yi Cui and executive director Charlotte Pera; and Integrative Initiatives associate dean Jenna Davis and senior associate dean Scott Fendorf.