future research should

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base
Research paper
How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

Published on September 15, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on July 18, 2023.

Recommendations in research are a crucial component of your discussion section and the conclusion of your thesis , dissertation , or research paper .

As you conduct your research and analyze the data you collected , perhaps there are ideas or results that don’t quite fit the scope of your research topic. Or, maybe your results suggest that there are further implications of your results or the causal relationships between previously-studied variables than covered in extant research.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

What should recommendations look like, building your research recommendation, how should your recommendations be written, recommendation in research example, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about recommendations.

Recommendations for future research should be:

Concrete and specific
Supported with a clear rationale
Directly connected to your research

Overall, strive to highlight ways other researchers can reproduce or replicate your results to draw further conclusions, and suggest different directions that future research can take, if applicable.

Relatedly, when making these recommendations, avoid:

Undermining your own work, but rather offer suggestions on how future studies can build upon it
Suggesting recommendations actually needed to complete your argument, but rather ensure that your research stands alone on its own merits
Using recommendations as a place for self-criticism, but rather as a natural extension point for your work

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

Academic style
Vague sentences
Style consistency

See an example

There are many different ways to frame recommendations, but the easiest is perhaps to follow the formula of research question conclusion recommendation. Here’s an example.

Conclusion An important condition for controlling many social skills is mastering language. If children have a better command of language, they can express themselves better and are better able to understand their peers. Opportunities to practice social skills are thus dependent on the development of language skills.

As a rule of thumb, try to limit yourself to only the most relevant future recommendations: ones that stem directly from your work. While you can have multiple recommendations for each research conclusion, it is also acceptable to have one recommendation that is connected to more than one conclusion.

These recommendations should be targeted at your audience, specifically toward peers or colleagues in your field that work on similar subjects to your paper or dissertation topic . They can flow directly from any limitations you found while conducting your work, offering concrete and actionable possibilities for how future research can build on anything that your own work was unable to address at the time of your writing.

See below for a full research recommendation example that you can use as a template to write your own.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

Survivorship bias
Self-serving bias
Availability heuristic
Halo effect
Hindsight bias
Deep learning
Generative AI
Machine learning
Reinforcement learning
Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

(AI) Tools

Grammar Checker
Paraphrasing Tool
Text Summarizer
AI Detector
Plagiarism Checker
Citation Generator

While it may be tempting to present new arguments or evidence in your thesis or disseration conclusion , especially if you have a particularly striking argument you’d like to finish your analysis with, you shouldn’t. Theses and dissertations follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the discussion section and results section .) The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation should include the following:

A restatement of your research question
A summary of your key arguments and/or results
A short discussion of the implications of your research

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

Important evidence or analysis that wasn’t mentioned in the discussion section and results section
Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion …”)
Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g., “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, July 18). How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/recommendations-in-research/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples, how to write a thesis or dissertation conclusion, how to write a results section | tips & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

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.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

Knowledge Base
Dissertation
How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

Published on 15 September 2022 by Tegan George .

Recommendations in research are a crucial component of your discussion section and the conclusion of your thesis , dissertation , or research paper .

As you conduct your research and analyse the data you collected , perhaps there are ideas or results that don’t quite fit the scope of your research topic . Or, maybe your results suggest that there are further implications of your results or the causal relationships between previously-studied variables than covered in extant research.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

What should recommendations look like, building your research recommendation, how should your recommendations be written, recommendation in research example, frequently asked questions about recommendations.

Recommendations for future research should be:

Concrete and specific
Supported with a clear rationale
Directly connected to your research

Overall, strive to highlight ways other researchers can reproduce or replicate your results to draw further conclusions, and suggest different directions that future research can take, if applicable.

Relatedly, when making these recommendations, avoid:

Undermining your own work, but rather offer suggestions on how future studies can build upon it
Suggesting recommendations actually needed to complete your argument, but rather ensure that your research stands alone on its own merits
Using recommendations as a place for self-criticism, but rather as a natural extension point for your work

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

There are many different ways to frame recommendations, but the easiest is perhaps to follow the formula of research question conclusion recommendation. Here’s an example.

These recommendations should be targeted at your audience, specifically toward peers or colleagues in your field that work on similar topics to yours. They can flow directly from any limitations you found while conducting your work, offering concrete and actionable possibilities for how future research can build on anything that your own work was unable to address at the time of your writing.

See below for a full research recommendation example that you can use as a template to write your own.

The current study can be interpreted as a first step in the research on COPD speech characteristics. However, the results of this study should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and the lack of details regarding the participants’ characteristics.

Future research could further examine the differences in speech characteristics between exacerbated COPD patients, stable COPD patients, and healthy controls. It could also contribute to a deeper understanding of the acoustic measurements suitable for e-health measurements.

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation should include the following:

A restatement of your research question
A summary of your key arguments and/or results
A short discussion of the implications of your research

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion…”)
Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g. “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

George, T. (2022, September 15). How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 26 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/research-recommendations/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples, how to write a thesis or dissertation conclusion, how to write a results section | tips & examples.

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

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

The future of research revealed

April 20, 2022

By Adrian Mulligan

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

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

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

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

It’s clear from the results of the Research Futures Report 2.0 that we’re at a point of change. There is uncertainty and added pressures on the research community because of the pandemic. Universities, governments, research information providers, and funders working collaboratively are best positioned to help researchers manage that pressure.

Despite this uncertainty, researchers also believe there are long-term opportunities, most notably new levels of collaboration and openness across the research community, plus new sources of funding and technologies, which can help create a bright future for research.

Adrian Mulligan talks about the previous Research Futures report with colleagues in New York.

The report builds on a previous Research Futures study in 2019, carried out with the global research agency Ipsos MORI to gather predictions from funders, publishers, technology experts and researchers on what research might look like in 10 years’ time. The aim of the Research Futures project is to gather the views and opinions of researchers across the world to help us better understand the challenges and opportunities they face. Elsevier will use these insights to look at steps we could take to better support the research community in the future.

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

Key findings

Publishing moves faster, with more open knowledge.

The Research Futures Report 2.0 shows that the past two years have driven progress in both speed and openness in the communication of research. Around two-thirds (67%) of researchers globally now consider preprints a valued source of communication, up from 43% before the pandemic — a shift likely driven by the increased role of preprints in finding ways to tackle COVID-19. While preprints are becoming more popular, they have not benefited from the pivotal role of peer review or had any additional value added to them by publishers. For example, 94% of version-of-record articles published in Elsevier journals have content changes made during the editorial process, and 13% of submissions go through major changes, according to 2021 Elsevier data. Also, 54% of respondents said they planned to publish open access, 6% higher than in 2019.

Funding is harder, but new opportunities emerge

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

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

Women in research face new pressures — and adapt

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

Expecting to collaborate more than they did before the pandemic: 64% expect to increase work with researchers across different scientific disciplines, up from 49% in 2020.

Embracing technology faster than their male counterparts: 53% of women scientists think the use of technology in research will accelerate over the next 2 to 5 years versus 46% for men.

More likely to have shared their research with the wider public than men: 60% of women versus 55% of men have shared their research publicly.

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

Researchers are collaborating more

As teaching, publishing and funding accelerate and increase the pressure on researchers, how they work has changed — and not necessarily for the worse. Researchers are collaborating more. Just over half (52%) state that they are sharing more research data now than 2 to 3 years ago, and the number of researchers who say they are collaborating more than in the past has grown to 63% from 48% pre-pandemic. The gains are across geographies and disciplines. Researchers in Computer Science have seen the biggest rise, with 76% agreeing that there is more collaboration involved in their projects than previously — a substantial rise from the 41% who agreed pre-pandemic.

More researchers are embracing AI

AI has been embraced more than ever during the past two years, though some caution remains. 16% of researchers are extensive users of AI in their research, and while high take-up in Computer Sciences skews that number (64% of computer scientists are heavy users), attitudes across a number of specialties have grown more positive. In Materials Science, which covers the structure and properties of materials and the discovery of new materials and how they are made, 18% are now likely to be extensive users of AI in their research, up from zero a year ago; in Chemistry, the number has grown from 2% to 19% and, in Maths, from 4% to 13% since 2020. Attitudes towards the use of AI in peer review is perhaps where we have seen the greatest shift in attitude: 21% of researchers agree they would read papers peer reviewed by AI — a 5-percentage point increase from 2019. Those age 55 and under are the most willing to read AI-reviewed articles (21%), while those age 56 and over have increased their willingness compared to a year ago (19%, up from 14% last year). At the same time, most researchers surveyed continue to object to AI peer review, with almost two in three unwilling to read such articles (58 percent) — a similar proportion as in 2020.

Download a summary of key research results opens in new tab/window

Download data analyses of research results opens in new tab/window

Project methodology

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

Contributor

Adrian Mulligan

Research Director for Customer Insights, Elsevier

- Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

My email alerts
BMA member login
Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

Advanced search
Search responses
Search blogs
How to formulate...

How to formulate research recommendations

Related content
Peer review
Polly Brown ([email protected]) , publishing manager 1 ,
Klara Brunnhuber , clinical editor 1 ,
Kalipso Chalkidou , associate director, research and development 2 ,
Iain Chalmers , director 3 ,
Mike Clarke , director 4 ,
Mark Fenton , editor 3 ,
Carol Forbes , reviews manager 5 ,
Julie Glanville , associate director/information service manager 5 ,
Nicholas J Hicks , consultant in public health medicine 6 ,
Janet Moody , identification and prioritisation manager 6 ,
Sara Twaddle , director 7 ,
Hazim Timimi , systems developer 8 ,
Pamela Young , senior programme manager 6
1 BMJ Publishing Group, London WC1H 9JR,
2 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London WC1V 6NA,
3 Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments, James Lind Alliance Secretariat, James Lind Initiative, Oxford OX2 7LG,
4 UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford OX2 7LG,
5 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD,
6 National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 7PX,
7 Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Edinburgh EH2 1EN,
8 Update Software, Oxford OX2 7LG
Correspondence to: PBrown
Accepted 22 September 2006

“More research is needed” is a conclusion that fits most systematic reviews. But authors need to be more specific about what exactly is required

Long awaited reports of new research, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines are too often a disappointing anticlimax for those wishing to use them to direct future research. After many months or years of effort and intellectual energy put into these projects, authors miss the opportunity to identify unanswered questions and outstanding gaps in the evidence. Most reports contain only a less than helpful, general research recommendation. This means that the potential value of these recommendations is lost.

Current recommendations

In 2005, representatives of organisations commissioning and summarising research, including the BMJ Publishing Group, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the UK Cochrane Centre, met as members of the development group for the Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments (see bmj.com for details on all participating organisations). Our aim was to discuss the state of research recommendations within our organisations and to develop guidelines for improving the presentation of proposals for further research. All organisations had found weaknesses in the way researchers and authors of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines stated the need for further research. As part of the project, a member of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination under-took a rapid literature search to identify information on research recommendation models, which found some individual methods but no group initiatives to attempt to standardise recommendations.

Suggested format for research recommendations on the effects of treatments

Core elements.

E Evidence (What is the current state of the evidence?)

P Population (What is …

Log in using your username and password

BMA Member Log In

If you have a subscription to The BMJ, log in:

Need to activate
Log in via institution
Log in via OpenAthens

Log in through your institution

Subscribe from £184 *.

Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.

* For online subscription

Access this article for 1 day for: £50 / $60/ €56 ( excludes VAT )

You can download a PDF version for your personal record.

Buy this article

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

Research Project – Definition, Writing Guide and...

Research Paper Abstract – Writing Guide and...

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

Thesis Format – Templates and Samples

Chapter Summary & Overview – Writing Guide...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

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

Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Europe: Insights from a Bibliometric Analysis

Enhancing employee job performance through supportive leadership, diversity management, and employee commitment: the mediating role of affective commitment, relationship management in sales – presentation of a model with which sales employees can build interpersonal relationships with customers.

Promoting Digital Technologies to Enhance Human Resource Progress in Banking
Enhancing Customer Loyalty in the E-Food Industry: Examining Customer Perspectives on Lock-In Strategies
Self-Disruption As A Strategy For Leveraging A Bank’s Sustainability During Disruptive Periods: A Perspective from the Caribbean Financial Institutions
Chinese Direct Investments in Germany
Evaluation of German Life Insurers Based on Published Solvency and Financial Condition Reports: An Alternative Model
Slide Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 20, 2021

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

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

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

Here are six priorities for future research going forward:

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

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

Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research

First Online: 08 April 2021

Cite this chapter

Gert Janssenswillen ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7474-2088 7

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 412))

227 Accesses

At the start of this thesis, we set out on a quest for process realism: viewing and representing processes as they really are, as distinguished from the speculative.

Puzzles are sort of like life because you can mess up and rebuild later, and you’re likely smarter the next time around. Adam Silvera

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Group Business Informatics, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium

Gert Janssenswillen

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gert Janssenswillen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Janssenswillen, G. (2021). Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research. In: Unearthing the Real Process Behind the Event Data. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 412. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70733-0_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70733-0_10

Published : 08 April 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-70732-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-70733-0

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

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
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Building upon existing evidence to shape future research endeavors

Affiliation.

1 Pharmacy Practice and Science, University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy, Lexington, KY 40536, USA. [email protected]
PMID: 18769006
DOI: 10.2146/ajhp070176

Purpose: The identification, retrieval, and critical evaluation of biomedical literature to inform the development of future research efforts are discussed.

Summary: A literature search should be designed with the consideration of the desired scope of the information, discipline, or therapeutic area; the nature of the publication or presentation; the ease of full-text documents; and the frequency of updates. Published literature, as well as research abstracts and clinical trial registries, are good sources of information for investigators. Building upon the past efforts of others may give insight into study design techniques that are of particular value, areas in which the literature is lacking, and potential research pitfalls that should be avoided. Early research efforts are often susceptible to methodological flaws, small sample sizes, or poor reporting approaches. Reviewing the research literature can uncover these and other suboptimal study approaches. Variables that can influence study results, such as sex, age, health status, concomitant diseases and medications, medical history, economic status, and disease severity, should be anticipated and minimized. The acronym PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) is commonly used to describe the integral steps of constructing a study. Alterations that may need to be made to improve the study may include broadening inclusion criteria, prolonging the length of the enrollment period, increasing sample size or number of study centers, and lengthening the follow-up period.

Conclusion: A thorough review and analysis of the literature can aid one in avoiding duplication of completed or current research projects. A survey of the research landscape can also ensure the novelty of the research question, as well as determine methods that may be adapted to meet the study design needs.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Ovid Technologies, Inc.
Silverchair Information Systems

Miscellaneous

NCI CPTAC Assay Portal

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

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

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Published: 26 August 2024

Scenarios of future annual carbon footprints of astronomical research infrastructures

Jürgen Knödlseder ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0014-7809 1 ,
Mickael Coriat 1 ,
Philippe Garnier ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9683-9657 1 &
Annie Hughes ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9181-1161 1

Nature Astronomy ( 2024 ) Cite this article

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

Astronomical instrumentation

Research infrastructures have been identified as an important source of greenhouse gas emissions of astronomical research. Based on a comprehensive inventory of 1,211 ground-based observatories and space missions, we assessed the evolution of the number of astronomical facilities and their carbon footprint from 1945 to 2022. We found that space missions dominate greenhouse gas emissions in astronomy, showing an important peak at the end of the 1960s, followed by a decrease that has turned again into a rise over the last decade. Extrapolating past trends, we predict that greenhouse gas emissions from astronomical facilities will experience no strong decline in the future, and may even rise substantially, unless research practices are changed. We demonstrate that a continuing growth in the number of operating astronomical facilities is not environmentally sustainable. These findings should motivate the astronomical community to reflect about the necessary evolutions that would put astronomical research on a sustainable path.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

Purchase on SpringerLink
Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Estimate of the carbon footprint of astronomical research infrastructures

Assessment of the environmental impacts of the Cherenkov Telescope Array mid-sized telescope

The imperative to reduce carbon emissions in astronomy

Data availability.

All data used for this work are available via Zenodo at https://zenodo.org/records/12568160 (ref. 44 ).

Code availability

All code used for this work is available via Zenodo at https://zenodo.org/records/12568160 (ref. 44 ).

Rosen, J. A greener culture. Nature 546 , 565–567 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Askenazy, P. et al. Intégrer les enjeux environnementaux à la conduite de la recherche–une responsabilité éthique . PhD thesis, Comité d’éthique du CNRS (2022).

Stevens, A. R. H., Bellstedt, S., Elahi, P. J. & Murphy, M. T. The imperative to reduce carbon emissions in astronomy. Nat. Astron. 4 , 843–851 (2020).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Burtscher, L. et al. The carbon footprint of large astronomy meetings. Nat. Astron. 4 , 823–825 (2020).

Jahnke, K. et al. An astronomical institute’s perspective on meeting the challenges of the climate crisis. Nat. Astron. 4 , 812–815 (2020).

Van der Tak, F. et al. The carbon footprint of astronomy research in the Netherlands. Nat. Astron. 5 , 1195–1198 (2021).

Martin, P. et al. A comprehensive assessment of the carbon footprint of an astronomical institute. Nat. Astron. 6 , 1219–1222 (2022).

McCann, K. L., Nance, C., Sebastian, G. & Walawender, J. A path to net-zero carbon emissions at the W. M. Keck Observatory. Nat. Astron. 6 , 1223–1227 (2022).

Kruithof, G. et al. The energy consumption and carbon footprint of the LOFAR telescope. Exp. Astron. 56 , 687–714 (2023).

Viole, I., Valenzuela-Venegas, G., Zeyringer, M. & Sartori, S. A renewable power system for an off-grid sustainable telescope fueled by solar power, batteries and green hydrogen. Energy 282 , 128570 (2023).

Knödlseder, J. et al. Estimate of the carbon footprint of astronomical research infrastructures. Nat. Astron. 6 , 503–513 (2022).

Riahi, K. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds P.R. Shukla et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2022. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14 , 4811–4900 (2022).

Direct Air Capture 2022 (IEA, 2022); www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture-2022

Ho, D. T. Carbon dioxide removal is not a current climate solution–we need to change the narrative. Nature 616 , 9 (2023).

Editorial. EU climate policy is dangerously reliant on untested carbon-capture technology. Nature 626 , 456 (2024).

Dziejarski, B., Krzyżyńska, R. & Andersson, K. Current status of carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in the global economy: A survey of technical assessment. Fuel 342 , 127776 (2023).

Jackson, R. B. et al. Global fossil carbon emissions rebound near pre-COVID-19 levels. Environ. Res. Lett. 17 , 031001 (2022).

Jackson, T. & Victor, P. A. Unraveling the claims for (and against) green growth. Science 366 , 950–951 (2019).

Hickel, J. & Kallis, G. Is green growth possible? New Political Econ. 25 , 469–486 (2020).

Hannesson, R. Are we seeing dematerialization of world GDP? Biophys. Econ. Sust. 6 , 4 (2021).

Murphy, T. W. Limits to economic growth. Nat. Physics 18 , 844–847 (2022).

Vogel, J. & Hickel, J. Is green growth happening? An empirical analysis of achieved versus Paris-compliant CO 2 –GDP decoupling in high-income countries. Lancet Planet. Health 7 , 759–769 (2023).

Global Letter ( Million Advocates for Sustainable Science , 2022); www.sustainablescienceadvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Million-Advocates-Global-Letter.pdf

Flahaut, J., Van der Bogert, C. H. & Vincent-Bonnieu, S. Scientific perspectives on lunar exploration in Europe. NPJ Microgravity 9 , 50 (2023).

Schneider, J., Kervella, P. & Labeyrie, A. Astronomy from the Moon in the next decades: from exoplanets to cosmology in visible light and beyond, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 382 , 20230071 (2024).

Google Scholar

Knödlseder, J. in Climate Change for Astronomers: Causes, Consequences, and Communication (ed. Rector, T.) Chap. 18 (IOP Astronomy, 2024).

Resolution on ESA Accelerating the Use of Space in Europe (ESA Council, 2022); https://europeanspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Resolution_1_CM22.pdf

Plan climat-biodiversité et transition écologique de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche (Ministère de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, 2022); https://services.dgesip.fr/fichiers/Plan_climat_MESR_4.pdf

Chang, A., Anderson, C. & Aden, N. Pathways to Net-Zero: SBTi Technical Summary (Science Based Targets, 2021); https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/Pathway-to-Net-Zero.pdf

Lukac, M. R. & Miller, R. J. List of Active Professional Observatories (United States Naval Observatory, 2000).

Leverington, D. Observatories and Telescopes of Modern Times (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

Thompson, A. R., Moran, J. M. & Swenson Jr, G. W. Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy (Springer, 2017).

Baars, J. W. M. & Kärcher, H. J. Radio Telescope Reflectors (Springer, 2018).

Orchiston, W., Robertson, P. & Woodruff, T. S. Golden Years of Australian Radio Astronomy (Springer, 2021).

Kellermann, K. I., Bouton, E. N. & Brandt, S. S. Open Skies (Springer, 2021).

Krebs, G. D. Gunter’s Space Page . https://space.skyrocket.de (2023).

Wilson, A. R. Advanced Methods of Life Cycle Assessment for Space Systems . PhD thesis, Univ. of Strathclyde (2019).

Wilson, A. R. & Vasile, M. Life cycle engineering of space systems: preliminary findings. Adv. Space Res. 72 , 2917–2935 (2023).

Dos Santos Illa, G., Boix, M., Knödlseder, J., Garnier, P. & Montastruc, L. Assessment of the environmental impacts of the Cherenkov Telescope Array mid-sized telescope. Nat. Astron. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-024-02326-4 (2024).

Barret, D. et al. Life cycle assessment of the Athena X-ray Integral Field Unit. Exp. Astron. 57 , 19 (2024).

Article ADS MathSciNet Google Scholar

Jascheck, C. The size of the astronomical community. Scientometrics 22 , 265–282 (1991).

Kaya, Y. & Keiichi, K. Environment, Energy, and Economy: Strategies for Sustainability (United Nations Univ. Press, 1997).

Knödlseder, J. The projected carbon footprint of astronomical facilities calls for changes in research practices. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12568159 (2024).

Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: a 2-D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9 , 90–95 (2007).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services (ADS). We thank K. Lockhart for her help with using that service. We further thank D. Barret for useful discussions. This work has also benefited from discussions within the research group and cross-disciplinary collective Labos 1point5, and within the grassroots movement Astronomers for Planet Earth. We thank all members for their engagement and support. This work has made use of the Python 2D plotting library matplotlib 45 .

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, CNES, UPS, Toulouse, France

Jürgen Knödlseder, Mickael Coriat, Philippe Garnier & Annie Hughes

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.K. developed the method, gathered and analysed the data and drafted the paper. P.G. helped with the collection of some data. All authors contributed to the definition of the analysis method, the elaboration of the discussion section and the review of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jürgen Knödlseder .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Astronomy thanks Alison Farmer, Joshua Kace and Andrew Wilson for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Figs. 1–14, Tables 1–3 and Discussion.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Knödlseder, J., Coriat, M., Garnier, P. et al. Scenarios of future annual carbon footprints of astronomical research infrastructures. Nat Astron (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-024-02346-0

Download citation

Received : 01 March 2024

Accepted : 22 July 2024

Published : 26 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-024-02346-0

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Skip to main content
Skip to FDA Search
Skip to in this section menu
Skip to footer links

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.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Search
Menu
News & Events
FDA Newsroom
Press Announcements

FDA Approves and Authorizes Updated mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines to Better Protect Against Currently Circulating Variants

FDA News Release

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved and granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for updated mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (2024-2025 formula) to include a monovalent (single) component that corresponds to the Omicron variant KP.2 strain of SARS-CoV-2. The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been updated with this formula to more closely target currently circulating variants and provide better protection against serious consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death. Today’s actions relate to updated mRNA COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by ModernaTX Inc. and Pfizer Inc.

In early June, the FDA advised manufacturers of licensed and authorized COVID-19 vaccines that the COVID-19 vaccines (2024-2025 formula) should be monovalent JN.1 vaccines. Based on the further evolution of SARS-CoV-2 and a rise in cases of COVID-19, the agency subsequently determined and advised manufacturers that the preferred JN.1-lineage for the COVID-19 vaccines (2024-2025 formula) is the KP.2 strain, if feasible.

“Vaccination continues to be the cornerstone of COVID-19 prevention,” said Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “These updated vaccines meet the agency’s rigorous, scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. Given waning immunity of the population from previous exposure to the virus and from prior vaccination, we strongly encourage those who are eligible to consider receiving an updated COVID-19 vaccine to provide better protection against currently circulating variants.”

The updated mRNA COVID-19 vaccines include Comirnaty and Spikevax, both of which are approved for individuals 12 years of age and older, and the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, both of which are authorized for emergency use for individuals 6 months through 11 years of age.

What You Need to Know

Unvaccinated individuals 6 months through 4 years of age are eligible to receive three doses of the updated, authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine or two doses of the updated, authorized Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.
Individuals 6 months through 4 years of age who have previously been vaccinated against COVID-19 are eligible to receive one or two doses of the updated, authorized Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines (timing and number of doses to administer depends on the previous COVID-19 vaccine received).
Individuals 5 years through 11 years of age regardless of previous vaccination are eligible to receive a single dose of the updated, authorized Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines; if previously vaccinated, the dose is administered at least 2 months after the last dose of any COVID-19 vaccine.
Individuals 12 years of age and older are eligible to receive a single dose of the updated, approved Comirnaty or the updated, approved Spikevax; if previously vaccinated, the dose is administered at least 2 months since the last dose of any COVID-19 vaccine.
Additional doses are authorized for certain immunocompromised individuals ages 6 months through 11 years of age as described in the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine fact sheets.

Individuals who receive an updated mRNA COVID-19 vaccine may experience similar side effects as those reported by individuals who previously received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and as described in the respective prescribing information or fact sheets. The updated vaccines are expected to provide protection against COVID-19 caused by the currently circulating variants. Barring the emergence of a markedly more infectious variant of SARS-CoV-2, the FDA anticipates that the composition of COVID-19 vaccines will need to be assessed annually, as occurs for seasonal influenza vaccines.

For today’s approvals and authorizations of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, the FDA assessed manufacturing and nonclinical data to support the change to include the 2024-2025 formula in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The updated mRNA vaccines are manufactured using a similar process as previous formulas of these vaccines. The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been administered to hundreds of millions of people in the U.S., and the benefits of these vaccines continue to outweigh their risks.

On an ongoing basis, the FDA will review any additional COVID-19 vaccine applications submitted to the agency and take appropriate regulatory action.

The approval of Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) (2024-2025 Formula) was granted to BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH. The EUA amendment for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (2024-2025 Formula) was issued to Pfizer Inc.

The approval of Spikevax (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) (2024-2025 Formula) was granted to ModernaTX Inc. and the EUA amendment for the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine (2024-2025 Formula) was issued to ModernaTX Inc.

Related Information

Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) (2024-2025 Formula)
Spikevax (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) (2024-2025 Formula)
Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine (2024-2025 Formula)
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (2024-2025 Formula)
FDA Resources for the Fall Respiratory Illness Season
Updated COVID-19 Vaccines for Use in the United States Beginning in Fall 2024
June 5, 2024, Meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, radiation-emitting electronic products, and for regulating tobacco products.

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.

Puhan MA, Singh S, Weiss CO, et al. Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events: A Comparison of Quantitative Approaches [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013 Nov.

Cover of Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events

Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events: A Comparison of Quantitative Approaches [Internet].

Future research.

Our report suggests several areas for future research. Our prior report suggests a framework for choosing a quantitative approach or quantitative approaches to benefit and harm assessment. Deciding whether a choice of an approach for a specific decisionmaking context was the right one will require further research and perhaps consensus criteria. Also, end users of systematic reviews and end users of the results of quantitative approaches for benefit and harm assessment should participate in methodological research and evaluations of quantitative benefit and harm assessments to ensure that the evidence generated meets their needs. Future studies should evaluate the reliability and consistency of these quantitative approaches to benefit and harm assessment. Researchers should conduct end-user evaluations to determine the comparative utility and additional advantages of quantitative approaches versus a qualitative assessment of the evidence.

While the literature clearly defines methods for selecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for inclusion in a systematic review, the appropriate selection of additional data sources, beyond what is typically included in systematic reviews, needs further development. Future research should address how to select the most valid and applicable incidence data, 25 and how to select and rate the quality of preference assessment studies. 26 Future studies could improve the reporting and assessment of heterogeneity of treatment effects in systematic reviews. 27

Research to understand when a quantitative approach is sufficiently patient-centered is necessary. Although we considered estimates stratified by age and sex, we did not consider additional characteristics such as race, blood pressure, or cholesterol levels, because stratified outcome incidence rates were unavailable for these variables. The challenge will be to balance the need for finely granulated data (e.g., incidence rates stratified for four to five variables) and accurate estimates of incidence. One could consider reporting incidence rates from surveillance studies stratified for these variables. However, limited sample sizes may become a challenge, even in large studies such as the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. An alternative would be to estimate baseline risks based on risk prediction models such as the Framingham Risk Index. However, outcome predictions may be poorly calibrated if the models were not developed or updated in the population of interest.

It is uncertain how these approaches will perform when outcome data on harms are more sparse and heterogeneous, as is typical in many systematic reviews. Much uncertainty exists about estimates for harms with new, and even newly approved, therapies. For this illustrative example, we did not have a situation in which robust evidence is available for benefit outcomes but little evidence is available for harms, which is typical for many other clinical questions. Such a situation would add a layer of complexity and uncertainty to quantitative approaches to benefit and harm assessments, and is beyond the scope of this report. Future research should investigate methods such as optimal information size to assess explicitly whether statistical power is adequate to detect harms. Future research on quantitative approaches to benefit and harm assessment should investigate how to deal with surrogate outcomes (such as forced expiratory volume in 1 second in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or glycated hemoglobin in the context of type 2 diabetes mellitus) in benefit and harm assessments. An evaluation of quantitative approaches in the context of surrogate outcomes is needed. In these situations, systematic reviewers and investigators will either have to elicit data on preferences for intermediate outcomes (surrogate outcomes) or make assumptions about linkages between intermediate outcomes and health outcomes (patient-important outcomes).

Future research is needed regarding which methods of preference assessment are most appropriate. We did not evaluate which preference assessment methods are most appropriate; rather we used available relative weights. Future work comparing the elicitation of relative weights for various outcomes using methods such as the analytic hierarchy process or conjoint analysis would also be informative. In the absence of a gold standard method for elicitation of preferences, such research should assess the concordance or discordance of relative weights generated using various methods. Similarly, an important issue is to consider whose preferences a study assesses, and whether there is variability in these preferences across important subgroups or patient profiles.

Future research on these and other quantitative approaches (such as probabilistic simulation and multicriteria decision analysis) should consider appropriate methods of capturing and conveying the uncertainty around the benefit and harm assessment. This uncertainty relates to many of the identified methodological challenges and future research directions described here. Future evaluation should include a comparison of a larger number of quantitative approaches for benefit and harm assessment other than the two presented in this report. In the absence of a gold standard, reliability and consistency in results across various quantitative approaches for assessing benefits and harms may increase our confidence in their results.

Cite this Page Puhan MA, Singh S, Weiss CO, et al. Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events: A Comparison of Quantitative Approaches [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013 Nov. Future Research.
PDF version of this title (342K)

Other titles in these collections

AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care
Health Services/Technology Assessment Texts (HSTAT)

Recent Activity

Future Research - Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Aspirin for Primary Pr... Future Research - Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events

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

IMAGES

Top 8 Technology Trends & Innovations driving Scientific Research in 2023
Future Research
The Literature gap and future research-research process in scientific
PPT
Summary Of Key Findings And Recommendations For Future Research
Future Studies

COMMENTS

How to Write Recommendations in Research
Recommendations for future research should be: Concrete and specific. Supported with a clear rationale. Directly connected to your research. Overall, strive to highlight ways other researchers can reproduce or replicate your results to draw further conclusions, and suggest different directions that future research can take, if applicable.
Conclusions and recommendations for future research
The initially stated overarching aim of this research was to identify the contextual factors and mechanisms that are regularly associated with effective and cost-effective public involvement in research. While recognising the limitations of our analysis, we believe we have largely achieved this in our revised theory of public involvement in research set out in Chapter 8.
Types of future research suggestion
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 ...
Defining an Optimal Format for Presenting Research Needs [Internet]
Future research needs recommendations are valuable inputs for researchers, funders, and advocates making decisions about avenues for future scientific exploration. We performed an empirical evaluation of the published literature to appreciate the variability in the presentation of information on future research needs. We found that most systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or economic analyses ...
How to Write Recommendations in Research
Recommendations for future research should be: Concrete and specific. Supported with a clear rationale. Directly connected to your research. Overall, strive to highlight ways other researchers can reproduce or replicate your results to draw further conclusions, and suggest different directions that future research can take, if applicable.
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 ...
3 scenarios for the future of research
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 future of research revealed
The Research Futures Report 2.0 shows that the past two years have driven progress in both speed and openness in the communication of research. Around two-thirds (67%) of researchers globally now consider preprints a valued source of communication, up from 43% before the pandemic — a shift likely driven by the increased role of preprints in ...
Implications and suggestions for future research
We suggest the following ideas that can inform future research (these are not listed in order of priority or importance): While we elicited complex dynamics of the innovation process, from initiation to implementation, our study draws primarily on data derived from self-reported accounts.
How to formulate research recommendations
Author affiliations. "More research is needed" is a conclusion that fits most systematic reviews. But authors need to be more specific about what exactly is required. Long awaited reports of new research, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines are too often a disappointing anticlimax for those wishing to use them to direct future research.
Future research recommendations for transforming higher education with
Future research should include comparative studies to better understand how GenAI affects higher education. Second, instructors are stakeholders and may have different views; therefore, future studies should collect instructors' views. Last, while GenAI is a new technology, not all participants have extensive experience learning and teaching ...
Future Research
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. Example 3: Future ...
The future of research: Emerging trends and new directions in
The future of research is also marked by scientific innovation, with new technologies and approaches being developed to address some of the world's most pressing problems. For example, gene editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 have the potential to revolutionize medicine by allowing scientists to edit DNA and cure genetic diseases. Similarly ...
Ideas for writing the "future research directions" section (pt.I)
This is why researchers often discuss future research directions at the end of a paper, providing a clear roadmap for the field's next steps. Here is a list of areas to consider that I generated ...
6 priorities for future research into COVID-19 and its ...
6 priorities for future research into COVID-19 and its effects on early learning. Since March 2020, researchers have produced more than 300 reports on the effects of the COVID-19 crisis on young ...
What's next? Forecasting scientific research trends
Abstract. Scientific research trends and interests evolve over time. The ability to identify and forecast these trends is vital for educational institutions, practitioners, investors, and funding organizations. In this study, we predict future trends in scientific publications using heterogeneous sources, including historical publication time ...
Implications for Future Research
Download chapter PDF. This chapter mainly addresses the implications for future research. Based on the statement of limitations of this research and earlier interpretations and discussions, future research should address at least the following three issues: 1. Future studies could follow different research designs.
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research
1 Process Model Quality. The research objective of the first part, with a focus on process model quality, was to analyse quality measures to examine their usefulness in terms of validity, sensitivity and feasibility, as well as their ability to quantify the quality of the model as a representation of the underlying process.
"This study is not without its limitations ...
Acknowledging limitations and making recommendations for future research are often presented in thesis handbooks and rubrics as obligatory moves that demonstrate an author's critical self-evaluation and authority. Published research articles (RAs), however, reflect nuanced variation that challenges this interpretation. Based on two specialized corpora of 100 quantitative and 100 qualitative ...
Building upon existing evidence to shape future research endeavors
Purpose: The identification, retrieval, and critical evaluation of biomedical literature to inform the development of future research efforts are discussed. Summary: A literature search should be designed with the consideration of the desired scope of the information, discipline, or therapeutic area; the nature of the publication or presentation; the ease of full-text documents; and the ...
What is 'futures studies' and how can it improve our world?
Listen to the article. Futures studies is the systematic study of possible, probable and preferable futures. It can be used to help leaders and communities manage uncertainties and increase their resilience and innovation. We spoke with futurist Dr. Stuart Candy about the latest developments in this field and how it can help us solve pressing ...
Recommendations
Research design considerations for the FRN should be offered as suggestions only to avoid appearing overly prescriptive. The workgroup recommended separating the presentation of two elements of potential future research: methods issues and specific topics. Methods issues tend to transcend specific topics. They should be ranked separately.
New way to potentially slow cancer growth
Scripps Research Institute ... that future drugs should target. But when used on their own, past approaches haven't been detailed enough to spotlight all potential protein targets, leading to some ...
Scenarios of future annual carbon footprints of astronomical research
Scientific research is a common good that contributes to our understanding of the world and the anticipation of the future, yet it is increasingly recognized that research activities contribute ...
FDA Approves and Authorizes Updated mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines to Better
In early June, the FDA advised manufacturers of licensed and authorized COVID-19 vaccines that the COVID-19 vaccines (2024-2025 formula) should be monovalent JN.1 vaccines.
Intertemporal empathy decline: Feeling less distress for future others
The present actions of individuals and society at large can cause outsized consequences on future generations' quality of life. Moral philosophers have explored how people should value the well-being of future generations. Yet, the question of how people actually feel when considering the plight of others in the future compared to the present remains understudied. In four experiments (N ...
Future Research
Future research should investigate methods such as optimal information size to assess explicitly whether statistical power is adequate to detect harms. Future research on quantitative approaches to benefit and harm assessment should investigate how to deal with surrogate outcomes (such as forced expiratory volume in 1 second in chronic ...

Have a language expert improve your writing

How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

FUTURE RESEARCH

Addressing research limitations in your dissertation

Re-evaluating a conceptual framework (or theoretical model)

Expanding a conceptual framework (or theoretical model)

Have a language expert improve your writing

How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Suggestions for Future Research

The future of research revealed

Key findings

Funding is harder, but new opportunities emerge

Women in research face new pressures — and adapt

Researchers are collaborating more

More researchers are embracing AI

Project methodology

Contributor

Adrian Mulligan

Search form

How to formulate research recommendations

Current recommendations

Suggested format for research recommendations on the effects of treatments

Log in using your username and password

Log in through your institution

Future Research – Thesis Guide

Future Research

How to Write Future Research in Thesis

Examples of Future Research in Thesis

Purpose of Future Research in Thesis

Applications of Future Research

Advantage of Future Research

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

You may also like

Research Project – Definition, Writing Guide and...

Research Paper Abstract – Writing Guide and...

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

Thesis Format – Templates and Samples

Chapter Summary & Overview – Writing Guide...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Europe: Insights from a Bibliometric Analysis

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

Suggested Articles

Related Posts

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

Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Building upon existing evidence to shape future research endeavors

Similar articles

LinkOut - more resources

Miscellaneous

Scenarios of future annual carbon footprints of astronomical research infrastructures

Access options

Similar content being viewed by others

Estimate of the carbon footprint of astronomical research infrastructures

Assessment of the environmental impacts of the Cherenkov Telescope Array mid-sized telescope

The imperative to reduce carbon emissions in astronomy