think research and

S&P Futures

Dow futures, nasdaq futures, russell 2000 futures, dólar/libra, bitcoin usd, cmc crypto 200, think research corporation announces record second quarter 2023 results.

Record Q2 2023 revenue of $22.5 million and Adjusted EBITDA of $1.3 million

Annual Recurring Revenue increased by 67% to $25.0 million as of the end of the quarter

TORONTO , Aug. 29, 2023 /CNW/ - Think Research Corporation (TSXV: THNK) ("Think" or the "Company"),  a company focused on transforming healthcare through digital health software solutions, is pleased to announce Second Quarter 2023 results. The Company's Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) along with unaudited consolidated interim financial statements for Q2 2023 are available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on Think's website.

Think's three core business lines, including Software and Data Solutions (SaaS solutions), Clinical Research (clinical trial studies) and Clinical Services (physical clinics), collectively drive its financial performance and results.

Sachin Aggarwal , Chief Executive Officer of Think Research said, "With record revenue and positive Adjusted EBITDA, the second quarter continued the strong performance trend set in the last two quarters. Strong 67% Annual Recurring Revenue growth was driven by SaaS licensing in our Software & Data Division and reached $25 million at the end of the quarter. Think is in a great position to help constrained healthcare delivery systems improve access to high quality health services and best practices where and when they are needed. Our strong and growing pipeline reflects the urgency of this problem."

Think's Software and Data solutions are increasingly relied upon by acute care and community care doctors, nurses and pharmacists to support their practices. Think solutions now reach more than 326,000 clinicians. In certain jurisdiction-wide deployments, Think's platform connects clinicians to the health-care networks that employ them, to patients for virtual care, and to each other for referrals.

Think currently licenses its solutions to approximately 16,000 facilities with over 3 million patients and residents annually receiving better care due to the essential data that Think produces, manages and delivers.

Business Outlook

Think's primary revenue streams of Software and Data solutions and Clinical Research are built on recurring and re-occurring multi-year contracted commitments from governmental agencies and large enterprise clients such as global pharmaceutical companies. Accordingly, Think's management believes that the Company's performance should be adequately protected in the short-term against uncertain macroeconomic conditions.

Moreover, Think's Software and Data solutions business is currently solving urgent short-term health care service conditions, as well as looming long-term demographic challenges for health systems in Canada and abroad, including:

Rapid changes in medical research and treatment options;

Limited access to primary care and critically long wait times in emergency rooms;

Increasing demand for health care services as populations age and people live longer, with increasing health complexity; and

A long-term shortage of health care workers, including doctors, nurses and pharmacists, and a flight of these critical health care workers to higher paying urban jurisdictions.

As a result, Think's sales pipeline for its SaaS solutions shows significant revenue growth potential in the Canadian market and internationally.

The Company plans to grow predictable and recurring revenue with improving margins by becoming an essential data solutions provider for healthcare systems globally so they can deliver the best outcomes for patients. Think's Digital Front Door (" DFD")  solution can provide additional capacity for healthcare systems through third-party care providers, such as doctors, nurses and care navigators from outside the client's network.

To fulfill this objective, Think's focus is to:

Execute long-term agreements with new flagship enterprise and government customers for Think's core suite of Software and Data solutions, including its Digital Front Door, Learning Management System ("LMS"), and Pharmapod solutions;

Add more users to current customer agreements by promoting further adoption and usage. Currently, more than 326,000 clinicians, including doctors, nurses and pharmacists, can access Think's solutions;

Extend the functionality of Think's platform through internal development and through partnerships with care and technology providers. As more users, care providers and functionality are added, Think's solutions become more essential to health systems and customers; and

Continue to manage costs to ensure sustainable profitability.

Think's rapid improvements in financial performance, including three sequential quarters of positive Adjusted EBITDA is helping to offset higher financing charges related to Think's floating interest rate associated with its long-term debt. Although Think has yet to consistently achieve sufficient positive cash flow from operations to cover all non-operating expenses, Think is actively managing costs, while demonstrating improvements in revenue growth.

Notable Contracts and Events in Q2 2023

On June 1, 2023 , June 21, 2023 , and July 18, 2023 , Think announced that its Pharmapod system was selected by an Ontario long-term care chain, an expansion of a long-term care implementation into New Brunswick , and a pharmacy chain with approximately 300 locations across Canada to help them manage medication incidents.

On June 12, 2023 , Think raised a non-convertible loan from Beedie Capital amounting to $1 .8 million proceeds of which were used to paydown the deferred and contingent consideration for prior year acquisitions to avoid dilution to shareholders.

Q2 2023 Financial Highlights

The Company achieved record revenue of $22.5M for the three months ended June 30, 2023 , up by $4.1M or 22% compared to $18.4M for the second quarter of 2022. Year to date revenue of $44.3M was up $5.7M , or 15% from $38.6M in the first half of the prior year. This year-over-year growth reflects the impact of organic growth in Software and Data Solutions and Clinical Research that was offset by a decline in Clinical Services revenue. Sequentially, revenue for Q2 of 2023 increased by $0.7M or 3% compared to $21.8M in the three months ended March 31, 2023 , reflecting growth in Think's Software and Data Solutions business, primarily as a result of the large SaaS contract announced on March 7, 2023 . Revenue in Think's Clinical Services business declined to $5.9M in the first half of 2023 compared to $8M in the six months ended June 30 , 2022.

Annual Recurring Revenue, ("ARR") reached $25.0M at the end of June 2023 , representing growth of 67% compared to $14.7M at the end of June 2022 . Quarter over quarter growth in ARR was 12% compared to $22.0M at the end of March 31, 2023 . This growth in ARR stemmed primarily from one large new contract along with multiple smaller client engagements.

Gross profit rose to $11.7M for Q2 2023 and $23.1M for the year-to-date, up 25% and 25% respectively compared to the same periods a year ago. Gross profit was up 3% compared to the immediately preceding quarter. These increases were due to a combination of higher revenues, a higher share of revenue from transactions that carry a higher gross profit margin, and cost efficiencies realized from the company's previously disclosed cost optimization efforts. Gross margin of 52% in Q2 2023 and 52% in the year to date represents an increase from 51% in Q2 2022 and 48% in the first half of 2022.

Operating expenses declined to $14.2M , in Q2 and $28.2M in the year-to-date 2023 representing a decrease of 13% or $2.1M and 7% or $2.2M compared to the prior year periods. As a percentage of revenue, operating expenses declined to 63% and 64% in the three and six months ended June 30, 2023 , compared to 89% and 79% in the prior year periods due primarily to a cost optimization program executed by the Company.

Think achieved EBITDA of $1.4M in the second quarter and $1.6M in the first half of 2023 compared to a loss of $4.0M in Q2 2022 and to a loss of $6.4M in the first six months of 2022.

Adjusted EBITDA rose to $1.3M for the three months ended June 30, 2023 , compared to an Adjusted EBITDA loss of ( $1.6M for the same period a year ago.  Adjusted EBITDA for the first half of 2023 of $2.4M was $4.3M higher compared to an Adjusted EBITDA loss of $1.9M in the six months ended June 30, 2022 . These improvements were due primarily to improvements in revenue combined with operating cost reductions. The resulting Adjusted EBITDA Margin was 6% in Q2 and 6% in the year-to-date 2023 compared to losses of 9% in Q2 2022 and 5% in the first half of the prior year.

Net loss was $2.3M for the three months and ( $5.9M for the six months ended June 30, 2023 , compared to $7.5M and $13.7M for the comparable periods in the prior year. The decrease in net loss when compared to 2022 is primarily due to higher revenue coupled with lower operating costs as a result of Think's cost optimization program.

Q2 2023 Revenue Performance Highlights by Line of Business:

The Company has three primary streams of revenue that include: (1) Software and Data solutions, (2) Clinical Research, and (3) Clinical Services.

Revenue from Think's Software and Data Solutions business grew by $3.5M or 50% from $6.9M (43% of revenue) in Q2 2022 to $10.4M (46% of revenue) in Q2 2023 primarily due to organic growth associated with the launch of the new SaaS and services initiative set out in the Notable Contracts section above.

ARR reached $25.0M at the end of June 2023 , representing growth of 67% compared to $14.7M at the end of June 2022 . Quarter over quarter growth in ARR was 12% compared to $22.0M at the end of March 31, 2023 . Think's Net Retention Rate for ARR was 106% for the twelve months ended June 30, 2023 .

Clinical Research revenue increased by $2M , or 27% in Q2 2023 to $9.2M compared to $7.3M in Q2 2022. Revenue in the comparable period was depressed due to the operational impacts of COVID-19, which were only fully resolved in late Q3 of 2022.

Clinical Services revenue declined by $1.4M or 32% in Q2 2023 compared to the comparable period in 2022 due to operational challenges in sales and marketing.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

The Company's agreements with its lenders regarding certain covenants become more restrictive at the beginning of each quarter from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2024 . Therefore, despite Think's rapid improvements in financial performance, including three sequential quarters of positive Adjusted EBITDA, the Company determined that it was not in compliance with the minimum EBITDA covenants as set out in the Bank of Nova Scotia Credit Facility and under the Beedie Convertible Facility (the "Credit Facilities") and could potentially be in non-compliance with certain covenants set out in the Credit Facilities in future months in 2023. The Company is actively engaging with its lenders and proactively addressing this matter. For further details, please see the Company's MD&A.

Selected Financial Information

The tables above and below include non-IFRS financial measures and non-IFRS ratios. See the "Cautionary Note Regarding Non-IFRS Financial Measures" section of this press release for the relevant definition of each non-IFRS financial measure and non-IFRS ratio.

Conference Call Details:

CEO Sachin Aggarwal and CFO John Hayes will host a conference call to discuss the results, with a Q&A session to follow.

TIME:  9:00AM EST, Tuesday August 29, 2023

Conference Call Participant Details:  To join the conference call without operator assistance, you may register and enter your phone number  HERE  to receive an instant automated call back. Participants can also dial direct to be entered to the call by an Operator:

Toronto :   416-764-8659

North American Toll Free:   1-888-664-6392

Webinar URL:   https://app.webinar.net/6WVYnEMnalm

Conference Replay

Local: 416-764-8677

North American Toll Free: 1-888-390-0541

Replay Entry Code: 197171 #

Expiration Date: 09/03/2023

About Think Research Corporation

Think Research Corporation is an industry leader in delivering knowledge-based digital health software and data solutions. The Company's evidence-based healthcare solutions support clinical decision-making, improve access to services, enable practitioners to gain better capabilities and knowledge, and help to standardize care to facilitate better healthcare outcomes. Think Research has gathered a significant amount of data by building its repository of knowledge through its digital solutions platform and group of companies. The Company's focused mission is to become an essential platform that helps health care clinicians, institutions and networks to provide the best care and information.

Think licenses its solutions to over 16,000 facilities for over 326,000 primary care, acute care, and long-term care doctors, nurses and pharmacists that rely on the content and data provided by Think to support their practices.  Over 3 million patients and residents annually receive better care due to the essential data that Think produces, manages and delivers.

In addition, the Company collects and manages pharmaceutical and clinical trial data via the BioPharma Services entity that Think acquired on September 10 , 2021.  BioPharma Services is a leading provider of bioequivalence and Phase 1 clinical research services to pharmaceutical companies globally. Think's other services include a network of digital-first primary care clinics and medical clinics that provide elective surgery. Visit: www.thinkresearch.com .

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.

Non-IFRS Financial Measures

This MD&A makes reference to certain non-GAAP financial measures and non-GAAP ratios. These measures and ratios are not recognized measures under International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS"), do not have a standardized meaning prescribed by IFRS and are therefore unlikely to be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. Rather, these measures and ratios are provided as additional information to complement those IFRS measures by providing further understanding of the Company's results of operations from management's perspective. Non-IFRS measures and ratios have limitations as analytical tools and should not be considered in isolation nor as a substitute for analysis of the Company's financial information reported under IFRS and should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements for the periods indicated. The Company uses non-IFRS financial measures and ratios, including "ARR", "EBITDA", "Adjusted EBITDA" and "Adjusted EBITDA Margin" to provide investors with supplemental measures of its operating performance and to eliminate items that have less bearing on operating performance or operating conditions and thus highlight trends in its core business that may not otherwise be apparent when relying solely on IFRS financial measures. Specifically, the Company believes that Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin, when viewed with the Company's results under IFRS and the accompanying reconciliations, provides useful information about the Company's business by removing potential distortions that may arise from transactions that are not operational in nature. By eliminating potential differences in results of operations between periods caused by factors such as restructuring, transaction, impairment and other charges, the Company believes that Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin can provide a useful additional basis for comparing the current performance of the underlying operations being evaluated. The Company's agreements with lenders include certain financial performance covenants which include EBITDA (as defined in the Company's credit agreement with its lenders) as a component of the covenant calculations and require the Company to maintain certain levels of EBITDA on a consolidated basis. ARR is used by some investors and analysts as a predictor of future revenues because it reflects new sales, renewals and lost customers. The Company believes that securities analysts, investors and other interested parties frequently use non-IFRS financial measures and ratios in the evaluation of issuers. The Company's management also uses non-IFRS financial measures and ratios in order to facilitate operating performance comparisons from period to period.

Non-GAAP financial measures and non-GAAP ratios used by the Company include:

Annual Recurring Revenue ("ARR") , means revenue associated with software and services contracts that are expected to have a duration of more than one year, normalized to a one-year period.

"EBITDA" means net income (loss) before amortization and depreciation expenses, finance and interest costs, and provision for income taxes.

"Adjusted EBITDA"  adjusts EBITDA for non-cash stock-based compensation expense, gains or losses arising from redemption of securities issued by the Company, asset impairment charges, gains or losses from disposals of property and equipment, foreign exchange gains or losses, impairment charges on property and equipment, business acquisition costs, and restructuring charges.

"Adjusted EBITDA Margin"  means Adjusted EBITDA divided by revenue of the Company for the applicable period.

"Net Retention Rate"  means the total of retained revenue from existing customers over a one-year period, expressed as a percentage.

A reconciliation of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA to IFRS net income (loss) is presented under "Select Information and Reconciliation of Non-IFRS Measures" in the Company's MD&A filed on SEDAR.

For more information: https://www.thinkresearch.com/ca/investors/

SOURCE Think Research Corporation

View original content to download multimedia: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2023/29/c3012.html

Toronto health-tech firm Think Research goes public as value nears $180-million

This article was published more than 3 years ago. Some information may no longer be current.

Toronto health-tech company Think Research Corp. became the latest Canadian scale-up to list on public markets Wednesday, as it tries to take advantage of investors’ growing appetite for virtual care with a blend of digital and physical offerings.

Working with more than 2,800 health-care facilities across North America, Think Research applies the artificial-intelligence technique of machine learning to clinical evidence to help health professionals figure out the best method of care for a patient. The company also works to make health data more secure and shareable among health professionals, removing barriers in slow and cumbersome processes such as referrals.

Its algorithms can analyze a patient’s specific situation – factors such as symptoms, age, height and pre-existing conditions – and compare that information with mountains of data on past patients to determine the course of treatment. In doing so, Think Research hopes to ensure care is consistent, especially as patients move through health-care systems.

The company began trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange’s Venture Exchange Wednesday after the reverse-takeover of shell company AIM4 Ventures Inc. Though few Think Research shares traded hands Wednesday on the junior exchange, the price largely stuck near $5 a share, closing at $4.90 and valuing the company at about $179-million.

Think Research first proposed the reverse-takeover in October, later securing a private placement of $33-million co-led by Canaccord Genuity Corp. and Cormark Securities Corp. at a price of $4.65 a share. After a $14.6-million acquisition of Toronto’s HealthCarePlus Group of Clinics, which closed in December, the newly public company will also own a network of seven physical clinics in the Toronto region that also offer digital care.

Just a year ago, fast-growing Canadian tech companies were largely turning to private markets to fund their ambitions. But the COVID-19 pandemic has boosted public-market investors’ interest in technologies that will shape the future economy. “It’s been 10 years of change in health care in the past 10 months,” Think Research chief executive Sachin Aggarwal said in an interview.

Earlier this month, mental-health telemedicine company MindBeacon Holdings Inc. soared upon listing on the TSX, joining strong recent debuts from WeCommerce Holdings Ltd., Nuvei Corp. and Dye & Durham Corp.

The three-part Think Research transaction sets it up to take advantage of the explosive public interest in digital health brought on by the pandemic as it integrates HealthCare Plus into the company in its quest for better patient care.

Mr. Aggarwal said Think Research’s sales pipeline has “significant” opportunity, and though the HealthCarePlus clinic network already did some digital-first care for its 100,000-plus patients, he said he hopes the integrated company can deliver an even better experience.

“Our mission is to organize the world’s health knowledge so everyone gets the best care,” Mr. Aggarwal said.

After raising about $50-million on private markets since the company was founded in 2006, Mr. Aggarwal said Think Research had “hard decisions” last summer about how it would seek its next round of financing, after the massive growth in digital-health businesses. “Moving to the public markets allows for a different kind of profile, different kind of growth, access to capital,” he said. “It’s an inflection point for health care.”

Kevin Smith, CEO of Toronto’s University Health Network, has followed Think Research since it was tasked last decade by Ontario’s provincial government to implement some of the company’s evidence-based technology across the province.

“It gives patients what they’re asking for: a clearer line of sight into their own health and into legitimate treatment plans,” Dr. Smith said. When it comes to care, he added, “I think they are helping to advance the democratization of information.”

Using data for better patient care is “a big part of the future of medicine,” said Eric Hoskins, a medical doctor who first encountered Think Research when he was Ontario’s health minister from 2014 to 2018, and who holds a PhD in epidemiology and public health from the University of Oxford.

Dr. Hoskins said he admires the rigour Think Research applies to data and clinical pathways. “They’re really focused on sifting through research data and best practices to provide clinicians the guidance they want to get the best patient outcomes possible,” he said.

In filings ahead of the public listing, Think Research said its revenue for its fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2019, the most recent period for which full-year figures were available, was $17.3-million, up 16 per cent from the previous year. It lost $13.3-million in fiscal 2019, widening 7 per cent from fiscal 2018.

Your time is valuable. Have the Top Business Headlines newsletter conveniently delivered to your inbox in the morning or evening. Sign up today .

Report an editorial error

Report a technical issue

Editorial code of conduct

Tickers mentioned in this story

Study and track financial data on any traded entity: click to open the full quote page. Data updated as of 11/04/24 3:42pm EDT .

Follow related authors and topics

• Artificial intelligence Follow You must be logged in to follow. Log In Create free account
• Insurance Follow You must be logged in to follow. Log In Create free account
• Technology Follow You must be logged in to follow. Log In Create free account
• Toronto Stock Exchange Follow You must be logged in to follow. Log In Create free account

Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following .

Interact with The Globe

• Think files
• Areas of expertise

Think Research and Advisory is a MENA-based firm providing independent research and strategic advisory to support decision-makers in navigating a complex global landscape. Our strong suite of services provides unique insights, analysis, and evidence-based views in the areas of energy, geopolitics, macroeconomics, and media.

Providing world-class independent

Research & strategic advisory, on the mena region., mena forum 2023.

MENA Forum 2023 examines ways in which the Middle East can work with the international community to develop sustainable, long-term solutions to pressing regional challenges. Sessions will focus on regional responses to global geopolitical shifts; economic resilience and diversification; the development of sustainable energy systems; and the Middle East’s climate objectives and priorities ahead of COP 28.

latest report

Mind the gap: highlighting mena’s climate finance challenge, special report: mena climate financing challenges.

Released alongside COP 28 in 2023, this timely report examines the factors influencing climate finance inflows into the MENA region. It identifies the key challenges and gaps, as well as the positive indicators, shaping efforts to secure climate funding. The findings are grounded in original data on international climate finance inflows to 19 MENA countries from the top three global climate funds and their sub-funds

Think Research & Advisory is a MENA-based firm providing independent research and strategic advisory to support decision-makers in navigating a complex global landscape. Our strong suite of services provides unique insights, analysis, and evidence-based views in the areas of energy, geopolitics, macroeconomics, and media.

As part of our services, we leverage our dynamic team of experts, well versed in our thematic areas of focus, to deliver bespoke and targeted strategic advisory on the most pressing challenges facing global and regional leaders.

Unique expertise and perspectives from

The Middle East

World-class experts and analysts with deep understanding of the region

THINK FILES

Think files.

Our articles and research briefings provide independent and in-depth analysis on the most pressing challenges in macroeconomics, geopolitics, energy and media in the MENA region

Geothermal energy: A new frontier in MENA power generation

Charting saudi arabia’s path through sustainable economic transformation, the rise of minilateralism, al majalla: the complexity of future energy systems and the need for regional collaboration, arab news: a decisive moment for egypt: economic reforms for a prosperous future, areas of expertise.

Research & Advisory’s macro-research encompasses four main areas of expertise

Energy Research​

Our industry-specific research focuses on energy and media two areas of particular importance for the MENA region.

Our energy research builds on the region’s leadership in the sector, as well as our team’s extensive knowledge of geopolitics and macroeconomics, to deliver valuable insights not only in the energy landscape, but also on key issues on the international agenda such as green economies, renewable energy, and sustainability.

Macroeconomic Research​

To help clients understand and deal with potential challenges, our macroeconomic research couples data on the economy’s structure, performance, and behaviours with our unique understanding of the MENA region, to provide valuable insights on long-term economic growth and short-term business cycles.

Geopolitical Research​

Organizations, companies, and all forms of entities in the international arena don’t interact in a vacuum. Global and regional landscapes are driven by many complex factors that are often in flux. This is why our geopolitical research not only focuses on providing independent insights into MENA countries, but provides research and advisory on how best to navigate geopolitical landscapes, analyze political risk, and the provide actionable solutions.

Media Policy Research​

Our media research focus area explores the intersection of public policy, media, and society, and future trends.

Research & Advisory

We deliver bespoke briefings and strategic advisory to help our clients understand and manage pressing challenges in macroeconomics, geopolitics, energy and media in the MENA region.

Strategic Advisory

In-depth research services, briefings & policy updates, trends analysis and forecast, country political and policy risk, polling and survey.

Data Gathering

Using technology-powered polling and surveys, we gather the information needed to answer clients’ questions on a number of sectors and topics

We bring data to life by leveraging our teams’ experience and knowledge of the MENA region to ensure that our customers can truly understand public sentiment, behaviour and preferences

With our data and analysis, we create bespoke reports which include actionable insights to help customers navigate a complex regional and international environment

Get in Touch

Privacy preference center, privacy preferences.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

• Identify credible sources
• Evaluate and respond to arguments
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

• Is free from research bias
• Provides evidence to support its research findings
• Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
• What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
• When did they say this? Is the source current?
• Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
• Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

• Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
• Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
• Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

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.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 11, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

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
• NEWS FEATURE
• 27 September 2023
• Correction 10 October 2023

AI and science: what 1,600 researchers think

• Richard Van Noorden &
• Jeffrey M. Perkel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Artificial-intelligence (AI) tools are becoming increasingly common in science, and many scientists anticipate that they will soon be central to the practice of research, suggests a Nature survey of more than 1,600 researchers around the world.

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 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

Nature 621 , 672-675 (2023)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02980-0

Updates & Corrections

Correction 10 October 2023 : An earlier version of this story erroneously affiliated Kedar Hippalgaonkar with the National University of Singapore.

Reprints and permissions

Supplementary Information

• AI survey methodology (docx)
• AI survey questions (pdf)
• AI survey results (xlsx)

Related Articles

• Machine learning
• Mathematics and computing
• Computer science

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

News 10 APR 24

How to break big tech’s stranglehold on AI in academia

Correspondence 09 APR 24

AI can help to tailor drugs for Africa — but Africans should lead the way

Comment 09 APR 24

Randomness in computation wins computer-science ‘Nobel’

How scientists are making the most of Reddit

Career Feature 01 APR 24

Climate change has slowed Earth’s rotation — and could affect how we keep time

News 27 MAR 24

Use fines from EU social-media act to fund research on adolescent mental health

‘Without these tools, I’d be lost’: how generative AI aids in accessibility

Technology Feature 08 APR 24

Husbandry Technician I

Memphis, Tennessee

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)

Lead Researcher – Department of Bone Marrow Transplantation & Cellular Therapy

Researcher in the center for in vivo imaging and therapy, scientist or lead researcher (protein engineering, hematology, shengdar q. tsai lab), lead or senior researcher - flow cytometry.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• News & Highlights

• Publications and Documents
• Postgraduate Education
• Browse Our Courses
• C/T Research Academy
• K12 Investigator Training
• Translational Innovator
• SMART IRB Reliance Request
• Biostatistics Consulting
• Regulatory Support
• Pilot Funding
• Informatics Program
• Community Engagement
• Diversity Inclusion
• Research Enrollment and Diversity
• Harvard Catalyst Profiles

ThinkResearch Podcast

Join us as we sit down with Harvard researchers to discuss these captivating behind-the-scenes stories of research

For more information:

We all are impacted by, and reap the benefits of, medical research discoveries. From over-the-counter drugs, to healthcare policies and educational interventions, many of these advancements are a result of incredible feats, decades of work, and sometimes serendipitous events. Join us as we sit down with Harvard researchers to discuss these captivating behind-the-scenes stories of research.

March 27, 2024

Social inequality in stem.

How do social inequity dimensions such as race, gender, socioeconomic status, and citizenship impact STEM education? In our latest episode, Mayank Chugh, PhD, of Harvard Medical School discusses his research.

Mayank Chugh, PhD, (he/him) is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Systems Biology with Sean Megason, PhD, at Harvard Medical School. He is an early-career advisor at eLife Sciences Publications and an incoming member of the board of directors at the Journal of Emerging Investigators (JEI). He is also the former chair of the Harvard Medical Postdoc Association. Chugh is fascinated about how organisms are designed and constructed from a single cell and approaches this in the context of inner ear formation in zebrafish. During his biology postdoc, he pivoted his research direction to empirically investigate how social inequity dimensions (race, gender, citizenship, and socioeconomic status) shape STEM higher education workforce and innovation. His published research and policy recommendations on cost-of-living adjusted postdoc compensation gathered national attention. He is currently leading research on citizenship privilege and visas to facilitate global knowledge equity. Chugh aims to create unchartered bridges between social sciences and STEM disciplines to inform equitable policies and practices in academic institutions.

January 24, 2024

Genomics and healthcare.

What role can genomics play in improving healthcare? Jason Vassy, MD, MPH, MS, of Veterans Affairs (VA) Boston Healthcare System and Brigham and Women’s Hospital shares his research on how patient DNA might be used to improve healthcare and prevent disease.

Jason Vassy, MD, MPH, MS, is an associate ​​professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, a clinician-investigator at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Boston Healthcare System and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a founding member of Precision Population Health at Ariadne Labs. He is a practicing primary care internist and researcher whose work is focused on the implementation and evaluation of genomic medicine interventions. Vassy earned his MD degree from Washington University School of Medicine before completing an internal medicine residency at the University of Pennsylvania and a Harvard General Internal Medicine Research Fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital.

December 13, 2023

The mind project: neurodiversity and inclusivity.

“The more diverse that we are, the better off we are for the health, safety, and success of the human race,” says Kris King, founder and executive director of the Trans+ Community Celebration at Harvard University. In this episode, King discusses the importance of embracing neurodiversity to create a more compassionate and inclusive world. Isabel Castanho of The MIND Project serves as guest host.

Kris King (they/he) is a nonbinary, transmasc, autistic, multiply-disabled activist and student at Harvard College who is studying history of science and women and gender studies. King is a member of the Inclusion & Belonging Student Leadership Council, Student Accessibility Advisory Committee, and Council of Autistic Advisors for the Autism Society. He serves as policy chair of Harvard Athlete Ally and is on the U.S.A. Curling Divisional Board. King is passionate about intersectional and margin-to-center equity approaches to policy and reform, particularly for autistic and neurodivergent individuals, trans+ individuals, athletes, and broader disability communities. He was the lead facilitator of the 2022 and 2023 Harvard Trans+ Community event, the largest student-run trans event in history to their knowledge. King also served as executive director of the 2021 conference “Autism: Education & Equity – A Public Health Discussion” and is founder of a neurodivergency-focused nonprofit Pandemic Learning Tutors. He is former director of community engagement for the Trans Community of New England and former president of the nationally competitive Harvard Curling Team.

Isabel Castanho, PhD, is a neurobiologist and postdoctoral research fellow working with Winston Hide, PhD, at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Fascinated by the brain, particularly when it responds to threats and disease, she recently left the experimental laboratory to use bioinformatics and computational methods to continue studying the most complex organ of our bodies. Her research interests include investigating Alzheimer’s progression and identifying protective mechanisms for this devastating disease through the study of genes and their regulation, with the ultimate goal of contributing to the design of therapeutical strategies to treat Alzheimer’s disease effectively. In parallel to her research, Castanho is interested in mental health and illness, and neurodiversity. As a core member of The MIND Project at Harvard University, she oversees science communication and outreach efforts to advocate for mental health and neurodiversity. She is one of the co-founders of Neurodiversity at The MIND Project, which focuses on acceptance, inclusion, belonging, education, awareness, understanding, and celebration of the variations of the human mind.

November 15, 2023

Addressing hypertension: engaging black communities in boston.

“Without the input of the people in the community, I don’t think we would be essentially where we are,” says Ruth-Alma Turkson-Ocran, PhD. In this episode, Turkson-Ocran and Stephen Juraschek, PhD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, discuss their research study entitled “Groceries for Black Residents of Boston to Stop Hypertension.” The conversation focuses on how they’ve engaged the local community in their research as well as their work with Harvard Catalyst’s Community Coalition for Equity in Research.

Ruth-Alma Turkson-Ocran, PhD, MPH, APRN, FNP-BC, CNE, is an instructor of medicine and a clinical investigator with the Division of General Medicine in the research section at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School. She is also a board-certified nurse practitioner. Turkson-Ocran is committed to ethical research that empowers underserved and marginalized populations. Her research interests are centered around social determinants of health, cardiometabolic and kidney disease, and wearable devices, particularly among persons of African descent. She uses nationally representative datasets and community-engaged research to inform interventions reducing inequities in cardiometabolic disease.

Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, is a physician investigator at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. He has published more than 100 papers (over half first-authored) from more than 15 distinct cohorts. In addition, he participated in the primary publication of seven distinct clinical trials focused on nutrition and lifestyle interventions to improve clinical outcomes. He is currently the principal investigator on several NIH grants and is an internationally recognized expert in blood pressure. Juraschek is passionate about the role a healthy diet plays in lowering blood pressure and preventing cardiovascular disease, which represents a major focus of his current work.

September 27, 2023

The mind project: what is neurodiversity.

Neurodiversity is a concept that recognizes the natural diversity of neurological traits and conditions of human beings. Guests Georgios Ntolkeras, Walid Yassine, and Anuksha Wickramasinghe from The MIND Project at Harvard join us to explore this topic and their work in this area. Isabel Castanho of The MIND Project serves as guest host.

Georgios Ntolkeras, MD, is a medical resident in the Child Neurology and Neurodevelopmental Disabilities program at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH). He is also a researcher at the Fetal Neonatal Neuroimaging and Developmental Science Center at BCH. His research focuses on the development of new neurophysiological biomarkers in epilepsy using electro- and magneto- encephalography (EEG, MEG), as well as medical device development with novel EEG technologies and human model generation for numerical testing of medical devices. Additionally, he is a core member of The MIND Project at Harvard University, and of the Global Mental Health @Harvard initiative, which is dedicated to tackling the scientific and life challenges caused by different mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions and improving mental health for all. Ntolkeras completed his training in general pediatrics at Baystate Medical Center, University of Massachusetts.

Anuksha Wickramasinghe is a senior at Harvard College who is studying neuroscience on the mind/brain/behavior honors track. She is the author of the 2022 Harvard Crimson column “ADHDventures.” She is also the outreach coordinator for the Harvard Undergraduate Justice Club, a representative for the Harvard University Student Accessibility Advisory Group, and a member of the MIND Project.

Walid Yassine, DMSc, MMSc, is a research scientist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, research associate at McLean Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, and an instructor at Harvard Medical School. His research focuses on the psychosis spectrum. Yassine uses different approaches, such as imaging, behavioral assessment, and artificial intelligence, to better understand the brain and the deviation from what is considered “typical”. His goal is to assess risk factors, discover objective biomarkers, elucidate disorder spectrum and symptom overlap, and provide biomarker-based targeted therapeutic interventions.

August 16, 2023

What is the role of culture and language in promoting health and well-being.

To fully support community-engaged research, it’s important to understand the role of language and culture in promoting well-being. For this episode, guests Carrie Fisher, PhD, and Sofia Ladner, MPH, join us from the Institute for Community Health.

Carolyn (Carrie) Fisher (She/her/hers), PhD, is a research and evaluation scientist at the Institute for Community Health (ICH). At ICH, she leads evaluation and applied research projects with a focus on health-related advocacy and policy, trauma and trauma-informed approaches to evaluation, qualitative methods, and equitable evaluation. She has lectured and led workshops and webinars on community engagement, trauma-informed approaches, and qualitative methods. Fisher earned her PhD in cultural anthropology from the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). Her dissertation, “From Incentives to Ayudas,” was based on fieldwork in rural Nicaragua and described the history and dynamics of interactions between a community of impoverished, small-scale coffee farmers and the various development agencies that have worked in the area between 1979 and 2006.

Sofía Alejandra Ladner (She/her/ella), MPH, is a research and evaluation project manager at the Institute for Community Health (ICH). At ICH, she is involved in evaluation projects on healthcare disparities among minority groups, substance use disorder prevention and treatment, and community organizing impact in health policy. She also supports Dr. Jessica Santos and the Leah Zallman Center for Immigrant Health Research as the community and staff engagement manager. Prior to her work with ICH, Ladner was a fellow at the Health Policy Commission, where her research and work focused on patient protection policies and carrier claims processing for Massachusetts. She received a BS in international health from Georgetown University and completed her MPH with a focus on community health at Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences.

April 12, 2023

Community engaged: equity in research – part two.

How can researchers reflect the diversity of community voices in their work? Community Coalition for Equity in Research members, Rosa Alemán, BA, of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, and Mark Kennedy, MBA, of the Boston Public Health Commission, discuss the importance of building relationships within communities.

Mark Kennedy, MBA, is a senior program manager in the Chronic Disease Prevention and Control Division at the Boston Public Health Commission. In this role, Kennedy is leading the creation and implementation of the cancer early detection plan for the City of Boston. He is also faculty for “Shared Decision-Making: Essential Skills for Prostate, Lung and Breast Cancer Screening,” an online continuing medical education course at the Massachusetts Medical Society, and teaches graduate and undergraduate courses at Regis College and Emerson College.

Additionally, he is the Boston Region Leader for the Massachusetts Comprehensive Cancer Coalition (MCCC) for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and is co-chair for the Boston Medical Center Oncology Accelerator Advisory Council. Previously, Kennedy spent 13 years at Dana-Farber. He received his executive MBA from Northeastern University.

Rosa Alemán, BA, is a digital communications and content strategist at American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts. She helps engage upwards of 70,000 ACLUM community members across social media platforms, with timely, relevant, and valuable content designed to educate and inspire meaningful action.

In 2015, Alemán designed a higher learning project titled #MyDiyMFA: A three-year self-directed education experience consisting of a year of reading, a year of writing, and a year of making.  The DIY MFA project aims to empower people to learn powerful communication technology skills that amplify voice and perspective while encouraging the exploration of pathways and practices for proactively confronting systemic oppression, white supremacy, colonialist ideologies and institutional racism across societal sectors.

March 29, 2023

Community engaged: equity in research – two-part series.

Join members of our Community Coalition for Equity in Research for the first of two conversations on their work, which is to serve as a trusted communication channel between researchers and community stakeholders, providing input on research proposals, among other tasks. Guests: Rosa Alemán, BA, American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, and Mark Kennedy, MBA, Boston Public Health Commission.

MEET THE TEAM

Paul Mullins- Principal ATM Consultant

Paul is an experienced safety inspector and Air Navigation Services Manager. Paul has over 32 years’ experience in the industry and has been responsible for ensuring the safe, efficient and continuous delivery of ANS operations. He has expertise in ATS ops management and as a Competent Authority regulator.

Paul’s role at Think is to provide vital support to the team in the delivery of ATM and Airports projects, and to help grow our client-base across the Middle East region.

James Lewis- Senior ATM Consultant

James is a Senior ATM and Airports Consultant with an Aerospace Engineering (MEng) degree from the University of Bristol. He has a strong analytical and engineering background and has leveraged these skills with his knowledge of ATM and airports to become a highly experienced consultant.

James acted as an expert advisor to Qatar Flight Information Region (QFIR) Projects, an airspace redesign and procurement of new equipment. In addition, he has developed experience with validation, cost benefit analysis and modelling aircraft performance to estimate noise impacts around airports.

To discuss your next ATM or Airport project or to find out more about our services and capabilities in Qatar- contact the Think Qatar team on:

[email protected]

+974 5036 7963

Think Research QFZ LLC

Business & Innovation Park,

Wing 4, Level 1, Building 1

Street 504, Zone 49,

Doha, Qatar

Privacy Overview

• Deutschland
• Asia, Australia & New Zealand
• Europe, Middle East & Africa
• United States & Canada
• Latinoamérica

Insights. Ideas. Inspiration.

Take your marketing further with Google. Think with Google.

Feature of the week

Smarter ads, better results: The next era of digital advertising

AI is already unlocking potential for businesses and creating more helpful, privacy-safe ad experiences — and it’s just getting started. In a letter to the advertising industry, Google’s VP and general manager of Ads, Vidhya Srinivasan shares her vision for what’s next.

Consumer Insights

The 2024 retail guide: put google ai to work to drive profitable growth for your business, katie couric and sean summers explore the future of e-commerce in latin america, connect with customers throughout their increasingly complex journeys, katie couric and lisa joseph metelus discuss the future of brand partnerships, marketing strategies & innovations, how the new york times delivers better ad experiences, what we learned when we challenged our own video marketing formula, katie couric and robert wong explore the future of ai and creativity, meeting the ai moment with action and change, marketing is at an inflection point. here’s why that’s an opportunity, how the new york times’s subscriber-first mindset unlocks opportunities for advertisers, why creators are vital to your marketing mix in 2024, meet the privacy power players building the future of modern marketing, in-depth reading, focus on canada.

Keep up with the latest trends shaping Canada’s marketing landscape, from shifts in consumer habits to best-in-class customer case studies.

Big Thinkers

Think big with Canada’s thought leaders, as they share their perspectives on topics that are top-of-mind for marketers.

Back to Basics

Explore digital best practices with Google experts to ensure your marketing fundamentals are strong and effective.

AI in Marketing

Dig into the latest research and learn how leading marketers are putting Google’s AI-powered tools and solutions to use.

Inclusive Marketing

Perspectives, insights, and resources for expanding diversity, equity, and inclusion in our work and beyond.

Video Library

Explore our video library to get perspectives from industry luminaries, learn new marketing techniques, find creative inspiration, and more.

Marketing on YouTube

Every day, millions of viewers go deep on YouTube content and creators. Get the latest in creative insights, trends, and strategies.

Creativity grabs attention and inspires action. Discover how data at the intersection art and technology can connect with audiences.

Insights Finder

Go beyond demographics to find who matters most to your business.

Google Trends

Gauge consumer search behavior with real-time search trends.

Grow My Store

Assess your retail website’s customer experience—and improve it.

Market Finder

Get data and insights to identify your next global markets.

You're visiting our United States & Canada website.

Based on your location, we recommend you check out this version of the page instead:

Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide pp 1–15 Cite as

What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?

• James Hiebert 6 ,
• Jinfa Cai 7 ,
• Stephen Hwang 7 ,
• Anne K Morris 6 &
• Charles Hohensee 6  
• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

15k Accesses

Part of the book series: Research in Mathematics Education ((RME))

Abstractspiepr Abs1

Every day people do research as they gather information to learn about something of interest. In the scientific world, however, research means something different than simply gathering information. Scientific research is characterized by its careful planning and observing, by its relentless efforts to understand and explain, and by its commitment to learn from everyone else seriously engaged in research. We call this kind of research scientific inquiry and define it as “formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses.” By “hypotheses” we do not mean the hypotheses you encounter in statistics courses. We mean predictions about what you expect to find and rationales for why you made these predictions. Throughout this and the remaining chapters we make clear that the process of scientific inquiry applies to all kinds of research studies and data, both qualitative and quantitative.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Part I. What Is Research?

Have you ever studied something carefully because you wanted to know more about it? Maybe you wanted to know more about your grandmother’s life when she was younger so you asked her to tell you stories from her childhood, or maybe you wanted to know more about a fertilizer you were about to use in your garden so you read the ingredients on the package and looked them up online. According to the dictionary definition, you were doing research.

Recall your high school assignments asking you to “research” a topic. The assignment likely included consulting a variety of sources that discussed the topic, perhaps including some “original” sources. Often, the teacher referred to your product as a “research paper.”

Were you conducting research when you interviewed your grandmother or wrote high school papers reviewing a particular topic? Our view is that you were engaged in part of the research process, but only a small part. In this book, we reserve the word “research” for what it means in the scientific world, that is, for scientific research or, more pointedly, for scientific inquiry .

Exercise 1.1

Before you read any further, write a definition of what you think scientific inquiry is. Keep it short—Two to three sentences. You will periodically update this definition as you read this chapter and the remainder of the book.

This book is about scientific inquiry—what it is and how to do it. For starters, scientific inquiry is a process, a particular way of finding out about something that involves a number of phases. Each phase of the process constitutes one aspect of scientific inquiry. You are doing scientific inquiry as you engage in each phase, but you have not done scientific inquiry until you complete the full process. Each phase is necessary but not sufficient.

In this chapter, we set the stage by defining scientific inquiry—describing what it is and what it is not—and by discussing what it is good for and why people do it. The remaining chapters build directly on the ideas presented in this chapter.

A first thing to know is that scientific inquiry is not all or nothing. “Scientificness” is a continuum. Inquiries can be more scientific or less scientific. What makes an inquiry more scientific? You might be surprised there is no universally agreed upon answer to this question. None of the descriptors we know of are sufficient by themselves to define scientific inquiry. But all of them give you a way of thinking about some aspects of the process of scientific inquiry. Each one gives you different insights.

Exercise 1.2

As you read about each descriptor below, think about what would make an inquiry more or less scientific. If you think a descriptor is important, use it to revise your definition of scientific inquiry.

Creating an Image of Scientific Inquiry

We will present three descriptors of scientific inquiry. Each provides a different perspective and emphasizes a different aspect of scientific inquiry. We will draw on all three descriptors to compose our definition of scientific inquiry.

Descriptor 1. Experience Carefully Planned in Advance

Sir Ronald Fisher, often called the father of modern statistical design, once referred to research as “experience carefully planned in advance” (1935, p. 8). He said that humans are always learning from experience, from interacting with the world around them. Usually, this learning is haphazard rather than the result of a deliberate process carried out over an extended period of time. Research, Fisher said, was learning from experience, but experience carefully planned in advance.

This phrase can be fully appreciated by looking at each word. The fact that scientific inquiry is based on experience means that it is based on interacting with the world. These interactions could be thought of as the stuff of scientific inquiry. In addition, it is not just any experience that counts. The experience must be carefully planned . The interactions with the world must be conducted with an explicit, describable purpose, and steps must be taken to make the intended learning as likely as possible. This planning is an integral part of scientific inquiry; it is not just a preparation phase. It is one of the things that distinguishes scientific inquiry from many everyday learning experiences. Finally, these steps must be taken beforehand and the purpose of the inquiry must be articulated in advance of the experience. Clearly, scientific inquiry does not happen by accident, by just stumbling into something. Stumbling into something unexpected and interesting can happen while engaged in scientific inquiry, but learning does not depend on it and serendipity does not make the inquiry scientific.

Descriptor 2. Observing Something and Trying to Explain Why It Is the Way It Is

When we were writing this chapter and googled “scientific inquiry,” the first entry was: “Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work.” The emphasis is on studying, or observing, and then explaining . This descriptor takes the image of scientific inquiry beyond carefully planned experience and includes explaining what was experienced.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “explain” means “(a) to make known, (b) to make plain or understandable, (c) to give the reason or cause of, and (d) to show the logical development or relations of” (Merriam-Webster, n.d. ). We will use all these definitions. Taken together, they suggest that to explain an observation means to understand it by finding reasons (or causes) for why it is as it is. In this sense of scientific inquiry, the following are synonyms: explaining why, understanding why, and reasoning about causes and effects. Our image of scientific inquiry now includes planning, observing, and explaining why.

We need to add a final note about this descriptor. We have phrased it in a way that suggests “observing something” means you are observing something in real time—observing the way things are or the way things are changing. This is often true. But, observing could mean observing data that already have been collected, maybe by someone else making the original observations (e.g., secondary analysis of NAEP data or analysis of existing video recordings of classroom instruction). We will address secondary analyses more fully in Chap. 4 . For now, what is important is that the process requires explaining why the data look like they do.

We must note that for us, the term “data” is not limited to numerical or quantitative data such as test scores. Data can also take many nonquantitative forms, including written survey responses, interview transcripts, journal entries, video recordings of students, teachers, and classrooms, text messages, and so forth.

Exercise 1.3

What are the implications of the statement that just “observing” is not enough to count as scientific inquiry? Does this mean that a detailed description of a phenomenon is not scientific inquiry?

Find sources that define research in education that differ with our position, that say description alone, without explanation, counts as scientific research. Identify the precise points where the opinions differ. What are the best arguments for each of the positions? Which do you prefer? Why?

Descriptor 3. Updating Everyone’s Thinking in Response to More and Better Information

This descriptor focuses on a third aspect of scientific inquiry: updating and advancing the field’s understanding of phenomena that are investigated. This descriptor foregrounds a powerful characteristic of scientific inquiry: the reliability (or trustworthiness) of what is learned and the ultimate inevitability of this learning to advance human understanding of phenomena. Humans might choose not to learn from scientific inquiry, but history suggests that scientific inquiry always has the potential to advance understanding and that, eventually, humans take advantage of these new understandings.

Before exploring these bold claims a bit further, note that this descriptor uses “information” in the same way the previous two descriptors used “experience” and “observations.” These are the stuff of scientific inquiry and we will use them often, sometimes interchangeably. Frequently, we will use the term “data” to stand for all these terms.

An overriding goal of scientific inquiry is for everyone to learn from what one scientist does. Much of this book is about the methods you need to use so others have faith in what you report and can learn the same things you learned. This aspect of scientific inquiry has many implications.

One implication is that scientific inquiry is not a private practice. It is a public practice available for others to see and learn from. Notice how different this is from everyday learning. When you happen to learn something from your everyday experience, often only you gain from the experience. The fact that research is a public practice means it is also a social one. It is best conducted by interacting with others along the way: soliciting feedback at each phase, taking opportunities to present work-in-progress, and benefitting from the advice of others.

A second implication is that you, as the researcher, must be committed to sharing what you are doing and what you are learning in an open and transparent way. This allows all phases of your work to be scrutinized and critiqued. This is what gives your work credibility. The reliability or trustworthiness of your findings depends on your colleagues recognizing that you have used all appropriate methods to maximize the chances that your claims are justified by the data.

A third implication of viewing scientific inquiry as a collective enterprise is the reverse of the second—you must be committed to receiving comments from others. You must treat your colleagues as fair and honest critics even though it might sometimes feel otherwise. You must appreciate their job, which is to remain skeptical while scrutinizing what you have done in considerable detail. To provide the best help to you, they must remain skeptical about your conclusions (when, for example, the data are difficult for them to interpret) until you offer a convincing logical argument based on the information you share. A rather harsh but good-to-remember statement of the role of your friendly critics was voiced by Karl Popper, a well-known twentieth century philosopher of science: “. . . if you are interested in the problem which I tried to solve by my tentative assertion, you may help me by criticizing it as severely as you can” (Popper, 1968, p. 27).

A final implication of this third descriptor is that, as someone engaged in scientific inquiry, you have no choice but to update your thinking when the data support a different conclusion. This applies to your own data as well as to those of others. When data clearly point to a specific claim, even one that is quite different than you expected, you must reconsider your position. If the outcome is replicated multiple times, you need to adjust your thinking accordingly. Scientific inquiry does not let you pick and choose which data to believe; it mandates that everyone update their thinking when the data warrant an update.

Doing Scientific Inquiry

We define scientific inquiry in an operational sense—what does it mean to do scientific inquiry? What kind of process would satisfy all three descriptors: carefully planning an experience in advance; observing and trying to explain what you see; and, contributing to updating everyone’s thinking about an important phenomenon?

We define scientific inquiry as formulating , testing , and revising hypotheses about phenomena of interest.

Of course, we are not the only ones who define it in this way. The definition for the scientific method posted by the editors of Britannica is: “a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments” (Britannica, n.d. ).

Notice how defining scientific inquiry this way satisfies each of the descriptors. “Carefully planning an experience in advance” is exactly what happens when formulating a hypothesis about a phenomenon of interest and thinking about how to test it. “ Observing a phenomenon” occurs when testing a hypothesis, and “ explaining ” what is found is required when revising a hypothesis based on the data. Finally, “updating everyone’s thinking” comes from comparing publicly the original with the revised hypothesis.

Doing scientific inquiry, as we have defined it, underscores the value of accumulating knowledge rather than generating random bits of knowledge. Formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses is an ongoing process, with each revised hypothesis begging for another test, whether by the same researcher or by new researchers. The editors of Britannica signaled this cyclic process by adding the following phrase to their definition of the scientific method: “The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again.” Scientific inquiry creates a process that encourages each study to build on the studies that have gone before. Through collective engagement in this process of building study on top of study, the scientific community works together to update its thinking.

Before exploring more fully the meaning of “formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses,” we need to acknowledge that this is not the only way researchers define research. Some researchers prefer a less formal definition, one that includes more serendipity, less planning, less explanation. You might have come across more open definitions such as “research is finding out about something.” We prefer the tighter hypothesis formulation, testing, and revision definition because we believe it provides a single, coherent map for conducting research that addresses many of the thorny problems educational researchers encounter. We believe it is the most useful orientation toward research and the most helpful to learn as a beginning researcher.

A final clarification of our definition is that it applies equally to qualitative and quantitative research. This is a familiar distinction in education that has generated much discussion. You might think our definition favors quantitative methods over qualitative methods because the language of hypothesis formulation and testing is often associated with quantitative methods. In fact, we do not favor one method over another. In Chap. 4 , we will illustrate how our definition fits research using a range of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Exercise 1.4

Look for ways to extend what the field knows in an area that has already received attention by other researchers. Specifically, you can search for a program of research carried out by more experienced researchers that has some revised hypotheses that remain untested. Identify a revised hypothesis that you might like to test.

Unpacking the Terms Formulating, Testing, and Revising Hypotheses

To get a full sense of the definition of scientific inquiry we will use throughout this book, it is helpful to spend a little time with each of the key terms.

We first want to make clear that we use the term “hypothesis” as it is defined in most dictionaries and as it used in many scientific fields rather than as it is usually defined in educational statistics courses. By “hypothesis,” we do not mean a null hypothesis that is accepted or rejected by statistical analysis. Rather, we use “hypothesis” in the sense conveyed by the following definitions: “An idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved” (Cambridge University Press, n.d. ), and “An unproved theory, proposition, or supposition, tentatively accepted to explain certain facts and to provide a basis for further investigation or argument” (Agnes & Guralnik, 2008 ).

We distinguish two parts to “hypotheses.” Hypotheses consist of predictions and rationales . Predictions are statements about what you expect to find when you inquire about something. Rationales are explanations for why you made the predictions you did, why you believe your predictions are correct. So, for us “formulating hypotheses” means making explicit predictions and developing rationales for the predictions.

“Testing hypotheses” means making observations that allow you to assess in what ways your predictions were correct and in what ways they were incorrect. In education research, it is rarely useful to think of your predictions as either right or wrong. Because of the complexity of most issues you will investigate, most predictions will be right in some ways and wrong in others.

By studying the observations you make (data you collect) to test your hypotheses, you can revise your hypotheses to better align with the observations. This means revising your predictions plus revising your rationales to justify your adjusted predictions. Even though you might not run another test, formulating revised hypotheses is an essential part of conducting a research study. Comparing your original and revised hypotheses informs everyone of what you learned by conducting your study. In addition, a revised hypothesis sets the stage for you or someone else to extend your study and accumulate more knowledge of the phenomenon.

We should note that not everyone makes a clear distinction between predictions and rationales as two aspects of hypotheses. In fact, common, non-scientific uses of the word “hypothesis” may limit it to only a prediction or only an explanation (or rationale). We choose to explicitly include both prediction and rationale in our definition of hypothesis, not because we assert this should be the universal definition, but because we want to foreground the importance of both parts acting in concert. Using “hypothesis” to represent both prediction and rationale could hide the two aspects, but we make them explicit because they provide different kinds of information. It is usually easier to make predictions than develop rationales because predictions can be guesses, hunches, or gut feelings about which you have little confidence. Developing a compelling rationale requires careful thought plus reading what other researchers have found plus talking with your colleagues. Often, while you are developing your rationale you will find good reasons to change your predictions. Developing good rationales is the engine that drives scientific inquiry. Rationales are essentially descriptions of how much you know about the phenomenon you are studying. Throughout this guide, we will elaborate on how developing good rationales drives scientific inquiry. For now, we simply note that it can sharpen your predictions and help you to interpret your data as you test your hypotheses.

Hypotheses in education research take a variety of forms or types. This is because there are a variety of phenomena that can be investigated. Investigating educational phenomena is sometimes best done using qualitative methods, sometimes using quantitative methods, and most often using mixed methods (e.g., Hay, 2016 ; Weis et al. 2019a ; Weisner, 2005 ). This means that, given our definition, hypotheses are equally applicable to qualitative and quantitative investigations.

Hypotheses take different forms when they are used to investigate different kinds of phenomena. Two very different activities in education could be labeled conducting experiments and descriptions. In an experiment, a hypothesis makes a prediction about anticipated changes, say the changes that occur when a treatment or intervention is applied. You might investigate how students’ thinking changes during a particular kind of instruction.

A second type of hypothesis, relevant for descriptive research, makes a prediction about what you will find when you investigate and describe the nature of a situation. The goal is to understand a situation as it exists rather than to understand a change from one situation to another. In this case, your prediction is what you expect to observe. Your rationale is the set of reasons for making this prediction; it is your current explanation for why the situation will look like it does.

You will probably read, if you have not already, that some researchers say you do not need a prediction to conduct a descriptive study. We will discuss this point of view in Chap. 2 . For now, we simply claim that scientific inquiry, as we have defined it, applies to all kinds of research studies. Descriptive studies, like others, not only benefit from formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses, but also need hypothesis formulating, testing, and revising.

One reason we define research as formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses is that if you think of research in this way you are less likely to go wrong. It is a useful guide for the entire process, as we will describe in detail in the chapters ahead. For example, as you build the rationale for your predictions, you are constructing the theoretical framework for your study (Chap. 3 ). As you work out the methods you will use to test your hypothesis, every decision you make will be based on asking, “Will this help me formulate or test or revise my hypothesis?” (Chap. 4 ). As you interpret the results of testing your predictions, you will compare them to what you predicted and examine the differences, focusing on how you must revise your hypotheses (Chap. 5 ). By anchoring the process to formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses, you will make smart decisions that yield a coherent and well-designed study.

Exercise 1.5

Compare the concept of formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses with the descriptions of scientific inquiry contained in Scientific Research in Education (NRC, 2002 ). How are they similar or different?

Exercise 1.6

Provide an example to illustrate and emphasize the differences between everyday learning/thinking and scientific inquiry.

Learning from Doing Scientific Inquiry

We noted earlier that a measure of what you have learned by conducting a research study is found in the differences between your original hypothesis and your revised hypothesis based on the data you collected to test your hypothesis. We will elaborate this statement in later chapters, but we preview our argument here.

Even before collecting data, scientific inquiry requires cycles of making a prediction, developing a rationale, refining your predictions, reading and studying more to strengthen your rationale, refining your predictions again, and so forth. And, even if you have run through several such cycles, you still will likely find that when you test your prediction you will be partly right and partly wrong. The results will support some parts of your predictions but not others, or the results will “kind of” support your predictions. A critical part of scientific inquiry is making sense of your results by interpreting them against your predictions. Carefully describing what aspects of your data supported your predictions, what aspects did not, and what data fell outside of any predictions is not an easy task, but you cannot learn from your study without doing this analysis.

Analyzing the matches and mismatches between your predictions and your data allows you to formulate different rationales that would have accounted for more of the data. The best revised rationale is the one that accounts for the most data. Once you have revised your rationales, you can think about the predictions they best justify or explain. It is by comparing your original rationales to your new rationales that you can sort out what you learned from your study.

Suppose your study was an experiment. Maybe you were investigating the effects of a new instructional intervention on students’ learning. Your original rationale was your explanation for why the intervention would change the learning outcomes in a particular way. Your revised rationale explained why the changes that you observed occurred like they did and why your revised predictions are better. Maybe your original rationale focused on the potential of the activities if they were implemented in ideal ways and your revised rationale included the factors that are likely to affect how teachers implement them. By comparing the before and after rationales, you are describing what you learned—what you can explain now that you could not before. Another way of saying this is that you are describing how much more you understand now than before you conducted your study.

Revised predictions based on carefully planned and collected data usually exhibit some of the following features compared with the originals: more precision, more completeness, and broader scope. Revised rationales have more explanatory power and become more complete, more aligned with the new predictions, sharper, and overall more convincing.

Part II. Why Do Educators Do Research?

Doing scientific inquiry is a lot of work. Each phase of the process takes time, and you will often cycle back to improve earlier phases as you engage in later phases. Because of the significant effort required, you should make sure your study is worth it. So, from the beginning, you should think about the purpose of your study. Why do you want to do it? And, because research is a social practice, you should also think about whether the results of your study are likely to be important and significant to the education community.

If you are doing research in the way we have described—as scientific inquiry—then one purpose of your study is to understand , not just to describe or evaluate or report. As we noted earlier, when you formulate hypotheses, you are developing rationales that explain why things might be like they are. In our view, trying to understand and explain is what separates research from other kinds of activities, like evaluating or describing.

One reason understanding is so important is that it allows researchers to see how or why something works like it does. When you see how something works, you are better able to predict how it might work in other contexts, under other conditions. And, because conditions, or contextual factors, matter a lot in education, gaining insights into applying your findings to other contexts increases the contributions of your work and its importance to the broader education community.

Consequently, the purposes of research studies in education often include the more specific aim of identifying and understanding the conditions under which the phenomena being studied work like the observations suggest. A classic example of this kind of study in mathematics education was reported by William Brownell and Harold Moser in 1949 . They were trying to establish which method of subtracting whole numbers could be taught most effectively—the regrouping method or the equal additions method. However, they realized that effectiveness might depend on the conditions under which the methods were taught—“meaningfully” versus “mechanically.” So, they designed a study that crossed the two instructional approaches with the two different methods (regrouping and equal additions). Among other results, they found that these conditions did matter. The regrouping method was more effective under the meaningful condition than the mechanical condition, but the same was not true for the equal additions algorithm.

What do education researchers want to understand? In our view, the ultimate goal of education is to offer all students the best possible learning opportunities. So, we believe the ultimate purpose of scientific inquiry in education is to develop understanding that supports the improvement of learning opportunities for all students. We say “ultimate” because there are lots of issues that must be understood to improve learning opportunities for all students. Hypotheses about many aspects of education are connected, ultimately, to students’ learning. For example, formulating and testing a hypothesis that preservice teachers need to engage in particular kinds of activities in their coursework in order to teach particular topics well is, ultimately, connected to improving students’ learning opportunities. So is hypothesizing that school districts often devote relatively few resources to instructional leadership training or hypothesizing that positioning mathematics as a tool students can use to combat social injustice can help students see the relevance of mathematics to their lives.

We do not exclude the importance of research on educational issues more removed from improving students’ learning opportunities, but we do think the argument for their importance will be more difficult to make. If there is no way to imagine a connection between your hypothesis and improving learning opportunities for students, even a distant connection, we recommend you reconsider whether it is an important hypothesis within the education community.

Notice that we said the ultimate goal of education is to offer all students the best possible learning opportunities. For too long, educators have been satisfied with a goal of offering rich learning opportunities for lots of students, sometimes even for just the majority of students, but not necessarily for all students. Evaluations of success often are based on outcomes that show high averages. In other words, if many students have learned something, or even a smaller number have learned a lot, educators may have been satisfied. The problem is that there is usually a pattern in the groups of students who receive lower quality opportunities—students of color and students who live in poor areas, urban and rural. This is not acceptable. Consequently, we emphasize the premise that the purpose of education research is to offer rich learning opportunities to all students.

One way to make sure you will be able to convince others of the importance of your study is to consider investigating some aspect of teachers’ shared instructional problems. Historically, researchers in education have set their own research agendas, regardless of the problems teachers are facing in schools. It is increasingly recognized that teachers have had trouble applying to their own classrooms what researchers find. To address this problem, a researcher could partner with a teacher—better yet, a small group of teachers—and talk with them about instructional problems they all share. These discussions can create a rich pool of problems researchers can consider. If researchers pursued one of these problems (preferably alongside teachers), the connection to improving learning opportunities for all students could be direct and immediate. “Grounding a research question in instructional problems that are experienced across multiple teachers’ classrooms helps to ensure that the answer to the question will be of sufficient scope to be relevant and significant beyond the local context” (Cai et al., 2019b , p. 115).

As a beginning researcher, determining the relevance and importance of a research problem is especially challenging. We recommend talking with advisors, other experienced researchers, and peers to test the educational importance of possible research problems and topics of study. You will also learn much more about the issue of research importance when you read Chap. 5 .

Exercise 1.7

Identify a problem in education that is closely connected to improving learning opportunities and a problem that has a less close connection. For each problem, write a brief argument (like a logical sequence of if-then statements) that connects the problem to all students’ learning opportunities.

Part III. Conducting Research as a Practice of Failing Productively

Scientific inquiry involves formulating hypotheses about phenomena that are not fully understood—by you or anyone else. Even if you are able to inform your hypotheses with lots of knowledge that has already been accumulated, you are likely to find that your prediction is not entirely accurate. This is normal. Remember, scientific inquiry is a process of constantly updating your thinking. More and better information means revising your thinking, again, and again, and again. Because you never fully understand a complicated phenomenon and your hypotheses never produce completely accurate predictions, it is easy to believe you are somehow failing.

The trick is to fail upward, to fail to predict accurately in ways that inform your next hypothesis so you can make a better prediction. Some of the best-known researchers in education have been open and honest about the many times their predictions were wrong and, based on the results of their studies and those of others, they continuously updated their thinking and changed their hypotheses.

A striking example of publicly revising (actually reversing) hypotheses due to incorrect predictions is found in the work of Lee J. Cronbach, one of the most distinguished educational psychologists of the twentieth century. In 1955, Cronbach delivered his presidential address to the American Psychological Association. Titling it “Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology,” Cronbach proposed a rapprochement between two research approaches—correlational studies that focused on individual differences and experimental studies that focused on instructional treatments controlling for individual differences. (We will examine different research approaches in Chap. 4 ). If these approaches could be brought together, reasoned Cronbach ( 1957 ), researchers could find interactions between individual characteristics and treatments (aptitude-treatment interactions or ATIs), fitting the best treatments to different individuals.

In 1975, after years of research by many researchers looking for ATIs, Cronbach acknowledged the evidence for simple, useful ATIs had not been found. Even when trying to find interactions between a few variables that could provide instructional guidance, the analysis, said Cronbach, creates “a hall of mirrors that extends to infinity, tormenting even the boldest investigators and defeating even ambitious designs” (Cronbach, 1975 , p. 119).

As he was reflecting back on his work, Cronbach ( 1986 ) recommended moving away from documenting instructional effects through statistical inference (an approach he had championed for much of his career) and toward approaches that probe the reasons for these effects, approaches that provide a “full account of events in a time, place, and context” (Cronbach, 1986 , p. 104). This is a remarkable change in hypotheses, a change based on data and made fully transparent. Cronbach understood the value of failing productively.

Closer to home, in a less dramatic example, one of us began a line of scientific inquiry into how to prepare elementary preservice teachers to teach early algebra. Teaching early algebra meant engaging elementary students in early forms of algebraic reasoning. Such reasoning should help them transition from arithmetic to algebra. To begin this line of inquiry, a set of activities for preservice teachers were developed. Even though the activities were based on well-supported hypotheses, they largely failed to engage preservice teachers as predicted because of unanticipated challenges the preservice teachers faced. To capitalize on this failure, follow-up studies were conducted, first to better understand elementary preservice teachers’ challenges with preparing to teach early algebra, and then to better support preservice teachers in navigating these challenges. In this example, the initial failure was a necessary step in the researchers’ scientific inquiry and furthered the researchers’ understanding of this issue.

We present another example of failing productively in Chap. 2 . That example emerges from recounting the history of a well-known research program in mathematics education.

Making mistakes is an inherent part of doing scientific research. Conducting a study is rarely a smooth path from beginning to end. We recommend that you keep the following things in mind as you begin a career of conducting research in education.

First, do not get discouraged when you make mistakes; do not fall into the trap of feeling like you are not capable of doing research because you make too many errors.

Second, learn from your mistakes. Do not ignore your mistakes or treat them as errors that you simply need to forget and move past. Mistakes are rich sites for learning—in research just as in other fields of study.

Third, by reflecting on your mistakes, you can learn to make better mistakes, mistakes that inform you about a productive next step. You will not be able to eliminate your mistakes, but you can set a goal of making better and better mistakes.

Exercise 1.8

How does scientific inquiry differ from everyday learning in giving you the tools to fail upward? You may find helpful perspectives on this question in other resources on science and scientific inquiry (e.g., Failure: Why Science is So Successful by Firestein, 2015).

Exercise 1.9

Use what you have learned in this chapter to write a new definition of scientific inquiry. Compare this definition with the one you wrote before reading this chapter. If you are reading this book as part of a course, compare your definition with your colleagues’ definitions. Develop a consensus definition with everyone in the course.

Part IV. Preview of Chap. 2

Now that you have a good idea of what research is, at least of what we believe research is, the next step is to think about how to actually begin doing research. This means how to begin formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses. As for all phases of scientific inquiry, there are lots of things to think about. Because it is critical to start well, we devote Chap. 2 to getting started with formulating hypotheses.

Agnes, M., & Guralnik, D. B. (Eds.). (2008). Hypothesis. In Webster’s new world college dictionary (4th ed.). Wiley.

Google Scholar  

Britannica. (n.d.). Scientific method. In Encyclopaedia Britannica . Retrieved July 15, 2022 from https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method

Brownell, W. A., & Moser, H. E. (1949). Meaningful vs. mechanical learning: A study in grade III subtraction . Duke University Press..

Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J. (2019b). Posing significant research questions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50 (2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.2.0114

Article   Google Scholar  

Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Hypothesis. In Cambridge dictionary . Retrieved July 15, 2022 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hypothesis

Cronbach, J. L. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12 , 671–684.

Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30 , 116–127.

Cronbach, L. J. (1986). Social inquiry by and for earthlings. In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities (pp. 83–107). University of Chicago Press.

Hay, C. M. (Ed.). (2016). Methods that matter: Integrating mixed methods for more effective social science research . University of Chicago Press.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Explain. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary . Retrieved July 15, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education . National Academy Press.

Weis, L., Eisenhart, M., Duncan, G. J., Albro, E., Bueschel, A. C., Cobb, P., Eccles, J., Mendenhall, R., Moss, P., Penuel, W., Ream, R. K., Rumbaut, R. G., Sloane, F., Weisner, T. S., & Wilson, J. (2019a). Mixed methods for studies that address broad and enduring issues in education research. Teachers College Record, 121 , 100307.

Weisner, T. S. (Ed.). (2005). Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life . University of Chicago Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Hiebert, J., Cai, J., Hwang, S., Morris, A.K., Hohensee, C. (2023). What Is Research, and Why Do People Do It?. In: Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_1

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19077-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19078-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

MAKING A DIFFERENCE

We put research, people and health systems to work for improved health and wellbeing

Combining genuine care for people with expertise and experience in three focus areas – Research, Capacity Development and Health Systems Strengthening – we make a difference in the lives of people and communities affected by infectious disease.

We learn, develop and share ways to improve health care and roll up our sleeves to extend the impact of our work while envisioning a world free of suffering.

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT & TRAINING

Research & clinical trials, health system strengthening.

THINK Accelerate Tuberculosis Elimination and Program Resilience Launch

admin 2024-04-03T10:16:39+02:00 3 April 2024 |

THINK South Africa CEO to partake in the United States: Mandela Washington Fellowship Programme – 2024

admin 2024-03-19T16:09:54+02:00 19 March 2024 |

Focus on Strategy, Culture and Values

admin 2024-03-19T14:01:23+02:00 19 March 2024 |

THINK South Africa

4 Lucas Drive, Hillcrest, 3610, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal South Africa

+27 (0)31 003 1817 [email protected]

THINK International

Nørrebrogade 45C, 2200, Copenhagen, Denmark

[email protected]

QUICK LINKS

Find us on social media, subscribe to our monthly newsletter, find out how we are making a difference – today and tomorrow, latest news:.

• Diet & Nutrition

What Experts Really Think About Diet Soda

G rowing up, Olivia Dreizen Howell, 39, “lived on” diet soda. So did her family. At a family reunion in 1996, everyone sported T-shirts with their shared surname in Diet Coke-can font. “We drank Diet Coke, Diet ginger ale, and Diet Sprite like water—there was no difference in our household,” she says.

Like many, Howell believed that sugar-free soda was a benign choice. But the latest research casts doubt on that assumption, linking diet drinks to mood disorders, fatty liver development, autoimmune diseases, and cancer, to name a few. 

Before you pour your diet soda down the drain (a step one health expert does, in fact, recommend), know this about diet-soda research: the vast majority of it is observational—drawn from public-health records and long-term population studies—as opposed to the scientific gold standard of double-blind placebo-controlled studies. 

Here’s what we know so far about what diet soda might be doing to your health.

Diet soda is linked to a higher diabetes risk 

“Type 2 diabetes seems to be the strongest link” when it comes to diet soda and health risks, says Susan E. Swithers, a professor of neuroscience at Purdue University who researches diet soda's effects on metabolic health.“That seems to be a fairly consistent finding.” A 2023 study of nearly 106,000 people found that people who consumed more artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of Type 2 diabetes than people who didn’t eat or drink any.

Read More : Why Your Diet Needs More Fermented Pickles

Earlier work by Swithers found that people who drink a lot of diet soda face increased risks for excessive weight gain, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic syndrome, a constellation of conditions which include excess body fat (especially in the middle), elevated blood sugar and blood pressure, and higher triglycerides — “all of which are risks for the development of Type 2 diabetes and heart disease,” says Dr. Barry Schuval, an endocrinologist at Northwell Health.

It's linked to worse heart health

Several studies have linked artificially sweetened drinks like diet soda to heart issues, particularly increased risks of stroke , coronary heart disease , and heart attacks . Most recently, a March 2024 study found that people who drank more than two liters of artificially sweetened beverages per week had a 20% higher risk of atrial fibrillation than people who didn’t consume sweetened drinks. “It’s important not to assume that low-calorie [diet drinks] are inherently healthy,” says Dr. Ningjian Wang, lead author and professor of endocrinology and metabolism at Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital in China.

Melissa Prest, a dietitian and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (who was not involved in the study), emphasized that the observational nature of the study means we don’t know why this link occurred. Before leaping to any conclusions about whether diet drinks increase the risk for atrial fibrillation, we need more research “to understand all potential variables, like health conditions, body weight, physical activity, and other dietary habits,” says Prest.

Diet soda is linked to cancer

In July 2023, after reviewing research on humans and animals, the World Health Organization (WHO) added aspartame, a common ingredient in diet soda, to a list of ingredients that are “possibly carcinogenic in humans.” That might sound worse in theory than it does in practice: the WHO concluded that a person who weighs about 150 pounds can safely drink about eight cans of aspartame-sweetened diet soda per day.

Read More : Why Are So Many Young People Getting Cancer?

Even with this designation, aspartame isn’t necessarily carcinogenic, says Schuval. “We must keep in mind that correlation does not necessarily imply causation,” he says, and the existing research isn’t conclusive. 

Other research has found potential links from diet soda to cancers including colon, uterine, kidney, and pancreatic. But instead of diet soda being the culprit, weight gain may be, says Schuval. 

Diet soda is linked to weight gain

Artificial sweeteners like aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin are much sweeter than sugar and may alter sweet-taste receptors in your body. Some experts think that this can cause changes to your body’s hunger and satiety hormones, leading you to eat and drink more than you otherwise would. The theory isn’t a slam dunk, however. “While this change has been commonly reported in animal studies, human-based studies have had inconsistent results,” says Prest. 

Another possibility is that both sugars and artificial sweeteners can disrupt the healthy balance of gut bacteria in the GI tract, which may lead to the development of insulin resistance and Type 2 diabetes, says Prest. This, too, is hard to prove in studies, and ones that point to this pathway are often small and inconclusive, says Leah Reitmayer, a dietitian in Sanford, N.C.

Read More : Ozempic Gets the Oprah Treatment in a New Special

As is the case with much nutrition research, the associations found between diet soda and weight gain (and obesity) may be red herrings. “The research shows that more obese individuals drink diet soda than regular—but also eat more food than healthy weight adults,” says Reitmayer. More research is necessary to determine if diet soda is making people gain weight, or if the relationship is complicated by other factors. 

What to make of all this research

Overall, the findings are mixed, leading to bewilderment among consumers about whether diet soda is a safe beverage. 

Swithers believes we still have more questions than answers. While she says she feels persuaded by a true link between diet soda and Type 2 diabetes,  the evidence for artificial sweeteners contributing to cancer and heart disease is less clear, she says. “It just comes down to what explains that relationship,” says Swithers. Are people who choose to drink diet soda already at higher risk for certain health conditions? Are all artificial sweeteners the same? Is there another variable scientists aren’t looking at? 

“That’s where it gets really muddy,” she says. Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait to get a fuller picture of diet soda’s health effects.

Is diet soda at least better for you than regular soda?

If you routinely drink sugary sodas, all experts would rather you switch to water (naturally). But barring that, many would prefer you drink diet. “Some people find that artificially sweetened beverages help them have better control of their blood sugar,” says Prest.

Another reason is we have much more persuasive evidence of the harms of excess sugar than we do for artificial sweeteners. Over many years, research has linked sugar to conditions like obesity, inflammation, heart disease, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, Type 2 diabetes or worsening of prediabetes, weight gain, and tooth decay, and some studies have even indicated that reducing added sugar in the U.S. food supply could save money and lives .

It’s also important to consider what else your diet soda might be replacing. Dan DeBaun, a 32-year-old public relations manager in Minnetonka, Minn., uses diet soda as a tool to cut back on alcohol. “I never drank much alcohol previously, but I wanted to cut back even more after more studies emerged about the negative health impacts ,” he says. After a successful “dry October,” where he abstained from alcohol completely, he realized he still liked having something to drink when he was out with friends or at a sporting event or concert. So he’d order a Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi.

Read More : How to Be a Healthier Drinker

“Diet soda doesn't necessarily make me feel great while I'm drinking it, but I consider it a net positive compared to alcoholic beverages,” says DeBaun. “I'd only drink one, but I found having it was a good substitute.”

And dentally speaking, diet soda does clearly trump regular. “One benefit of artificial sugars is their role in reducing dental caries,” says Prest. “When sugar-sweetened beverages are exchanged for artificially sweetened beverages, the risk of developing dental caries or cavities is reduced,” she says, and this is due to the reduction in the growth of bacteria that cause them.

How to limit your diet-soda intake—or quit it altogether

Few among us can give up a hard-core diet-soda habit cold turkey, but there’s still plenty you can do to cut back, Swithers says. 

Dump it down the drain (really)

People typically think they need more of a food or drink to feel satisfied than they actually do. If you simply crave the taste of diet soda, open a can or bottle, take a few sips, and dump the rest down the sink. You might find your craving is satisfied after only a few gulps. “Drinking just a little bit, then stopping and thinking about whether you even want more soda, could be a helpful step to reducing consumption,” Swithers says.

Treat your diet soda like candy

Instead of thinking about your diet soda as a drink, think about it as candy, suggests Swithers. That way, it might start to seem ludicrous to have one with meals. “Most adults wouldn’t open a bag of candy and pour it onto their dinner plate,” she says. “Just because it’s in a glass doesn’t make it magic in some way. Would you pour a bag of jelly beans as a side dish with your meal?”

Disguise your water 

A lot of people drink diet soda because they don’t like the taste of water. To give a glass of water an appealing flavor, drop in some frozen fruit (especially the kind that releases juice, like pineapple, strawberries, and mango). Using seltzer instead of still water will make it feel even more like the bubbly treat you love.

More Must-Reads From TIME

• Exclusive: Google Workers Revolt Over $1.2 Billion Contract With Israel
• Jane Fonda Champions Climate Action for Every Generation
• Stop Looking for Your Forever Home
• The Sympathizer Counters 50 Years of Hollywood Vietnam War Narratives
• The Bliss of Seeing the Eclipse From Cleveland
• Hormonal Birth Control Doesn’t Deserve Its Bad Reputation
• The Best TV Shows to Watch on Peacock
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

You May Also Like

Many say Biden and Trump did more harm than good, but for different reasons, AP-NORC poll shows

A new poll from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that more than half of U.S. adults think Joe Biden’s presidency has hurt the country on cost of living and immigration

WASHINGTON -- There’s a reason why President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are spending so much time attacking each other — people don't think either man has much to brag about when it comes to his own record. Americans generally think that while they were in the White House, both did more harm than good on key issues.

But the two candidates have different weak spots. For Biden, it's widespread unhappiness on two issues: the economy and immigration . Trump, meanwhile, faces an electorate where substantial shares think he harmed the country on a range of issues.

A new poll from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that more than half of U.S. adults think Biden’s presidency has hurt the country on cost of living and immigration, while nearly half think Trump’s presidency hurt the country on voting rights and election security, relations with foreign countries, abortion laws and climate change.

“Considering the price of gas, the price of groceries, the economy — I did very well during those four years,” Christina Elliott, 60, a Republican from Texas, said of the Trump presidency. “I didn't have to worry about filling up my tank or losing half of my paycheck to the grocery store.”

Elliott wasn’t too keen on Trump’s handling of abortion and said that when it comes to the former president’s rhetoric, “He just needs to learn how to be tactful and shut his mouth.”

“But other than that, like I said, I did very well during the Trump years,” she added.

The polling underscores why certain issues — such as abortion for Biden and immigration for Trump — have been persistent focal points for each of the campaigns. The former president regularly decries the number of asylum-seekers who have arrived in the U.S. under Biden, describing the situation in apocalyptic and dark terms. And Biden has gone on the offensive against Trump on abortion, especially after this week’s ruling from the Arizona Supreme Court that essentially criminalized the procedure in the state.

When asked which president did more to help people like them, roughly one-third say Donald Trump and about one-quarter say Joe Biden. Yet 30% of adults said neither Biden nor Trump benefitted them. It's another data point reflecting an electorate that has been largely disappointed with this year's general election choices, generating little enthusiasm among key parts of the Biden and Trump political coalitions.

Americans rate Biden particularly negatively on a few specific issues. Only about 2 in 10 Americans think Biden’s presidency helped “a lot” or “a little” on cost of living, and 16% say that about immigration and border security. Nearly 6 in 10 say his presidency hurt a lot or a little on these issues. Nearly half, 46%, of Americans, by contrast, say that Trump’s presidency helped a lot or a little on immigration or border security. Four in 10 say it helped on cost of living.

Texas resident Trelicia Mornes, 36, said she feels the Biden presidency has hurt a lot when it comes to everyday expenses.

“Now that he’s in the office, the cost of living has spiked out of control, and there’s nothing being done about it,” Mornes, a Democrat, said, pointing to rising costs of rent and food. She said she believes Biden can do more, “He just chooses to do other things.”

The pandemic hurt Trump in terms of employment as the economy lost 2.7 million jobs under his watch. But the pandemic lockdowns also dramatically curbed inflation. At the same time, low interest rates and historic levels of deficit-funded government stimulus left many households feeling better off under Trump.

Coming out of the pandemic, Biden gave the economy a boost with additional aid that helped spur job gains of 15.2 million under his watch. But supply chain issues, Russia’s war in Ukraine and Biden’s aid package are judged by many economists as having contributed to rising inflation, hurting the Democrat’s approval ratings.

Trump’s advantage on the cost of living and immigration is driven partially by Democrats’ lack of enthusiasm about Biden’s performance. About one-third of Democrats, for example, think Biden’s presidency hurt on cost of living, and another third think Biden neither helped nor hurt. Just one-third of Democrats think Biden’s presidency helped on cost of living. About 3 in 10 Democrats think Biden's presidency helped on immigration and border security, a similar share think his presidency hurt, and about 4 in 10 think it made no difference.

Nadia Stepicheva, 38, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, is unhappy with how Biden has handled immigration.

“The problem is, I really don’t like illegal type of immigration,” Stepicheva said. She thinks that people who enter the U.S., even if they come in illegally, should be allowed to work so that taxpayer dollars aren't used to care for them and house them.

Stepicheva said she has always leaned in favor of Democrats and the party’s policies, “But the last four years, I feel like it’s getting too much in terms of money spent for immigration, forgiving all these student loans.” She said she’s torn in terms of who she will vote for this November.

But independents also rate Biden low on these issues: Nearly 6 in 10 independents say Biden’s presidency has hurt the country on cost of living. About 4 in 10 independents say Biden’s presidency has hurt the country when it comes to the cost of health care and relations with other countries.

Trump has a different problem.

The former president doesn’t have any asked-about issues where more than half of Americans think he did more to hurt things than to help, but the overall sense of harm is somewhat broader. Nearly half of Americans think his presidency did more to hurt than help on climate change, voting rights and election security, abortion laws and relations with foreign countries.

Catherine Scott, a Republican who recently moved to New York from Florida, said she found Trump's approach to foreign policy particularly concerning.

“I understand that some people really admire Trump’s ability to be a spitfire and just say whatever is at the top of his mind,” said Scott, 30. But, pointing to Trump’s complimentary comments toward autocrats like Russian President Vladimir Putin, Scott said, “I don’t think he has all the foresight to understand that might not always be the thing to do.”

The best issue for both Biden and Trump overall is job creation. Trump has a small edge here: Nearly half say his presidency helped, while 36% say Biden’s presidency helped. About half of Americans also think Trump’s presidency helped on immigration and 4 in 10 think his presidency helped on cost of living.

On every other issue, the share of Americans who say that Biden or Trump helped the country a lot or a little is around 3 in 10 or less. But Republicans, overall, tend to see more of a benefit from Trump’s presidency than Democrats do from Biden’s — even on issues where Biden has worked to highlight his victories.

For example, only about half of Democrats say that Biden’s presidency has helped on climate change or the cost of health care. On abortion laws, 77% of Democrats think that Trump’s presidency was at least a little harmful, but only about 4 in 10 say that Biden’s presidency helped a lot or a little, and a similar share think Biden’s presidency hasn’t made a difference.

Meanwhile, around 8 in 10 Republicans say that Trump’s presidency helped on immigration and border security, creating jobs and cost of living.

The poll of 1,204 adults was conducted April 4-8, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

Associated Press writer Josh Boak contributed to this report.

Top Stories

OJ Simpson, former football star acquitted of murder, dies at 76

• Apr 11, 6:32 PM

Washington rule could leave Biden off the November ballot, but state has a solution

El Chapo asks federal judge to reinstate his phone calls, visits in Colorado prison

• Apr 11, 12:31 PM

Mom gives celestial name to baby born during total solar eclipse

• Apr 9, 12:21 PM

OJ Simpson death: Details about PSA screening

• Apr 11, 7:29 PM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Many say Biden and Trump did more harm than good, but for different reasons, AP-NORC poll shows

In this combination photo, President Joe Biden speaks in Milwaukee, March 13, 2024, left, and former President Donald Trump speaks in New York, Jan. 11, 2024. A new poll conducted April 4-8 from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that more than half of U.S. adults think Biden’s presidency has hurt the country on cost of living and immigration. Meanwhile, nearly half think Trump’s presidency hurt the country on voting rights and election security, relations with foreign countries, abortion laws and climate change. (AP Photo)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — There’s a reason why President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are spending so much time attacking each other — people don’t think either man has much to brag about when it comes to his own record. Americans generally think that while they were in the White House, both did more harm than good on key issues.

But the two candidates have different weak spots. For Biden, it’s widespread unhappiness on two issues: the economy and immigration. Trump, meanwhile, faces an electorate where substantial shares think he harmed the country on a range of issues.

A new poll from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that more than half of U.S. adults think Biden’s presidency has hurt the country on cost of living and immigration , while nearly half think Trump’s presidency hurt the country on voting rights and election security, relations with foreign countries , abortion laws and climate change.

“Considering the price of gas, the price of groceries, the economy — I did very well during those four years,” Christina Elliott, 60, a Republican from Texas, said of the Trump presidency. “I didn’t have to worry about filling up my tank or losing half of my paycheck to the grocery store.”

Elliott wasn’t too keen on Trump’s handling of abortion and said that when it comes to the former president’s rhetoric, “He just needs to learn how to be tactful and shut his mouth.”

“But other than that, like I said, I did very well during the Trump years,” she added.

The polling underscores why certain issues — such as abortion for Biden and immigration for Trump — have been persistent focal points for each of the campaigns. The former president regularly decries the number of asylum-seekers who have arrived in the U.S. under Biden, describing the situation in apocalyptic and dark terms. And Biden has gone on the offensive against Trump on abortion, especially after this week’s ruling from the Arizona Supreme Court that essentially criminalized the procedure in the state.

When asked which president did more to help people like them, roughly one-third say Donald Trump and about one-quarter say Joe Biden. Yet 30% of adults said neither Biden nor Trump benefitted them. It’s another data point reflecting an electorate that has been largely disappointed with this year’s general election choices , generating little enthusiasm among key parts of the Biden and Trump political coalitions.

Americans rate Biden particularly negatively on a few specific issues. Only about 2 in 10 Americans think Biden’s presidency helped “a lot” or “a little” on cost of living, and 16% say that about immigration and border security. Nearly 6 in 10 say his presidency hurt a lot or a little on these issues. Nearly half, 46%, of Americans, by contrast, say that Trump’s presidency helped a lot or a little on immigration or border security. Four in 10 say it helped on cost of living.

Texas resident Trelicia Mornes, 36, said she feels the Biden presidency has hurt a lot when it comes to everyday expenses.

“Now that he’s in the office, the cost of living has spiked out of control, and there’s nothing being done about it,” Mornes, a Democrat, said, pointing to rising costs of rent and food. She said she believes Biden can do more, “He just chooses to do other things.”

The pandemic hurt Trump in terms of employment as the economy lost 2.7 million jobs under his watch. But the pandemic lockdowns also dramatically curbed inflation. At the same time, low interest rates and historic levels of deficit-funded government stimulus left many households feeling better off under Trump.

Coming out of the pandemic, Biden gave the economy a boost with additional aid that helped spur job gains of 15.2 million under his watch. But supply chain issues, Russia’s war in Ukraine and Biden’s aid package are judged by many economists as having contributed to rising inflation, hurting the Democrat’s approval ratings.

Trump’s advantage on the cost of living and immigration is driven partially by Democrats’ lack of enthusiasm about Biden’s performance. About one-third of Democrats, for example, think Biden’s presidency hurt on cost of living, and another third think Biden neither helped nor hurt. Just one-third of Democrats think Biden’s presidency helped on cost of living. About 3 in 10 Democrats think Biden’s presidency helped on immigration and border security, a similar share think his presidency hurt, and about 4 in 10 think it made no difference.

Nadia Stepicheva, 38, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, is unhappy with how Biden has handled immigration.

“The problem is, I really don’t like illegal type of immigration,” Stepicheva said. She thinks that people who enter the U.S., even if they come in illegally, should be allowed to work so that taxpayer dollars aren’t used to care for them and house them.

Stepicheva said she has always leaned in favor of Democrats and the party’s policies, “But the last four years, I feel like it’s getting too much in terms of money spent for immigration, forgiving all these student loans.” She said she’s torn in terms of who she will vote for this November.

But independents also rate Biden low on these issues: Nearly 6 in 10 independents say Biden’s presidency has hurt the country on cost of living. About 4 in 10 independents say Biden’s presidency has hurt the country when it comes to the cost of health care and relations with other countries.

Trump has a different problem.

The former president doesn’t have any asked-about issues where more than half of Americans think he did more to hurt things than to help, but the overall sense of harm is somewhat broader. Nearly half of Americans think his presidency did more to hurt than help on climate change, voting rights and election security, abortion laws and relations with foreign countries.

Catherine Scott, a Republican who recently moved to New York from Florida, said she found Trump’s approach to foreign policy particularly concerning.

“I understand that some people really admire Trump’s ability to be a spitfire and just say whatever is at the top of his mind,” said Scott, 30. But, pointing to Trump’s complimentary comments toward autocrats like Russian President Vladimir Putin, Scott said, “I don’t think he has all the foresight to understand that might not always be the thing to do.”

The best issue for both Biden and Trump overall is job creation. Trump has a small edge here: Nearly half say his presidency helped, while 36% say Biden’s presidency helped. About half of Americans also think Trump’s presidency helped on immigration and 4 in 10 think his presidency helped on cost of living.

On every other issue, the share of Americans who say that Biden or Trump helped the country a lot or a little is around 3 in 10 or less. But Republicans, overall, tend to see more of a benefit from Trump’s presidency than Democrats do from Biden’s — even on issues where Biden has worked to highlight his victories.

For example, only about half of Democrats say that Biden’s presidency has helped on climate change or the cost of health care. On abortion laws, 77% of Democrats think that Trump’s presidency was at least a little harmful, but only about 4 in 10 say that Biden’s presidency helped a lot or a little, and a similar share think Biden’s presidency hasn’t made a difference.

Meanwhile, around 8 in 10 Republicans say that Trump’s presidency helped on immigration and border security, creating jobs and cost of living.

The poll of 1,204 adults was conducted April 4-8, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

Associated Press writer Josh Boak contributed to this report.

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

About 1 in 4 u.s. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year.

Twenty-five years after the mass shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado , a majority of public K-12 teachers (59%) say they are at least somewhat worried about the possibility of a shooting ever happening at their school. This includes 18% who say they’re extremely or very worried, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to better understand public K-12 teachers’ views on school shootings, how prepared they feel for a potential active shooter, and how they feel about policies that could help prevent future shootings.

To do this, we surveyed 2,531 U.S. public K-12 teachers from Oct. 17 to Nov. 14, 2023. The teachers are members of RAND’s American Teacher Panel, a nationally representative panel of public school K-12 teachers recruited through MDR Education. Survey data is weighted to state and national teacher characteristics to account for differences in sampling and response to ensure they are representative of the target population.

We also used data from our 2022 survey of U.S. parents. For that project, we surveyed 3,757 U.S. parents with at least one child younger than 18 from Sept. 20 to Oct. 2, 2022. Find more details about the survey of parents here .

Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and the survey methodology .

Another 31% of teachers say they are not too worried about a shooting occurring at their school. Only 7% of teachers say they are not at all worried.

This survey comes at a time when school shootings are at a record high (82 in 2023) and gun safety continues to be a topic in 2024 election campaigns .

Teachers’ experiences with lockdowns

About a quarter of teachers (23%) say they experienced a lockdown in the 2022-23 school year because of a gun or suspicion of a gun at their school. Some 15% say this happened once during the year, and 8% say this happened more than once.

High school teachers are most likely to report experiencing these lockdowns: 34% say their school went on at least one gun-related lockdown in the last school year. This compares with 22% of middle school teachers and 16% of elementary school teachers.

Teachers in urban schools are also more likely to say that their school had a gun-related lockdown. About a third of these teachers (31%) say this, compared with 19% of teachers in suburban schools and 20% in rural schools.

Do teachers feel their school has prepared them for an active shooter?

About four-in-ten teachers (39%) say their school has done a fair or poor job providing them with the training and resources they need to deal with a potential active shooter.

A smaller share (30%) give their school an excellent or very good rating, and another 30% say their school has done a good job preparing them.

Teachers in urban schools are the least likely to say their school has done an excellent or very good job preparing them for a potential active shooter. About one-in-five (21%) say this, compared with 32% of teachers in suburban schools and 35% in rural schools.

Teachers who have police officers or armed security stationed in their school are more likely than those who don’t to say their school has done an excellent or very good job preparing them for a potential active shooter (36% vs. 22%).

Overall, 56% of teachers say they have police officers or armed security stationed at their school. Majorities in rural schools (64%) and suburban schools (56%) say this, compared with 48% in urban schools.

Only 3% of teachers say teachers and administrators at their school are allowed to carry guns in school. This is slightly more common in school districts where a majority of voters cast ballots for Donald Trump in 2020 than in school districts where a majority of voters cast ballots for Joe Biden (5% vs. 1%).

What strategies do teachers think could help prevent school shootings?

The survey also asked teachers how effective some measures would be at preventing school shootings.

Most teachers (69%) say improving mental health screening and treatment for children and adults would be extremely or very effective.

About half (49%) say having police officers or armed security in schools would be highly effective, while 33% say the same about metal detectors in schools.

Just 13% say allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in schools would be extremely or very effective at preventing school shootings. Seven-in-ten teachers say this would be not too or not at all effective.

How teachers’ views differ by party

Republican and Republican-leaning teachers are more likely than Democratic and Democratic-leaning teachers to say each of the following would be highly effective:

• Having police officers or armed security in schools (69% vs. 37%)
• Having metal detectors in schools (43% vs. 27%)
• Allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in schools (28% vs. 3%)

And while majorities in both parties say improving mental health screening and treatment would be highly effective at preventing school shootings, Democratic teachers are more likely than Republican teachers to say this (73% vs. 66%).

Parents’ views on school shootings and prevention strategies

In fall 2022, we asked parents a similar set of questions about school shootings.

Roughly a third of parents with K-12 students (32%) said they were extremely or very worried about a shooting ever happening at their child’s school. An additional 37% said they were somewhat worried.

As is the case among teachers, improving mental health screening and treatment was the only strategy most parents (63%) said would be extremely or very effective at preventing school shootings. And allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in schools was seen as the least effective – in fact, half of parents said this would be not too or not at all effective. This question was asked of all parents with a child younger than 18, regardless of whether they have a child in K-12 schools.

Like teachers, parents’ views on strategies for preventing school shootings differed by party. 

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and the survey methodology .

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

‘Back to school’ means anytime from late July to after Labor Day, depending on where in the U.S. you live

Among many u.s. children, reading for fun has become less common, federal data shows, most european students learn english in school, for u.s. teens today, summer means more schooling and less leisure time than in the past, about one-in-six u.s. teachers work second jobs – and not just in the summer, most popular.

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

Watch CBS News

Why is looking at a solar eclipse dangerous without special glasses? Eye doctors explain.

By Sara Moniuszko

Edited By Allison Elyse Gualtieri

Updated on: April 8, 2024 / 8:54 AM EDT / CBS News

The solar eclipse will be visible for millions of Americans on April 8, 2024, making many excited to see it — but how you watch it matters, since it can be dangerous for your eyes. 

A  solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes between the sun and Earth, blocking the sun's light . When the moon blocks some of the sun, it's a partial solar eclipse, but when moon lines up with the sun, blocking all of its light, a total solar eclipse occurs,  NASA explains . Either way, you need eye protection when viewing.

"The solar eclipse will be beautiful, so I hope that everyone experiences it — but they need to experience it in the right way," said Dr. Jason P. Brinton, an ophthalmologist and medical director at Brinton Vision in St. Louis.

Here's what to know to stay safe.

Why is looking at a solar eclipse dangerous?

Looking at the sun — even when it's partially covered like during an eclipse — can cause eye damage.

There is no safe dose of solar ultraviolet rays or infrared radiation, said  Dr. Yehia Hashad , an ophthalmologist, retinal specialist and the chief medical officer at eye health company Bausch + Lomb.

"A very small dose could cause harm to some people," he said. "That's why we say the partial eclipse could also be damaging. And that's why we protect our eyes with the partial as well as with the full sun."

Some say that during a total eclipse, it's safe to view the brief period time when the moon completely blocks the sun without eye protection. But experts warn against it. 

"Totality of the eclipse lasts only about 1 to 3 minutes based on geographic location, and bright sunlight suddenly can appear as the moon continues to move," notes an eclipse viewing guide published in JAMA , adding, "even a few seconds of viewing the sun during an eclipse" can temporarily or permanently damage your vision. 

Do I need special glasses for eclipse viewing?

Yes.  Eclipse glasses are needed to protect your eyes if you want to look at the eclipse.

Regular sunglasses aren't protective enough for eclipse viewing — even if you stack more than one. 

"There's no amount of sunglasses that people can put on that will make up for the filtering that the ISO standard filters and the eclipse glasses provide," Brinton said.

You also shouldn't look at the eclipse through a camera lens, phone, binoculars or telescope, according to NASA, even while wearing eclipse glasses. The solar rays can burn through the lens and cause serious eye injury.

Eclipse glasses must comply with the  ISO 12312-2 international safety standard , according to NASA, and should have an "ISO" label printed on them to show they comply. The American Astronomical Society  has a list  of approved solar viewers.

Can't find these, or they're sold out near you? You can also  make homemade viewers ,   which allow you to observe the eclipse indirectly — just don't accidentally look at the sun while using one.

How to keep kids safe during the solar eclipse

Since this eclipse is expected to occur around the time of dismissal for many schools across the country, it may be tempting for students to view it without the proper safety precautions while getting to and from their buses. That's why some school districts are  canceling classes early so kids can enjoy the event safely with their families.

Dr. Avnish Deobhakta, vitreoretinal surgeon at New York Eye and Ear Infirmary at Mount Sinai, said parents should also be careful because it can be difficult for children to listen or keep solar eclipse glasses on. 

"You want to actually, in my opinion, kind of avoid them even looking at the eclipse, if possible," he said. "Never look directly at the sun, always wear the right eclipse sunglasses if you are going to look at the sun and make sure that those are coming from a reliable source."

Brinton recommends everyone starts their eclipse "viewing" early, by looking at professional photos and videos of an eclipse online or visiting a local planetarium. 

That way, you "have an idea of what to expect," he said. 

He also recommends the foundation  Prevent Blindness , which has resources for families about eclipse safety.

What happens if you look at a solar eclipse without eclipse glasses?

While your eyes likely won't hurt in the moment if you look at the eclipse without protection, due to lowered brightness and where damage occurs in the eye, beware: The rays can still cause damage .

The harm may not be apparent immediately. Sometimes trouble starts to appear one to a few days following the event. It could affect just one or both eyes.

And while some will regain normal visual function, sometimes the damage is permanent. 

"Often there will be some recovery of the vision in the first few months after it, but sometimes there is no recovery and sometimes there's a degree to which it is permanent," Brinton said. 

How long do you have to look at the eclipse to damage your eyes?

Any amount of time looking at the eclipse without protection is too long, experts say. 

"If someone briefly looks at the eclipse, if it's extremely brief, in some cases there won't be damage. But damage can happen even within a fraction of a second in some cases," Brinton said. He said he's had patients who have suffered from solar retinopathy, the official name for the condition.

Deobhakta treated a patient who watched the 2017 solar eclipse for 20 seconds without proper eye protection. She now has permanent damage in the shape of a crescent that interferes with her vision. 

"The crescent that is burned into the retina, the patient sees as black in her visual field," he said. "The visual deficit that she has will never go away."

How to know if you've damaged your eyes from looking at the eclipse

Signs and symptoms of eye damage following an eclipse viewing include headaches, blurred vision, dark spots, changes to how you see color, lines and shapes. 

Unfortunately, there isn't a treatment for solar retinopathy.

"Seeing an eye care professional to solidify the diagnosis and for education I think is reasonable," Brinton said, but added, "right now there is nothing that we do for this. Just wait and give it time and the body does tend to heal up a measure of it."

Sara Moniuszko is a health and lifestyle reporter at CBSNews.com. Previously, she wrote for USA Today, where she was selected to help launch the newspaper's wellness vertical. She now covers breaking and trending news for CBS News' HealthWatch.

More from CBS News

Couple gets engaged on flight to see total solar eclipse

How to find the best tax relief company

Arizona's abortion ban likely to cause people to travel to states it's still legal

Inflation's rising. Here's how debt relief can help.

Meet Our Leadership Team

Sachin Aggarwal, Chief Executive Officer

As the Chief Executive Officer of Think Research, Sachin Aggarwal understands that health care systems around the world are on the brink of profound, necessary change. Scientific knowledge, clinical best practices and medical data are increasing at an exponential rate, contributing to a global knowledge crisis – with implications for clinicians, patients, governments and countries at large.

In the midst of this growing problem, Sachin sees data as the solution – and the key to system transformation. This principle drives the mission of Think Research: to organize the world’s health knowledge so that everyone gets the best care.

As part of this vision, Sachin led Think Research in 2010 through a strategic transition to become a cloud-based service provider. The move has positioned Think Research as a leader in the global health data economy, allowing the company to standardize care at scale, aggregate knowledge across health systems and improve the quality of care for patients.

When he’s not advocating for disruptive change in health care, Sachin is actively engaged in his community. A recipient of Canada’s Top 40 Under 40 Award in 2017, Sachin also sits on the Board of the Council of Canadian Innovators. He previously served as the Deputy Chief of Staff for the Office of the Leader of the Opposition prior to joining Think Research. He’s currently a Senior Fellow in Public Policy at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, and has served as an advisor to numerous start-up and scale-up companies in the innovation sector. He was called to the Bar in Ontario and New York, and holds an MBA from the Rotman School of Management.

John Hayes, Chief Financial Officer

John is Think Research’s Chief Financial Officer. A versatile executive, John has experience leading numerous departments in fast-growing companies, including finance, operations, technology, and sales teams. He has also executed large corporate transactions, including growth capital financings, two IPOs and over a dozen strategic acquisitions. As a financial executive, John helps companies negotiate a variety of complex transactions and develop reliable, timely and persuasive financial reporting during periods of transition. Prior to joining Think Research, John served as CFO, COO & VP Customer Experience at CarltonOne Engagement, CFO of Natraceuticals and Rand Worldwide, and was President at Engineering.com. John is a Chartered Professional Accountant and holds an MBA from Carnegie Mellon University, where he was awarded the Henry Ford II Scholarship for highest academic standing.

Joanna Carroll, Chief Administrative Officer

Joanna is Think Research’s Chief Administrative Officer. Over the past 10 years, Joanna has been instrumental in growing Think, helping the company expand from a small startup to a team of more than 200 full-time and part-time employees. Joanna oversees Think’s robust seniors care programs, and works with stakeholders in the sector to develop large-scale projects and business development activities. Joanna also serves as Think’s Chief Privacy Officer and as a legal advisor to the executive team on employment and litigation-related matters. She holds a law degree from the University of Calgary and has more than 15 years experience practicing law as an employment lawyer and commercial litigator.

Saurabh Mukhi, Chief Technology Officer

Saurabh is the Chief Technology Officer at Think Research, where he leads a team of technologists in building innovative healthcare solutions that bring clinical knowledge to the point of care. With a passion for product and design, Saurabh has adapted agile principles to the field of healthcare tech. His efforts have been central to the development of the Think Research platform, which connects clinicians and patients at every stage of the patient journey. Prior to joining Think, Saurabh worked as a Management Consultant at KPMG, and was founder and CEO of Fili Solutions Inc. He has a Bachelor in Mathematics and Computer Science from the University of Waterloo, and an MBA from the Rotman School of Management.

Michael Stewart, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary

Michael is General Counsel & Corporate Secretary at Think Research. In this role, he provides legal and governance advice and oversees all of the company’s legal affairs. An accomplished senior legal executive, Michael has extensive practical experience in all aspects of corporate-commercial technology law, human resources, corporate governance, policy development and privacy matters as well as financings and acquisitions. He has provided guidance for companies in all levels of the technology industry, from large, publicly traded multinationals to agile not-for-profits and is well-versed in navigating complex, multi-stakeholder environments, both globally and domestically, leading policy initiatives successfully to fruition.  Prior to joining Think, Michael served as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary for Saba Software, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, and other technology companies.

Kirsten Lewis, Senior Vice President, Clinical Research and Development

Kirsten is the Senior Vice President on Think Research’s Clinical Research and Development team and has been a registered nurse for nearly 30 years. Since joining Think Research, she has worked extensively on building our Order Set library in collaboration with leading health care associations. Prior to joining Think Research, she worked as a Clinical Manager at the University Health Network. While at Toronto General Hospital, Kirsten focused on improving patient flows, enhancing the quality of care delivered to patients and maximizing capacity. In 2012, she coordinated a province-wide roll out of the Ontario Renal Plan where she provided expert clinical consultation.

Mark Sakamoto, Executive Vice President

Mark is the Executive Vice President for Think Research. A lawyer by training, Mark has enjoyed a rich and varied career, having worked at a national law firm and served as a senior political advisor to a national party leader. Prior to joining our Executive Team, Mark worked as an Executive Manager for the Canadian Broadcast Corporation where he led negotiations for hundreds of content deals. He is an entrepreneur and investor in digital health and digital media and has been instrumental in driving the growth of Think Research. In 2014, he authored his first book, Forgiveness: A Gift from My Grandparents, which went on to be a #1 national best seller.

Brynne Eaton-Auva’a, Managing Director, Clinical Connectivity & Chief of Staff

Brynne is Think Research’s Managing Director, Clinical Connectivity & Chief of Staff where she oversees and manages the Connectivity Business Line and holds ongoing relationships with our largest healthcare clients, government stakeholders, and partners. Prior to joining Think, Brynne worked in the USA, New Zealand, and the South Pacific where her focus was on strategic partnerships and business development. Previously, she led the sales and implementation of hotel booking software, lead partnership initiatives with organizations such as America’s Cup, project managed several international sporting events, was a featured speaker at Monterey Bay’s TEDx Conference, and sailed more than 20,000 nautical miles across the Pacific Ocean while filming a feature-length documentary and television special. She was named one of The Peak’s Emerging Leaders in Healthcare for 2022.

Patrick Craib, Chief Operating Officer 

Patrick is the Chief Operating Officer at Think Research, where he is responsible for driving profitable and sustainable growth for the company on a global scale. With 13+ years of experience in large scale business transformation programs, Patrick has a deep understanding of how to lead and execute successful change programs. In addition to his expertise in leading digital and business transformations, Patrick has held leadership roles at Deloitte and a global financial institution where he specialized in re-imagining how services are delivered across various channels and business segments.

Janet Kimura, Managing Director & EVP, Clinical Content and Education

Janet is Think Research’s Managing Director & EVP, Clinical Content and Education where she leads the Knowledge Business Line including the global healthcare professional memberships of MDBriefCase.com and OncologyEducation.com. Janet brings over 20 years of experience in both large and small multi-national organizations within the healthcare sector in a wide range of leadership roles including business development, sales and marketing, global strategic partnerships, and commercial operations. Since 2010, Janet has been integral in expanding the company’s global footprint in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Australia. Janet’s work experience includes the management of key partnerships and initiatives for world-renowned health and academic institutions, medical societies, and professional associations, with a strong focus on behaviour change and improved patient outcomes. Janet currently sits on the Board of Directors of the Canadian International Health Education Association, representing the health technology private sector.

Anna Taylor, Managing Director, BioPharma Services

Anna i s the current Managing Director at BioPharma Services. Anna became Managing Director of BioPharma following increasingly responsible roles since joining BioPharma in 2007. Together with her extensive knowledge of clinical trial research and strong acumen for client service and relationship management, she previously has successfully led BioPharma’s Global Commercial Operations unit. With over 15 years of experience in the Contract Research Organization industry, Anna has held management positions in both Business Development and Project management, assisting pharmaceutical clients with their Phase I, Bioequivalence and Bioanalytical needs.

199 Bay Street #4000, Toronto, ON M5L 1A9

(416) 977-1955

(877) 302-1861

VirtualCare (800) 559-3041

Company Overview

BioPharma Services

MDBriefCase

Oncology Education

LTC Clinical Support Tools

Virtual Care

Digital Front Door

Investor Relations

Corporate Governance

Help Centre

TxConnect Login

VirtualCare Login

United States

Middle East

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies
• 3rd Party Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful. View our full privacy and cookie policies.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

This website uses Google Analytics and other tools to collect anonymous visitor information.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!

Many say Biden and Trump did more harm than good, but for different reasons, AP-NORC poll shows

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

There’s a reason why President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are spending so much time attacking each other — people don’t think either man has much to brag about when it comes to his own record. Americans generally think that while they were in the White House, both did more harm than good on key issues.

But the two candidates have different weak spots. For Biden, it’s widespread unhappiness on two issues: the economy and immigration. Trump, meanwhile, faces an electorate where substantial shares think he harmed the country on a range of issues.

A new poll from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that more than half of U.S. adults think Biden’s presidency has hurt the country on cost of living and immigration , while nearly half think Trump’s presidency hurt the country on voting rights and election security, relations with foreign countries , abortion laws and climate change.

“Considering the price of gas, the price of groceries, the economy — I did very well during those four years,” Christina Elliott, 60, a Republican from Texas, said of the Trump presidency. “I didn’t have to worry about filling up my tank or losing half of my paycheck to the grocery store.”

Elliott wasn’t too keen on Trump’s handling of abortion and said that when it comes to the former president’s rhetoric, “He just needs to learn how to be tactful and shut his mouth.”

“But other than that, like I said, I did very well during the Trump years,” she added.

The polling underscores why certain issues — such as abortion for Biden and immigration for Trump — have been persistent focal points for each of the campaigns. The former president regularly decries the number of asylum-seekers who have arrived in the U.S. under Biden, describing the situation in apocalyptic and dark terms. And Biden has gone on the offensive against Trump on abortion, especially after this week’s ruling from the Arizona Supreme Court that essentially criminalized the procedure in the state.

When asked which president did more to help people like them, roughly one-third say Donald Trump and about one-quarter say Joe Biden. Yet 30% of adults said neither Biden nor Trump benefitted them. It’s another data point reflecting an electorate that has been largely disappointed with this year’s general election choices , generating little enthusiasm among key parts of the Biden and Trump political coalitions.

Americans rate Biden particularly negatively on a few specific issues. Only about 2 in 10 Americans think Biden’s presidency helped “a lot” or “a little” on cost of living, and 16% say that about immigration and border security. Nearly 6 in 10 say his presidency hurt a lot or a little on these issues. Nearly half, 46%, of Americans, by contrast, say that Trump’s presidency helped a lot or a little on immigration or border security. Four in 10 say it helped on cost of living.

Texas resident Trelicia Mornes, 36, said she feels the Biden presidency has hurt a lot when it comes to everyday expenses.

“Now that he’s in the office, the cost of living has spiked out of control, and there’s nothing being done about it,” Mornes, a Democrat, said, pointing to rising costs of rent and food. She said she believes Biden can do more, “He just chooses to do other things.”

The pandemic hurt Trump in terms of employment as the economy lost 2.7 million jobs under his watch. But the pandemic lockdowns also dramatically curbed inflation. At the same time, low interest rates and historic levels of deficit-funded government stimulus left many households feeling better off under Trump.

Coming out of the pandemic, Biden gave the economy a boost with additional aid that helped spur job gains of 15.2 million under his watch. But supply chain issues, Russia’s war in Ukraine and Biden’s aid package are judged by many economists as having contributed to rising inflation, hurting the Democrat’s approval ratings.

Trump’s advantage on the cost of living and immigration is driven partially by Democrats’ lack of enthusiasm about Biden’s performance. About one-third of Democrats, for example, think Biden’s presidency hurt on cost of living, and another third think Biden neither helped nor hurt. Just one-third of Democrats think Biden’s presidency helped on cost of living. About 3 in 10 Democrats think Biden’s presidency helped on immigration and border security, a similar share think his presidency hurt, and about 4 in 10 think it made no difference.

Nadia Stepicheva, 38, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, is unhappy with how Biden has handled immigration.

“The problem is, I really don’t like illegal type of immigration,” Stepicheva said. She thinks that people who enter the U.S., even if they come in illegally, should be allowed to work so that taxpayer dollars aren’t used to care for them and house them.

Stepicheva said she has always leaned in favor of Democrats and the party’s policies, “But the last four years, I feel like it’s getting too much in terms of money spent for immigration, forgiving all these student loans.” She said she’s torn in terms of who she will vote for this November.

But independents also rate Biden low on these issues: Nearly 6 in 10 independents say Biden’s presidency has hurt the country on cost of living. About 4 in 10 independents say Biden’s presidency has hurt the country when it comes to the cost of health care and relations with other countries.

Trump has a different problem.

The former president doesn’t have any asked-about issues where more than half of Americans think he did more to hurt things than to help, but the overall sense of harm is somewhat broader. Nearly half of Americans think his presidency did more to hurt than help on climate change, voting rights and election security, abortion laws and relations with foreign countries.

Catherine Scott, a Republican who recently moved to New York from Florida, said she found Trump’s approach to foreign policy particularly concerning.

“I understand that some people really admire Trump’s ability to be a spitfire and just say whatever is at the top of his mind,” said Scott, 30. But, pointing to Trump’s complimentary comments toward autocrats like Russian President Vladimir Putin, Scott said, “I don’t think he has all the foresight to understand that might not always be the thing to do.”

The best issue for both Biden and Trump overall is job creation. Trump has a small edge here: Nearly half say his presidency helped, while 36% say Biden’s presidency helped. About half of Americans also think Trump’s presidency helped on immigration and 4 in 10 think his presidency helped on cost of living.

On every other issue, the share of Americans who say that Biden or Trump helped the country a lot or a little is around 3 in 10 or less. But Republicans, overall, tend to see more of a benefit from Trump’s presidency than Democrats do from Biden’s — even on issues where Biden has worked to highlight his victories.

For example, only about half of Democrats say that Biden’s presidency has helped on climate change or the cost of health care. On abortion laws, 77% of Democrats think that Trump’s presidency was at least a little harmful, but only about 4 in 10 say that Biden’s presidency helped a lot or a little, and a similar share think Biden’s presidency hasn’t made a difference.

Meanwhile, around 8 in 10 Republicans say that Trump’s presidency helped on immigration and border security, creating jobs and cost of living.

The poll of 1,204 adults was conducted April 4-8, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

Associated Press writer Josh Boak contributed to this report.

Top headlines by email, weekday mornings

Get top headlines from the Union-Tribune in your inbox weekday mornings, including top news, local, sports, business, entertainment and opinion.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

More in this section

Nation-World

Argentine court blames Iran and Hezbollah for deadly 1994 Jewish center bombing

Argentina’s highest criminal court has reported a new development in the elusive quest for justice in the country’s deadliest attack in history — the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center headquarters

AP Week in Pictures: Global

April 5 - 11, 2024 Stunned Palestinians found their home city unrecognizable as they filtered in to salvage what they could from the vast destruction left by Israeli troops who withdrew from southern Gaza’s Khan Younis a day earlier after months of fighting and bombardment.

20 years later, Abu Ghraib detainees get their day in US court

Twenty years ago this month, photos of abused prisoners and smiling U.S. soldiers guarding them at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison were released, shocking the world

AP Week in Pictures: Latin America and Caribbean

April 5 - 11, 2024 In the small Guatemalan town of Comitancillo, a portrait of Aracely Marroquín Coronado is one of the many memorials to the nearly two dozen local migrants who died in recent mass tragedies trying to reach the U.S.

‘I’m dying, you’re not’: Those terminally ill ask more states to legalize physician-assisted death

Lawmakers in at least 12 states are debating bills that would legalize physician-assisted death

Manhattan court must find a dozen jurors to hear first-ever criminal case against a former president

A dozen Manhattan residents are soon to become the first Americans ever to sit in judgment of a former president charged with a crime