future research recommendation example

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of exploration. In an era marked by rapid technological advancements and an ever-expanding knowledge base, refining the process of generating research recommendations becomes imperative.

But, what is a research recommendation?

Research recommendations are suggestions or advice provided to researchers to guide their study on a specific topic . They are typically given by experts in the field. Research recommendations are more action-oriented and provide specific guidance for decision-makers, unlike implications that are broader and focus on the broader significance and consequences of the research findings. However, both are crucial components of a research study.

Difference Between Research Recommendations and Implication

Although research recommendations and implications are distinct components of a research study, they are closely related. The differences between them are as follows:

Types of Research Recommendations

Recommendations in research can take various forms, which are as follows:

These recommendations aim to assist researchers in navigating the vast landscape of academic knowledge.

Let us dive deeper to know about its key components and the steps to write an impactful research recommendation.

Key Components of Research Recommendations

The key components of research recommendations include defining the research question or objective, specifying research methods, outlining data collection and analysis processes, presenting results and conclusions, addressing limitations, and suggesting areas for future research. Here are some characteristics of research recommendations:

Research recommendations offer various advantages and play a crucial role in ensuring that research findings contribute to positive outcomes in various fields. However, they also have few limitations which highlights the significance of a well-crafted research recommendation in offering the promised advantages.

The importance of research recommendations ranges in various fields, influencing policy-making, program development, product development, marketing strategies, medical practice, and scientific research. Their purpose is to transfer knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, or stakeholders, facilitating informed decision-making and improving outcomes in different domains.

How to Write Research Recommendations?

Research recommendations can be generated through various means, including algorithmic approaches, expert opinions, or collaborative filtering techniques. Here is a step-wise guide to build your understanding on the development of research recommendations.

1. Understand the Research Question:

Understand the research question and objectives before writing recommendations. Also, ensure that your recommendations are relevant and directly address the goals of the study.

2. Review Existing Literature:

Familiarize yourself with relevant existing literature to help you identify gaps , and offer informed recommendations that contribute to the existing body of research.

3. Consider Research Methods:

Evaluate the appropriateness of different research methods in addressing the research question. Also, consider the nature of the data, the study design, and the specific objectives.

4. Identify Data Collection Techniques:

Gather dataset from diverse authentic sources. Include information such as keywords, abstracts, authors, publication dates, and citation metrics to provide a rich foundation for analysis.

5. Propose Data Analysis Methods:

Suggest appropriate data analysis methods based on the type of data collected. Consider whether statistical analysis, qualitative analysis, or a mixed-methods approach is most suitable.

6. Consider Limitations and Ethical Considerations:

Acknowledge any limitations and potential ethical considerations of the study. Furthermore, address these limitations or mitigate ethical concerns to ensure responsible research.

7. Justify Recommendations:

Explain how your recommendation contributes to addressing the research question or objective. Provide a strong rationale to help researchers understand the importance of following your suggestions.

8. Summarize Recommendations:

Provide a concise summary at the end of the report to emphasize how following these recommendations will contribute to the overall success of the research project.

By following these steps, you can create research recommendations that are actionable and contribute meaningfully to the success of the research project.

Download now to unlock some tips to improve your journey of writing research recommendations.

Example of a Research Recommendation

Here is an example of a research recommendation based on a hypothetical research to improve your understanding.

Research Recommendation: Enhancing Student Learning through Integrated Learning Platforms

Background:

The research study investigated the impact of an integrated learning platform on student learning outcomes in high school mathematics classes. The findings revealed a statistically significant improvement in student performance and engagement when compared to traditional teaching methods.

Recommendation:

In light of the research findings, it is recommended that educational institutions consider adopting and integrating the identified learning platform into their mathematics curriculum. The following specific recommendations are provided:

• Implementation of the Integrated Learning Platform:

Schools are encouraged to adopt the integrated learning platform in mathematics classrooms, ensuring proper training for teachers on its effective utilization.

• Professional Development for Educators:

Develop and implement professional programs to train educators in the effective use of the integrated learning platform to address any challenges teachers may face during the transition.

• Monitoring and Evaluation:

Establish a monitoring and evaluation system to track the impact of the integrated learning platform on student performance over time.

• Resource Allocation:

Allocate sufficient resources, both financial and technical, to support the widespread implementation of the integrated learning platform.

By implementing these recommendations, educational institutions can harness the potential of the integrated learning platform and enhance student learning experiences and academic achievements in mathematics.

This example covers the components of a research recommendation, providing specific actions based on the research findings, identifying the target audience, and outlining practical steps for implementation.

Using AI in Research Recommendation Writing

Enhancing research recommendations is an ongoing endeavor that requires the integration of cutting-edge technologies, collaborative efforts, and ethical considerations. By embracing data-driven approaches and leveraging advanced technologies, the research community can create more effective and personalized recommendation systems. However, it is accompanied by several limitations. Therefore, it is essential to approach the use of AI in research with a critical mindset, and complement its capabilities with human expertise and judgment.

Here are some limitations of integrating AI in writing research recommendation and some ways on how to counter them.

1. Data Bias

AI systems rely heavily on data for training. If the training data is biased or incomplete, the AI model may produce biased results or recommendations.

How to tackle: Audit regularly the model’s performance to identify any discrepancies and adjust the training data and algorithms accordingly.

2. Lack of Understanding of Context:

AI models may struggle to understand the nuanced context of a particular research problem. They may misinterpret information, leading to inaccurate recommendations.

How to tackle: Use AI to characterize research articles and topics. Employ them to extract features like keywords, authorship patterns and content-based details.

3. Ethical Considerations:

AI models might stereotype certain concepts or generate recommendations that could have negative consequences for certain individuals or groups.

How to tackle: Incorporate user feedback mechanisms to reduce redundancies. Establish an ethics review process for AI models in research recommendation writing.

4. Lack of Creativity and Intuition:

AI may struggle with tasks that require a deep understanding of the underlying principles or the ability to think outside the box.

How to tackle: Hybrid approaches can be employed by integrating AI in data analysis and identifying patterns for accelerating the data interpretation process.

5. Interpretability:

Many AI models, especially complex deep learning models, lack transparency on how the model arrived at a particular recommendation.

How to tackle: Implement models like decision trees or linear models. Provide clear explanation of the model architecture, training process, and decision-making criteria.

6. Dynamic Nature of Research:

Research fields are dynamic, and new information is constantly emerging. AI models may struggle to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape and may not be able to adapt to new developments.

How to tackle: Establish a feedback loop for continuous improvement. Regularly update the recommendation system based on user feedback and emerging research trends.

The integration of AI in research recommendation writing holds great promise for advancing knowledge and streamlining the research process. However, navigating these concerns is pivotal in ensuring the responsible deployment of these technologies. Researchers need to understand the use of responsible use of AI in research and must be aware of the ethical considerations.

Exploring research recommendations plays a critical role in shaping the trajectory of scientific inquiry. It serves as a compass, guiding researchers toward more robust methodologies, collaborative endeavors, and innovative approaches. Embracing these suggestions not only enhances the quality of individual studies but also contributes to the collective advancement of human understanding.

Frequently Asked Questions

The purpose of recommendations in research is to provide practical and actionable suggestions based on the study's findings, guiding future actions, policies, or interventions in a specific field or context. Recommendations bridges the gap between research outcomes and their real-world application.

To make a research recommendation, analyze your findings, identify key insights, and propose specific, evidence-based actions. Include the relevance of the recommendations to the study's objectives and provide practical steps for implementation.

Begin a recommendation by succinctly summarizing the key findings of the research. Clearly state the purpose of the recommendation and its intended impact. Use a direct and actionable language to convey the suggested course of action.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

How to Effectively Cite a PDF (APA, MLA, AMA, and Chicago Style)

The pressure to “publish or perish” is a well-known reality for academics, striking fear into…

• AI in Academia
• Trending Now

Using AI for Journal Selection — Simplifying your academic publishing journey in the smart way

Strategic journal selection plays a pivotal role in maximizing the impact of one’s scholarly work.…

• Career Corner

Recognizing the signs: A guide to overcoming academic burnout

As the sun set over the campus, casting long shadows through the library windows, Alex…

• Diversity and Inclusion

Reassessing the Lab Environment to Create an Equitable and Inclusive Space

The pursuit of scientific discovery has long been fueled by diverse minds and perspectives. Yet…

Simplifying the Literature Review Journey — A comparative analysis of 6 AI summarization tools

Imagine having to skim through and read mountains of research papers and books, only to…

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

Digital Citations: A comprehensive guide to citing of websites in APA, MLA, and CMOS…

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

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

Search form

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

How to formulate research recommendations

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

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

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

Current recommendations

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

Suggested format for research recommendations on the effects of treatments

Core elements.

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

P Population (What is the population of interest?)

I Intervention (What are the interventions of interest?)

C Comparison (What are the comparisons of interest?)

O Outcome (What are the outcomes of interest?)

T Time stamp (Date of recommendation)

Optional elements

d Disease burden or relevance

t Time aspect of core elements of EPICOT

s Appropriate study type according to local need

In January 2006, the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment presented the findings of an initial comparative analysis of how different organisations currently structure their research recommendations. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment request authors to present recommendations in a four component format for formulating well built clinical questions around treatments: population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO). 1 In addition, the research recommendation is dated and authors are asked to provide the current state of the evidence to support the proposal.

Clinical Evidence , although not directly standardising its sections for research recommendations, presents gaps in the evidence using a slightly extended version of the PICO format: evidence, population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and time (EPICOT). Clinical Evidence has used this inherent structure to feed research recommendations on interventions categorised as “unknown effectiveness” back to the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment and for inclusion in the Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments ( http://www.duets.nhs.uk/ ).

We decided to propose the EPICOT format as the basis for its statement on formulating research recommendations and tested this proposal through discussion and example. We agreed that this set of components provided enough context for formulating research recommendations without limiting researchers. In order for the proposed framework to be flexible and more widely applicable, the group discussed using several optional components when they seemed relevant or were proposed by one or more of the group members. The final outcome of discussions resulted in the proposed EPICOT+ format (box).

A recent BMJ article highlighted how lack of research hinders the applicability of existing guidelines to patients in primary care who have had a stroke or transient ischaemic attack. 2 Most research in the area had been conducted in younger patients with a recent episode and in a hospital setting. The authors concluded that “further evidence should be collected on the efficacy and adverse effects of intensive blood pressure lowering in representative populations before we implement this guidance [from national and international guidelines] in primary care.” Table 1 outlines how their recommendations could be formulated using the EPICOT+ format. The decision on whether additional research is indeed clinically and ethically warranted will still lie with the organisation considering commissioning the research.

Research recommendation based on gap in the evidence identified by a cross sectional study of clinical guidelines for management of patients who have had a stroke

• View inline

Table 2 shows the use of EPICOT+ for an unanswered question on the effectiveness of compliance therapy in people with schizophrenia, identified by the Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments.

Research recommendation based on a gap in the evidence on treatment of schizophrenia identified by the Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments

Discussions around optional elements

Although the group agreed that the PICO elements should be core requirements for a research recommendation, intense discussion centred on the inclusion of factors defining a more detailed context, such as current state of evidence (E), appropriate study type (s), disease burden and relevance (d), and timeliness (t).

Initially, group members interpreted E differently. Some viewed it as the supporting evidence for a research recommendation and others as the suggested study type for a research recommendation. After discussion, we agreed that E should be used to refer to the amount and quality of research supporting the recommendation. However, the issue remained contentious as some of us thought that if a systematic review was available, its reference would sufficiently identify the strength of the existing evidence. Others thought that adding evidence to the set of core elements was important as it provided a summary of the supporting evidence, particularly as the recommendation was likely to be abstracted and used separately from the review or research that led to its formulation. In contrast, the suggested study type (s) was left as an optional element.

A research recommendation will rarely have an absolute value in itself. Its relative priority will be influenced by the burden of ill health (d), which is itself dependent on factors such as local prevalence, disease severity, relevant risk factors, and the priorities of the organisation considering commissioning the research.

Similarly, the issue of time (t) could be seen to be relevant to each of the core elements in varying ways—for example, duration of treatment, length of follow-up. The group therefore agreed that time had a subsidiary role within each core item; however, T as the date of the recommendation served to define its shelf life and therefore retained individual importance.

Applicability and usability

The proposed statement on research recommendations applies to uncertainties of the effects of any form of health intervention or treatment and is intended for research in humans rather than basic scientific research. Further investigation is required to assess the applicability of the format for questions around diagnosis, signs and symptoms, prognosis, investigations, and patient preference.

When the proposed format is applied to a specific research recommendation, the emphasis placed on the relevant part(s) of the EPICOT+ format may vary by author, audience, and intended purpose. For example, a recommendation for research into treatments for transient ischaemic attack may or may not define valid outcome measures to assess quality of life or gather data on adverse effects. Among many other factors, its implementation will also depend on the strength of current findings—that is, strong evidence may support a tightly focused recommendation whereas a lack of evidence would result in a more general recommendation.

The controversy within the group, especially around the optional components, reflects the different perspectives of the participating organisations—whether they were involved in commissioning, undertaking, or summarising research. Further issues will arise during the implementation of the proposed format, and we welcome feedback and discussion.

Summary points

No common guidelines exist for the formulation of recommendations for research on the effects of treatments

Major organisations involved in commissioning or summarising research compared their approaches and agreed on core questions

The essential items can be summarised as EPICOT+ (evidence, population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time)

Further details, such as disease burden and appropriate study type, should be considered as required

We thank Patricia Atkinson and Jeremy Wyatt.

Contributors and sources All authors contributed to manuscript preparation and approved the final draft. NJH is the guarantor.

Competing interests None declared.

• Richardson WS ,
• Wilson MC ,
• Nishikawa J ,
• Hayward RSA
• McManus RJ ,
• Leonardi-Bee J ,
• PROGRESS Collaborative Group
• Warburton E
• Rothwell P ,
• McIntosh AM ,
• Lawrie SM ,
• Stanfield AC
• O'Donnell C ,
• Donohoe G ,
• Sharkey L ,
• Jablensky A ,
• Sartorius N ,
• Ernberg G ,

Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research

• First Online: 08 April 2021

Cite this chapter

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

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

219 Accesses

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

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

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Group Business Informatics, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium

Gert Janssenswillen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gert Janssenswillen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

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

Download citation

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

Published : 08 April 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

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

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

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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

FUTURE RESEARCH

Types of future research suggestion.

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

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

Addressing research limitations in your dissertation

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

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

Re-evaluating a conceptual framework (or theoretical model)

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

An inability to answer your research questions

Theoretical and conceptual problems

Limitations of your research strategy

Problems of research quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expanding a conceptual framework (or theoretical model)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications or Recommendations in Research: What's the Difference?

• Peer Review

High-quality research articles that get many citations contain both implications and recommendations. Implications are the impact your research makes, whereas recommendations are specific actions that can then be taken based on your findings, such as for more research or for policymaking.

Updated on August 23, 2022

That seems clear enough, but the two are commonly confused.

This confusion is especially true if you come from a so-called high-context culture in which information is often implied based on the situation, as in many Asian cultures. High-context cultures are different from low-context cultures where information is more direct and explicit (as in North America and many European cultures).

Let's set these two straight in a low-context way; i.e., we'll be specific and direct! This is the best way to be in English academic writing because you're writing for the world.

Implications and recommendations in a research article

The standard format of STEM research articles is what's called IMRaD:

• Introduction
• Discussion/conclusions

Some journals call for a separate conclusions section, while others have the conclusions as the last part of the discussion. You'll write these four (or five) sections in the same sequence, though, no matter the journal.

The discussion section is typically where you restate your results and how well they confirmed your hypotheses. Give readers the answer to the questions for which they're looking to you for an answer.

At this point, many researchers assume their paper is finished. After all, aren't the results the most important part? As you might have guessed, no, you're not quite done yet.

The discussion/conclusions section is where to say what happened and what should now happen

The discussion/conclusions section of every good scientific article should contain the implications and recommendations.

The implications, first of all, are the impact your results have on your specific field. A high-impact, highly cited article will also broaden the scope here and provide implications to other fields. This is what makes research cross-disciplinary.

Recommendations, however, are suggestions to improve your field based on your results.

These two aspects help the reader understand your broader content: How and why your work is important to the world. They also tell the reader what can be changed in the future based on your results.

These aspects are what editors are looking for when selecting papers for peer review.

Implications and recommendations are, thus, written at the end of the discussion section, and before the concluding paragraph. They help to “wrap up” your paper. Once your reader understands what you found, the next logical step is what those results mean and what should come next.

Then they can take the baton, in the form of your work, and run with it. That gets you cited and extends your impact!

The order of implications and recommendations also matters. Both are written after you've summarized your main findings in the discussion section. Then, those results are interpreted based on ongoing work in the field. After this, the implications are stated, followed by the recommendations.

Writing an academic research paper is a bit like running a race. Finish strong, with your most important conclusion (recommendation) at the end. Leave readers with an understanding of your work's importance. Avoid generic, obvious phrases like "more research is needed to fully address this issue." Be specific.

The main differences between implications and recommendations (table)

Now let's dig a bit deeper into actually how to write these parts.

What are implications?

Research implications tell us how and why your results are important for the field at large. They help answer the question of “what does it mean?” Implications tell us how your work contributes to your field and what it adds to it. They're used when you want to tell your peers why your research is important for ongoing theory, practice, policymaking, and for future research.

Crucially, your implications must be evidence-based. This means they must be derived from the results in the paper.

Implications are written after you've summarized your main findings in the discussion section. They come before the recommendations and before the concluding paragraph. There is no specific section dedicated to implications. They must be integrated into your discussion so that the reader understands why the results are meaningful and what they add to the field.

A good strategy is to separate your implications into types. Implications can be social, political, technological, related to policies, or others, depending on your topic. The most frequently used types are theoretical and practical. Theoretical implications relate to how your findings connect to other theories or ideas in your field, while practical implications are related to what we can do with the results.

Key features of implications

• State the impact your research makes
• Helps us understand why your results are important
• Must be evidence-based
• Written in the discussion, before recommendations
• Can be theoretical, practical, or other (social, political, etc.)

Examples of implications

Let's take a look at some examples of research results below with their implications.

The result : one study found that learning items over time improves memory more than cramming material in a bunch of information at once .

The implications : This result suggests memory is better when studying is spread out over time, which could be due to memory consolidation processes.

The result : an intervention study found that mindfulness helps improve mental health if you have anxiety.

The implications : This result has implications for the role of executive functions on anxiety.

The result : a study found that musical learning helps language learning in children .

The implications : these findings suggest that language and music may work together to aid development.

What are recommendations?

As noted above, explaining how your results contribute to the real world is an important part of a successful article.

Likewise, stating how your findings can be used to improve something in future research is equally important. This brings us to the recommendations.

Research recommendations are suggestions and solutions you give for certain situations based on your results. Once the reader understands what your results mean with the implications, the next question they need to know is "what's next?"

Recommendations are calls to action on ways certain things in the field can be improved in the future based on your results. Recommendations are used when you want to convey that something different should be done based on what your analyses revealed.

Similar to implications, recommendations are also evidence-based. This means that your recommendations to the field must be drawn directly from your results.

The goal of the recommendations is to make clear, specific, and realistic suggestions to future researchers before they conduct a similar experiment. No matter what area your research is in, there will always be further research to do. Try to think about what would be helpful for other researchers to know before starting their work.

Recommendations are also written in the discussion section. They come after the implications and before the concluding paragraphs. Similar to the implications, there is usually no specific section dedicated to the recommendations. However, depending on how many solutions you want to suggest to the field, they may be written as a subsection.

Key features of recommendations

• Statements about what can be done differently in the field based on your findings
• Must be realistic and specific
• Written in the discussion, after implications and before conclusions
• Related to both your field and, preferably, a wider context to the research

Examples of recommendations

Here are some research results and their recommendations.

A meta-analysis found that actively recalling material from your memory is better than simply re-reading it .

• The recommendation: Based on these findings, teachers and other educators should encourage students to practice active recall strategies.

A medical intervention found that daily exercise helps prevent cardiovascular disease .

• The recommendation: Based on these results, physicians are recommended to encourage patients to exercise and walk regularly. Also recommended is to encourage more walking through public health offices in communities.

A study found that many research articles do not contain the sample sizes needed to statistically confirm their findings .

The recommendation: To improve the current state of the field, researchers should consider doing power analysis based on their experiment's design.

What else is important about implications and recommendations?

When writing recommendations and implications, be careful not to overstate the impact of your results. It can be tempting for researchers to inflate the importance of their findings and make grandiose statements about what their work means.

Remember that implications and recommendations must be coming directly from your results. Therefore, they must be straightforward, realistic, and plausible.

Another good thing to remember is to make sure the implications and recommendations are stated clearly and separately. Do not attach them to the endings of other paragraphs just to add them in. Use similar example phrases as those listed in the table when starting your sentences to clearly indicate when it's an implication and when it's a recommendation.

When your peers, or brand-new readers, read your paper, they shouldn't have to hunt through your discussion to find the implications and recommendations. They should be clear, visible, and understandable on their own.

That'll get you cited more, and you'll make a greater contribution to your area of science while extending the life and impact of your work.

The AJE Team

See our "Privacy Policy"

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

Published on 15 September 2022 by Tegan George .

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

Recommendations for future research should be:

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

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

Relatedly, when making these recommendations, avoid:

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

George, T. (2022, September 15). How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 6 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/research-recommendations/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

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

Suggestions for Future Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Future Research – Thesis Guide

Future Research – Thesis Guide

Table of Contents

Future Research

Definition:

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

How to Write Future Research in Thesis

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

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

Examples of Future Research in Thesis

SomeExamples of Future Research in Thesis are as follows:

Future Research:

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose of Future Research in Thesis

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

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

Applications of Future Research

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

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

Advantage of Future Research

Including future research in a thesis has several advantages:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Improving the Nation's Water Security: Opportunities for Research (2007)

Chapter: 6 recommendations for future research directions, 6 recommendations for future research directions.

Progress has been made in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) water security research program (see Chapter 4 ), but many important research questions and technical support needs remain. In Chapter 3 , a framework is suggested for evaluating water security research initiatives that gives priority to research that improves response and recovery and/or develops risk reduction or consequence mitigation measures. The research should also produce tools with a reasonable likelihood of implementation and, where feasible, dual-use benefits. Based on this framework and the review of water security efforts already under way, two important water security research gaps are identified and discussed briefly in this chapter. In addition, short- and long-term water security research recommendations are made. The research recommendations are organized in this chapter according to the three long-term program objectives proposed in Chapter 5 emphasizing pre-incident, incident, and post-incident applications: (1) develop products to support more resilient design and operation of facilities and systems, (2) improve the ability of operators and responders to detect and assess incidents, and (3) improve response and recovery. Both drinking water and wastewater research priorities are addressed together within these three objectives to maximize research synergies that may exist.

KEY RESEARCH GAPS

The Water Security Research and Technical Support Action Plan (EPA, 2004a) set out a comprehensive guide for the EPA’s near-term research initiatives. Although the Action Plan was intended to provide a short-term (three- to four- year) research agenda, the previous National Research Council review (NRC, 2004) noted that several of the Action Plan projects represented long-term research questions not easily ad-

dressed in the original time frame. Therefore, the Action Plan provides a reasonable starting point for building the EPA’s future research program. Nevertheless, the short-term planning horizon of the Action Plan prevented consideration of two key subjects that are critical to a long-term water security research program: behavioral science and innovative system design. The committee recommends the EPA work in collaboration with other organizations to build research initiatives in these two areas.

Behavioral Science

The threat of bioterrorism presents new and different types of risks that are dynamic and pose difficult trade-offs, bringing about intellectual challenges and an emotional valence possibly more important than the risks themselves. Developing an effective communication strategy that meets the needs of the broad range of stakeholders (e.g., response organizations, water organizations and utilities, public health agencies, the public, the media) while addressing security concerns is clearly a high-priority research area. The EPA’s work on risk communication is focused primarily on the development of guidance, protocols, and training, and little emphasis has been devoted to interdisciplinary behavioral science research to better prepare stakeholders for water security incidents or to build confidence in their ability to respond. Behavioral science research could help address, for example, what the public’s beliefs, opinions, and knowledge about water security risks are; how risk perception and other psychological factors affect responses to water-related events; and how to communicate these risks with the public (Gray and Ropeik, 2002; Means, 2002; Roberson and Morely, 2005b). A better understanding of what short-term disruptions customers are prepared to tolerate may also guide response and recovery planning and the development of recovery technologies.

Previous experience with natural disasters and environmental risks provides a basis for investigating and predicting human behavior in risky situations (Fischoff, 2005). Existing models of human behavior during other kinds of crises, however, may not be adequate to forecast human behavior during bioterrorism or water security incidents (DiGiovanni et al., 2003).

Risk communicators consider empirical findings from psychology, cognitive science, communications, and other behavioral and social sciences to varying extents (Bostrom and Lofstedt, 2003). Although decision makers frequently predict panic and irrational behavior in times of

crisis, behavioral science researchers have found that people respond reasonably to such challenges (e.g., Fishoff, 2005). Given the urgency of terror risk communication, risk communicators are obliged to incorporate existing behavioral science research as it relates to water security risks.

The EPA should take advantage of existing behavioral science research that may be applicable to water security issues, but this requires knowledge and experience in behavioral science research. Where gaps exist, the EPA will need to engage in interdisciplinary, rigorous empirical research to obtain the necessary knowledge.

Innovative Designs for Secure and Resilient Water and Wastewater Systems

Innovative designs for water and wastewater infrastructure were not addressed in the EPA Action Plan, but the topic deserves a place in a long-term water security research program. The EPA’s research mission has traditionally included the development and testing of new concepts, technologies, and management structures for water and wastewater utilities to achieve practical objectives in public health, sustainability and cost-effectiveness. The addition of homeland security to its mission provides a unique opportunity to take a holistic view of current design and management of water and wastewater infrastructures. Innovation is needed to address the problem of aging infrastructures while making new water systems more resilient to natural hazards and malicious incidents. The EPA should, therefore, take a leadership role in providing guidance for the planning, design, and implementation of new, more sustainable and resilient water and wastewater facilities for the 21st century.

Disagreggation of large water and wastewater systems should be an overarching theme of innovation. Large and complex systems have developed in the United States following the pattern of urban and suburban sprawl. While there are clear economies of scale for large utilities in construction and system management, there are distinct disadvantages as well. The complexity of large systems makes security measures difficult to implement and complicates the response to an attack. For example, locating the source of incursion within the distribution system and isolating contaminated sections are more difficult in large and complex water systems. Long water residence times are also more likely to occur in large drinking water systems, and, as a result, disinfectant residual may be lacking in the extremities of the system because of the chemical and biological reactions that occur during transport. From a security perspec-

tive, inadequate disinfectant residual means less protection against intentional contamination by a microbial agent.

A breadth of possibilities exists for improving security through innovative infrastructure design. Satellite water treatment plants could boost water quality. Strategic placement of treatment devices (e.g., ultraviolet lamp arrays) within the distribution system could counter a bioterrorism attack. Wastewater treatment systems could be interconnected to provide more flexibility in case of attack, and diversion devices could be installed to isolate contaminants. Box 6-1 describes some of these concepts in greater detail, and specific research recommendations are suggested in the following section.

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS: DEVELOP PRODUCTS TO SUPPORT MORE RESILIENT DESIGN AND OPERATION OF FACILITIES AND SYSTEMS

Specific research topics are suggested here in two areas to support development of more resilient water and wastewater systems: (1) innovative designs for water and wastewater and (2) improved methods for risk assessment, including processes for threat and consequence assessments.

Innovative Designs for Water and Wastewater Systems

Innovative changes to water infrastructure will require long-term investment in research. Existing systems have been in place for more than a century in older cities. Thus, bold new directions will understandably require intensive research at the outset to produce a defensible economic argument for change. On the other hand, the EPA has the opportunity to develop innovative approaches that can be implemented almost immediately in relatively new, as well as planned, urban and suburban areas. The first step in research would be to enumerate the opportunities for innovation, recognizing the constraints brought about by the size, age, and complexity of existing water and wastewater infrastructures. A broad-gauge, economic analysis should follow that would quantify the costs and multiple benefits of these innovative designs (e.g., increased security, improved drinking water quality, enhanced sustainability of water resources). In addition, there is an implicit need for EPA research-

ers to coordinate with the agency’s regulatory branch to validate the feasibility of the innovative concepts that are proposed.

Each of the infrastructure concepts illustrated in Box 6-1 require far more research to become feasible. The recommendations below outline specific research topics that, if addressed, could improve the safety and sustainability of water resources in the 21st century.

Disaggregation of Water and Wastewater Systems

The “distributed optimal technology network” (DOT-Net) concept (Norton and Weber, 2005; Weber, 2002; 2004) hinges upon the feasibility of distributed treatment via point-of-use (POU)/point-of-entry (POE) devices installed at the scale of individual buildings or perhaps small neighborhoods. The corollary premise is that installation of expensive advanced treatment technology at the centralized water treatment facility is unnecessary when only a fraction of the service area outside a “critical radius” requires additional protection. Only a broad economic analysis of this concept has been published thus far for a hypothetical urban center, but the assumptions need to be verified for actual systems, particularly because of the unique characteristics of individual cities. In addition, far more research is needed on the utility management required to ensure the reliability of POU/POE devices in widespread implementation.

Dual water systems have also been proposed to address aging infrastructure (see Box 6-1 ; Okun, 1997; 2005). As with the DOT-Net concept, long-term research is needed to determine the costs and benefits of constructing an entirely new paradigm for distribution system design. Research issues would include assessing the acceptability of reclaimed water for progressively more intense levels of nonpotable use (e.g., irrigation, toilet flushing, laundering), the acceptability and management demands of decentralized wastewater treatment facilities, and the net benefits to water security.

In-Pipe Interventions to Reduce Exposure

In-pipe engineering interventions (see Box 6-1 ) are deserving of research in a long-term water security research strategy. For example, research is needed to optimize the location of disinfection booster stations or to examine the effectiveness and feasibility of in situ ultraviolet (UV)

irradiation systems as a decontamination strategy. EPA research could also examine various pipe materials (e.g., stainless steel) and evaluate their benefits for security and sustainability relative to their costs.

Infrastructure Designs to Enable Isolation and Interconnection

Most large drinking water systems have the ability to isolate portions of their distribution systems during necessary system repairs, but security concerns provide a new impetus for rapid and effective isolation mechanisms. Research on innovative mechanisms to isolate or divert contaminated water in drinking water and wastewater systems would be useful. The EPA should identify these design options, research their costs and benefits (including dual-use benefits) and their feasibility both for existing systems and new infrastructure, and make this information available to system managers.

Improved Risk Assessments Procedures

A sound risk assessment process allows utilities to make better resource management decisions for enhancing their recovery capacity or security strategies to mitigate the consequences of an attack. The risk assessment process includes assessments of threat, consequences, and vulnerability. To date, most of the efforts to guide utilities in their own risk assessments have focused on vulnerabilities.

Threat Assessment

Water and wastewater utilities today are making resource management decisions related to security without adequate information about the nature and likelihood of threats to their systems. As discussed in Chapter 4 , the EPA has focused their efforts on identifying contaminant threats without conducting similarly detailed analyses of possible physical and cyber threats. Both the nature and likelihood of these threats are needed for efficient allocation of resources at the utility level and within the EPA’s research program. Improved threat assessment would require the EPA and/or a consortium of water experts to work closely with the intelligence community and local law enforcement agencies. Other national and federal laboratory expertise within the Department of Energy,

Department of Defense, and private-public community might be needed as well. Threat assessments for water and wastewater should be periodically reviewed to identify threat scenarios that should be added to the list and to remove those that are no longer a concern. The development of a threat assessment process for local water and wastewater utilities with current techniques used in other infrastructures would also be helpful, provided the threat information could be communicated to those who need it (ASME, 2004; Sandia National Laboratories, 2001).

Consequence Assessment

A consequence assessment should accompany the threat assessment within the risk assessment process. Consequence assessments would provide decision makers with information on the potential for fatalities, public health impacts, economic impacts, property damage, systems disruption, effects on other infrastructures, and loss of public confidence. Procedures for determining the expected consequences from an attack or natural disaster are not currently being systematically developed. As a result, water system managers do not have sufficient data to make decisions about the benefits of risk reduction relative to the costs. The development and application of a consequence assessment procedure would provide decision makers with information needed to decide whether to mitigate the consequences, upgrade with countermeasures, take steps to improve response and recovery capacity, and/or decide to accept the level of risk and take no further action. A fault tree analysis that includes, for example, options for redundant systems or contingency water supplies could provide vital information on whether to invest in security upgrades or less costly consequence mitigation strategies . Many of these approaches have already been developed for other infrastructures (e.g., Risk Assessment Methodology [RAM]-T for the high-voltage power transmission industry or RAM-D for dams, locks, and levees; see Sandia National Laboratories, 2001; 2002). A thorough review of other RAM methodologies could provide guidance for consequence assessment strategies that could be incorporated into the Risk Assessment Methodology for Water Utilities (RAM-W).

The EPA has worked to develop the AT Planner tool to assist utilities in assessing the consequences from physical attacks (see Chapter 4 ). While AT Planner has been validated against actual blast test data for nonwater systems, there remains significant uncertainty in the applicability of the modeling for water security because it has not been validated

against the structures specific to those systems. Therefore, the ongoing evaluation of AT Planner by the EPA and select water utility operators should include an assessment of the applicability of AT Planner for each of the critical and high-consequence components of a water system. The EPA and water utilities should then consider whether any additional validation testing is needed to determine specific failure modes of relevant water system components (e.g., actual storage tanks, pumps, water conduits, chlorine tanks) and possible countermeasures.

Summary of Research Priorities for Secure and Resilient Systems

Short-term priorities.

Develop an improved understanding of physical, cyber, and contaminant threats to water and wastewater systems, especially focusing on physical and cyber threats.

Communicate information on threats and consequences to water system managers through training and information exchange.

Develop an improved threat assessment procedure for water and wastewater utilities that will assist local utilities with their security and response planning.

Develop a process to assist local utilities in determining the consequences from physical, cyber, and contaminant attacks.

Update the risk assessment methodology for water systems to incorporate the latest approaches used in other industries, including developing credible threat descriptions and identifying cascading consequences.

Long-Term Priorities

Develop innovative design strategies for drinking water and wastewater systems that mitigate security risks and identify their costs and benefits in the context of public health, sustainability, cost-effectiveness, and homeland security. These designs might include:

In-pipe intervention strategies for drinking water systems,

Disaggregation of water and wastewater treatment facilities to achieve dual-use benefits, and

Designs that allow for interconnections and isolation.

Evaluate the need to validate AT Planner against structures specific to water systems.

Periodically review the EPA’s prioritized list of threats, contaminants, and threat scenarios to identify items that should be added to the list and remove items that are no longer a concern.

Continue development of technology transfer/training programs so that utilities understand the value of the EPA’s products for both homeland security incidents and natural disasters and know how to utilize the tools to their full extent.

Implementation of Priorities

Some of the research recommendations to support more resilient design and operation of drinking water and wastewater systems lie outside of the EPA’s traditional areas of expertise. To support the Action Plan efforts so far, the EPA has relied heavily on expert contractors to conduct this type of work. The EPA should continue to seek the relevant expertise of other federal agencies and national laboratories in these future efforts. However, the EPA will need to consider how best to balance intramural and extramural research funding to carry out this research, while maintaining appropriate oversight and input into the research activities (see also Chapter 5 ). Increasing staff expertise in some key areas, such as physical security, will be necessary to build a strong and well-rounded water security research program to support more resilient system design and operation.

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPROVE THE ABILITY OF OPERATORS AND RESPONDERS TO DETECT AND ASSESS INCIDENTS

Suggestions are provided in this section for future research that should improve the ability of operators and responders to detect and assess water security incidents. Specific research suggestions in the areas of analytical methodologies and monitoring and distribution system modeling are discussed below.

Analytical Methodologies and Monitoring

Expanding existing analytical methods.

For some analytes of relevance to water security concerns, the available or approved detection methods are poor (e.g., some nonregulated analytes). More work needs to be done to expand existing methods to a broader range of analytes. For example, method 300.1 (EPA, 2000) covers only the common anions but could be extended to others, including toxic substances. The extension of existing methods to new analytes would allow a broader range of laboratories to expand their capabilities into the water security area.

Screening methods using conventional gas chromatography (GC) or high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) should also be investigated. Modern high-resolution chromatography combined with high-sensitivity detection (e.g., electron capture, fluorescence) is a powerful, yet accessible tool. Protocols should be developed to make the best use of these widely available capabilities. Software will have to be developed to facilitate the documentation of normal, background signals (fingerprint-type chromatograms). This background information can then be used to detect anomalies. Final protocols would have to be tested thoroughly against priority chemical contaminants. Chromatographic finger-prints have been used to monitor water supplies for nonintentional contamination, so this line of research would provide a dual benefit (D. Metz, Ohio River, personal communication, 2006; P. Schulhof, Seine River, personal communication, 2006).

Progress is being made with the protocol to concentrate samples and identify biological contaminants by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. Continued research, however, needs to be directed towards reducing the time and effort required to collect, process, and identify samples by automating portions of the protocol such as the concentration step. Such automated collection and sample processing systems would be especially valuable in response to security threats, when water samples could be channeled to existing or new detection technologies capable of onsite processing. The EPA should continue to expand the number of biothreat agents tested with the concentration/PCR protocol to include microbes other than spores, prioritizing test organisms that are both a threat to public health and resistant to chlorine (Morales-Morales, et al., 2003; Straub and Chandler, 2003). Continued testing of the concentration/PCR protocol should include various mixed suspensions of a target

microbe and background microbes to determine specificity of detection and various dilutions of the target microbe to determine sensitivity of detection. The protocol should also be tested on chloraminated water samples.

Developing New Monitoring Technologies

Chemical Detection. New chemical monitoring technologies for security-relevant analytes should be investigated. Examples include quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) sensors, microfluidic devices (lab-on-a-chip), ion-sensitive field-effect transistors (ISFETs), and larger-scale optrodes. Extramural agency and corporate partnerships developed by the EPA and longer-term research projects will help the evaluation and consideration of a broader range of detection platforms.

Biological Detection. Biological monitoring devices are essential to assess the type and extent of contamination in a suspected water security event. A broader range of innovative and developing detection technologies for biological agents, including methods that are field deployable and reagent-free, should be considered and evaluated. Innovative, field-deployable detection technologies (e.g., genetic fingerprinting, immunodetection, other technologies in development by universities, the Department of Defense, and industry) could reduce the time and effort for detection and enable earlier response efforts (Iqbal et al., 2000; Ivnitski et al., 2003; Lim et al., 2005; Monk and Walt, 2004; Yu and Bruno, 1996; Zhu et al., 2004). These new technologies might also increase the accuracy of detecting deliberate contamination events and reduce false alarms. Methods that can detect multiple biological agents and those with dual-use benefits should be emphasized over those methods limited to very specific agents (Peruski and Peruski, 2003; Rogers and Mulchandani, 1998). For example, DNA fingerprinting might be more useful than immunodetection systems dependent on a highly specific antibody for operation. The accuracy of these detection methods will depend on availability of quality reagents such as antibodies and primers; therefore, researchers will need to work closely with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other agencies that have access to such reagents.

Monitoring Devices for Wastewater Collection Systems . Contamination incidents have the potential to disrupt wastewater biological treat-

ment systems; thus, a long-term research program should also include research on monitoring technologies relevant to wastewater security concerns. Although a number of devices are available that can be used to monitor physical, chemical, and biological parameters, none of the currently available devices are robust or reliable enough when used in untreated wastewater to meet security requirements. The EPA should, therefore, encourage development of robust or reliable monitoring devices for wastewater infrastructure.

Syndromic Surveillance Tools. Syndromic surveillance tools may have the potential for detecting disease outbreaks and for investigating the possible role of water in such outbreaks (Berger et al., 2006). The EPA is already working to test two syndromic disease surveillance tools (RODS, ESSENCE) against prior water contamination outbreak data. There are substantive research needs that should be undertaken, however. Clearly, the improvement of existing syndromic surveillance tools is a long-term research objective. For syndromic surveillance to become worthwhile, it should achieve a favorable cost-benefit ratio considering the costs of false positives, and syndromic surveillance should also be adequately integrated into response plans. The implementation of syndromic surveillance systems on a large scale would require a more detailed linkage between disparate databases used in the public health sector and the water supply sector. Research to develop tools to allow local systems to readily fuse information from these disparate sources would be desirable. Such linkages would improve detection and response to waterborne disease outbreaks and more rapidly exclude water as a possible vehicle of disease. This would have important applications for both intentional and nonintentional water contamination events.

Real-Time Monitoring Systems

The development of a fully functional, easy-to-maintain, real-time monitoring system (RTMS) that could someday be used to prevent harm from deliberate attacks on the water system (“detect to prevent”), even with substantial research investments, is many years away. Therefore, the primary emphasis of future research on RTMSs, at least in the near term, should be on developing these technologies to assess the spread of contaminants, not to prevent exposure.

The committee also questions the likelihood of implementation of real-time monitoring devices for specific chemical or biological parame-

ters that are not useful in the day-to-day operation of a system (see Chapters 2 and 4 ). However, there are a few scenarios where implementation of continuous monitors for biological contaminants might be valuable, such as their use in certain water systems under heightened threat conditions (e.g., utilities for which specific intelligence information indicates they may be targeted). As discussed in Chapter 4 , deployment under these circumstances has a greater likelihood for success because the probability of an event is estimated to be much higher and the length of monitoring time is shortened. The use of highly sensitive and specific detection devices under such targeted circumstances would significantly lower the probability of false alarms and reduce the problem of poor positive predictive value (see Chapter 2 ) while also minimizing implementation and maintenance costs. Thus, improving monitoring systems for specific chemical or biological agents in drinking water is a valid long-term research goal. The EPA may find that longer-term research on more speculative sensor development could benefit from a further broadening of the circle of collaborators. Such speculative research may be more appropriately funded through the National Science Foundation or the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, thus freeing up EPA resources for other purposes. To encourage such research, the EPA may wish to build its connections with the private sector on this technology.

Research on detection methods for RTMSs should proceed with careful consideration of the likelihood of implementation of the monitoring devices. In its near-term research plans, the EPA should adopt a first-stage approach to RTMSs, emphasizing generic sensors to detect intrusion or a system anomaly. The intrusion detection would then trigger more resource-intensive follow-up monitoring and analysis. Such an approach has significant dual-use benefits for routine contamination events that could outweigh the costs of implementing and operating these systems. Additional effort to develop cheaper, more accurate, and more easily deployable and maintainable sensors for routine water quality parameters would be useful both for anomaly detection and routine operation. Additional research is also needed, even in first-stage RTMSs, to understand normal water quality variations and distinguish variations that might be caused by a deliberate contamination attack. For example, continuous monitoring of chlorine residual at multiple points in the distribution system often reveals wide variations at different temporal scales due to changes in water demand that affect water residence time (e.g., operation of storage tanks). Although some work to understand inherent water quality variability in distribution systems is being conducted through the

Water Sentinel program, a significant amount of work is needed to translate the findings of this research into criteria for RTMSs to develop systems that have a reasonable likelihood of implementation.

An important component of RTMS research should include data fusion, whereby multiple anomalies must occur before an alarm signal is sent (see also Chapter 4 ). The private sector seems to be taking the lead on many types of multiparameter approaches to RTMSs and the processing of data, especially as described by contaminant or event signatures. It is important that the algorithms are open to peer review and can be accessed by all for development of new and refined approaches.

RTMS sensor research should consider a broader range of technologies, including full-spectrum UV and visible absorption, fluorescence excitation emission matrices, and ionization sensors (Alupoaei et al., 2004; Fenselau and Demirev, 2001; Lay, 2001). Many of these techniques are used as nonspecific chromatography detectors, and as such, they are highly sensitive. Most prototype RTMSs are composed of existing sensors that are designed to measure a specific contaminant, and some technologies have been excluded because they have not led to sensors with a high degree of selectivity. However, RTMSs need not be contaminant-specific; they only need to detect anomalies. Detection of an anomaly can then be followed by more specific contaminant analyses.

The problem of false positive signals from real-time contaminant-specific warning systems has been discussed in Chapter 2 . In essence, the problem is one of unfavorable arithmetic when the probability of a true positive is very small, as it would be for an intentional contamination attack on any particular water system of the tens of thousands of such systems. Therefore, most contaminant-specific alarm signals will be false positives. The EPA should consider the consequences of various rates of false positive signals for both large and small utilities and collect information on how alarms are currently handled by utilities. Workshops and structured surveys on this issue would provide valuable information on current practices, the extent to which positive signals are confirmed, the costs of false alarms, and the views of utility operators on their tolerance for various levels and types of false alarms. This research would provide useful guidance for the developers of water quality monitoring devices, for utilities that are considering implementing devices that are commercially available, and for local and state regulatory agencies who will need assistance interpreting alarm signals in light of the public health consequences.

Technology Testing

The EPA has developed a rigorous technology testing program to provide security product guidance to end users focusing on monitoring and decontamination technology. However, as noted in Chapter 4 , the number of relevant security technologies and agents of interest exceed the capacity and budget of the Technology Testing and Evaluation Program (TTEP). Therefore, developing a test-prioritization plan for TTEP seems especially important and is strongly recommended. Although the process of identifying technologies of interest has begun through the use of stakeholder meetings and advisory boards, activities to date have been weighted toward doing the easiest things first, and only some of these tests provided dual-use benefits. Balancing the homeland security benefits and the benefits to routine water system operations in TTEP will likely require additional strategic planning. One strategy has been to test equipment that is commercially available regardless of whether it addresses a high-risk agent. Instead, the EPA should look beyond the easy-to-identify commercially available equipment and make a greater effort to identify technologies in development that have the potential to address those agents identified as posing the greatest risk to water, considering the likelihood of the threat (including the ease of acquiring particular chemical or biological agents), the potential consequences, and the likelihood of implementing the technology. For a few of the highest-priority threats, the EPA may wish to consider providing technical support and/or funding to encourage more rapid development of a particularly promising technology that has a high likelihood of implementation and significant dual-use benefits, similar to the EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Emerging Technology Program.

Develop Laboratory Capability and Capacity

Adequate laboratory capacity is critical for responding to a terrorist incident affecting water supplies, and although this is not a research issue, the EPA has much to contribute from an applied perspective. The need for mobile analysis units capable of supplementing local laboratories and rapidly responding to geographical areas impacted by terrorist events should be considered. Such mobile laboratories could also address analytical needs that arise during natural catastrophes, such as Hurricane Katrina. Many states have begun to develop mobile laboratory

capabilities as part of their water security activities, and the EPA could glean information on their experiences to date.

The EPA is working with utilities and state and federal agencies to build a national laboratory response network for water sample analysis (i.e., the Water Laboratory Alliance). Some university laboratories may have capabilities that could merit inclusion in the nationwide network. Other laboratories may be stimulated to conduct additional research on improved analytical methods for toxic and biothreat agents if they were better informed of the current state of knowledge and had access to reference standards (access to some reference standards is currently limited due to security concerns). To be successful, a dual-use philosophy should be adopted whenever possible in the development of laboratory capacity (e.g., employing methods/instruments that can also be used for standard analytes).

Distribution System Modeling Tools

Distribution system models provide valuable tools for locating the source of contamination or assessing the spread if the source is known, estimating exposure, identifying locations for sampling, and developing decontamination strategies (see also Chapter 4 ). Distribution system models also have important dual-use applications to routine water quality concerns, and the EPA should continue to emphasize the dual-use value of its modeling tools. Specific recommendations are provided below to advance the capabilities and implementation of the Threat Ensemble Vulnerability Assessment (TEVA) and EPANET models.

Experimental Verification of Species Interaction Subcomponent Models

The final goal of producing a more flexible EPANET model through Multi-Species EPANET (MS-EPANET) is commendable. However, the new subcomponents are based upon developing better fundamental knowledge of reactions within the distribution system involving chemistry (e.g., disinfection kinetics, chemical partitioning), biology (e.g., development of biofilms, release and attachment of microbes), and materials science (e.g., corrosion of pipe materials and its relationship to disinfection efficacy). The large number of system constants in both MS-EPANET and TEVA necessitate significant investment in sensitivity

analysis research to quantify the accuracy of model predictions. The development and testing of all new features of MS-EPANET should be a long-term research goal. Until the validity of these subcomponents is verified and system constants can be assigned with more certainty, the water industry will be reluctant to use the full capability of MS-EPANET. Limitations in the accuracy of model predictions will need to be addressed in guidance to decision makers. A significant commitment will be needed in resources for experimental verification.

Alternate Approaches to Uncertainty Modeling

The Action Plan acknowledges correctly that the distribution system model simulations should incorporate an analysis of uncertainty because the point of attack is unknown. This has led to the use of the well-known Monte Carlo analysis to randomize the location of the attack and run repeated distribution system model simulations (1,000 or more) to generate a probability distribution to relate point of attack to human exposure impact. The focus on short-term results, however, has produced weaknesses in the current EPA approach to uncertainty research.

A broader discussion about how to incorporate uncertainty into the TEVA model should be invited. Approaches such as fuzzy logic (McKone and Deshpande, 2005) and Bayesian Maximum Entropy modeling (Serre and Christakos, 1999) are showing promise but have been applied mainly to homogenous space rather than to network domains. The EPA should encourage alternative ideas for handling uncertainty. If the expertise is not available within the agency, there needs to be a mechanism to expand extramural support for research, particularly within the university community.

Technology Transfer and Training in Use of the TEVA and EPANET Models

Advances in the TEVA model add significant complexity to the EPANET model, which may limit its widespread implementation. The EPA should work to communicate the capabilities of EPANET, MS-EPANET, and TEVA to utilities, emphasizing their value for routine water quality concerns, advanced homeland security planning, and contamination assessment and response activities. Until TEVA and MS-EPANET are further developed and widely available, the EPA should

consider an interim strategy to better inform water utilities on the value and use of existing distribution system models, such as EPANET. Progressive water utilities are already using EPANET to examine possible locations of attack and to track the concentration of contaminants within the distribution system.

Training in the use of MS-EPANET and the proposed TEVA model is also needed. Water utility managers need to be convinced that the costs for adapting a new model for their respective distribution systems are worthwhile, because many utilities have already invested heavily in development, verification, and calibration of existing models. The complexity of the TEVA model may increase these costs further, because many more implementation steps follow those for EPANET to adapt the TEVA “template” to the specifics of each water utility.

Summary of Research Priorities for Better Equipping Operators to Detect and Assess Incidents

Automate the concentration step of the concentration/PCR protocol.

Continue to test the concentration/PCR protocol:

Expand the number of biothreat agents tested to four or five organisms that include microbes other than spores, focusing on microbes that are both a threat to public health and resistant to chlorine.

Test the concentration/PCR protocol with chloraminated water samples.

Test the concentration/PCR protocol to determine sensitivity and specificity of detection.

Field-test RTMSs to determine false positive/false negative rates and maintenance requirements and develop basic criteria for the technology that might lead to a reasonable likelihood of implementation.

Continue research to develop a first-stage RTMS based on routine water quality sensors with dual-use applications.

Analyze the consequences of false positive signals from realtime monitoring systems, emphasizing current practices, the extent to which positive signals are confirmed, the costs of false alarms, and the tolerance of utility operators for false alarms.

Test standard chromatographic methods for their ability to screen for a broad range of toxic agents in routine laboratory testing.

Develop a test-prioritization strategy for TTEP to optimize the resources devoted to this effort.

Invite external peer review of the TEVA model before investing in field testing.

Long-term Priorities

Continue to develop portable, field-deployable systems that can be used to collect and process samples at event locations.

Formulate protocols and develop software for using GC- and HPLC-based fingerprinting to detect suspicious anomalies.

Stimulate research and ultimately development of new sensors for water security analytes based on innovative technologies, such as QCM, ISFETS, and microfluidics.

Evaluate and develop new field-deployable detection technologies for biological agents, including genetic fingerprinting, immunodetection, and reagentless technologies, that have the necessary sensitivity, specificity, and multiplex capabilities.

Develop improved, cheaper, and accurate RTMSs for routine water quality measurements.

Examine the use of nonspecific detection technologies for RTMSs.

Develop data fusion approaches for RTMSs that can minimize false positives.

Develop and test new monitoring technologies suitable for wastewater security applications.

Improve syndromic surveillance tools and develop a health surveillance network with appropriate linkages to water quality monitoring.

Continue to develop and refine the efficiency of a system-wide laboratory response network, including the development of mobile analysis units.

Continue fundamental research to understand the chemical and biological reactions that affect the fate and transport of contaminants in distribution systems to verify the constants used in MS-EPANET and TEVA.

Include alternative approaches to uncertainty design (e.g., fuzzy logic, Bayesian Maximum Entropy) in the TEVA model that are based more strongly upon stochastic than deterministic principles given that many of the input parameters to the current TEVA model are highly uncertain.

Develop projects for training water utilities in the value and use of EPANET, MS-EPANET, and TEVA.

Some of these research priorities may be more appropriately accomplished by universities, companies, or other agencies that have the necessary expertise, resources, and funding to successfully complete these tasks. The development of multiplex detection protocols and portable, field-deployable platforms are examples of tasks that might be better managed by some group other than the EPA. Work to determine the sensitivity and specificity of designated protocols for different biothreat agents could be conducted by university laboratories or private industry, with collaborative input from the EPA, considering their understanding of the needs of the water sector. Utilization of research resources outside the EPA would expand the variety of emerging, innovative analytical technologies that might be used to support the EPA’s efforts in enhancing the nation’s water security.

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPROVED RESPONSE AND RECOVERY

Recommendations are provided in this section for future research that should improve response and recovery after a water security incident. Research suggestions related to tools and data for emergency planning and response, contingencies, risk communication and behavioral sciences, decontamination, and lessons learned from natural disasters are presented below.

Tools and Data for Emergency Planning and Response

Continued development of emergency response databases.

The EPA released preliminary versions of the Water Contamination Information Tool (WCIT) and the Consequence Assessment Tool (CAT) to provide data on contaminant properties, toxicity, and exposure threats (see Chapter 4 ), but the databases are still in their infancy, and numerous data gaps exist. The EPA will need to prioritize its continued efforts to further develop these response databases. Therefore, the EPA should develop strategic plans for WCIT and CAT, outlining the long-term goals for the databases and addressing questions such as:

What stakeholders will be served by the databases?

What categories of information do these stakeholders need?

How many contaminants should be included?

What linkages to other databases should be established?

The EPA will need to determine criteria for prioritizing what contaminants are added to the database and how to maintain and update the information. If WCIT and CAT are not continually revised to incorporate the latest scientific knowledge, the databases will become outdated. Expanding or even maintaining a database requires considerable resources, both intellectual and financial. If a commitment is not made initially for the necessary resources to update and maintain a database, spending the resources to create it becomes debatable. The EPA is currently facing similar issues maintaining its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database.

The EPA should also clearly define the data quality objectives for WCIT/CAT and incorporate peer review of the data, as necessary, to meet these objectives. For example, the EPA may decide that some information about a contaminant is better than none, even if that information has limitations. This is a legitimate approach; however, the EPA should provide a mechanism that helps to ensure that individuals using the databases understand the data quality and their limitations. One mechanism for accomplishing this would be to add quality notations for each datum. Regardless of the approach taken, the EPA needs to describe the extent to which the data have been reviewed.

Evaluation and Improvement of Tools and Databases

With the forthcoming completion of at least the first stages of many tools and databases (e.g., WCIT, CAT), the EPA should consider the evaluation/improvement cycle. This will require the development of procedures to evaluate the utility and usability of these tools by potential constituencies. In addition, the EPA should take advantage of the tests afforded in response to “real-life” incidents. For example, some of the tools and databases were used (albeit in an early stage of their development) in the response to Hurricane Katrina. A formal assessment of knowledge gained from this experience could assist in the improvement and development of the tools.

Filling Data Gaps

The state of knowledge of the health risks from water contaminants that could be used in a malicious event is quite limited, as shown by the limited number of chemicals and even fewer biologicals in the WCIT/CAT databases and the many blank data fields in these databases. Important experimental and computational research is under way at the EPA to address some of these data gaps (see Chapter 4 , Section 3.6), but many gaps remain. There are two applications of toxicity/infectivity information that would be useful to the EPA for response and recovery efforts. The first is development of guidance for dissolved concentrations that would pose an immediate acute risk to exposed individuals, analogous to the inhalation immediate danger to life and health values of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The EPA is currently working on this problem by developing a database on acute and

chronic health effects associated with priority contaminants, although much work remains to be done. The second is guidance for determining the appropriate “acceptable” level remaining after cleanup/decontamination. This second aspect has not yet been strongly emphasized in the EPA research program. It is recommended that the EPA convene a working group to develop research and prioritization strategies for filling these data gaps and for ascertaining current gaps in knowledge with respect to rapid estimation of toxicity/infectivity in the absence of specific experimental information. Decisions for setting priorities for the data gathering efforts should be made with full consideration of dual-use benefits.

Contingencies for Water System Emergencies

Further study of water supply alternatives should be a high priority, considering their pivotal role in response and recovery and their dual-use applications for natural disasters or system failures. However, the subject of water supply contingencies seems to have been given a low priority in the EPA’s research program to date. Completion of the work in progress should be the first priority. The committee debated the value of investing significant resources in developing technologies that could supply drinking water for large communities over long-term disruptions because of the rarity of the need for such technologies. Nevertheless, the EPA should draw upon the research and development efforts of the Department of Defense in this area and work to test the application of these technologies to water security scenarios.

The EPA should consider including new research on contingencies for failures of the human subsystem in water system security. Such research could examine current practices for identifying back-up operators in the case of widespread incapacitation in both short-term and long-term scenarios. This research could also identify best practices, which could be incorporated into EPA guidance to water utilities for their emergency response planning.

Preliminary research suggests that geographic information systems (GIS) could be of significant value to utilities for identifying contingencies in the event of system failures. Therefore, further efforts may be needed to inform utilities about the value of GIS for emergency response and provide guidance for integrating GIS into their emergency planning procedures. National geodata standards may be needed to promote consistency and facilitate data exchange among users.

Behavioral Sciences and Risk Communication

The National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) has made substantial progress in the development of risk communication guidance and training (see Chapter 4 ), but very little emphasis has been devoted to research on understanding how the public may respond to risk communication messages and how to improve communication of risks to the public. Terrorism presents risks that are new, evolving, and difficult to characterize; thus, water security poses communication challenges that should be addressed using scientifically rigorous research in the fields of risk communication and behavioral sciences. The EPA should continually reassess the role risk communication has in its overall risk management framework and fully integrate risk communication efforts into the overall risk management program. Behavioral science and associated risk communication research should be a high priority in the EPA’s future water security research plans. The following recommendations are targeted toward water-security events, but the proposed research has dual benefits for improving non-security-related communications with the public.

Analysis of Factors that Build Trust and Improve Communication

Research and experience prove that one of the most important keys to communication success is an organization’s ability to establish, maintain, and increase trust and credibility with key stakeholders, including employees, regulatory agencies, citizen groups, the public, and the media. To improve overall communication strategies in a water-related emergency, research is needed that analyzes factors that build trust and reduce fear (e.g., What types of concerns do people have related to public health emergencies, water security issues, or bioterrorism? How do utilities build trust and credibility with the public around water security incidents?). In addition, research is needed to analyze methods to counter and reduce the possibility of misinformation or false information being distributed to the public and key stakeholders.

Understanding Institutional Behavior

Building response and recovery capacity requires agencies that might be involved in a water security event to develop stronger working relationships. Although water utilities, public health agencies, law enforcement, emergency responders, and the media do not have a long history of collaborating and working together, several state drinking water programs have taken the lead in carrying out tabletop exercises as well as on-the-ground exercises to address this issue. These state programs have also undertaken measures to facilitate an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the various potential players, including federal, state, and local law enforcement; state and local health agencies; state and local emergency response agencies; and water utilities. The EPA could glean useful information from these ongoing state and local activities. Nevertheless, additional research is needed to better understand the culture of the agencies that will be responding to events, how these agencies will interact in a water-related crisis, and what level of effort is needed to maintain collaboration in planning and preparedness. This research could identify barriers to more effective collaboration, and these findings could be used to create training scenarios that could improve coordination and resolve potential conflicts in advance. This research is a short-term priority given the importance of coordinated interaction during a crisis. The research could be performed relatively quickly because there is a wealth of experiences, particularly at the state level, related to agency interactions in water-related crises.

Investigate Applicability of Research in Behavioral Science

While some of the recommended research on risk communication and behavioral science may need to be managed by the EPA to address specific water security-related issues, the EPA should also take advantage of other behavioral science research currently being conducted through university-based partnerships, including those established by the Homeland Security Centers of Excellence program. For example, the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terror (START) is conducting original research on issues that are poorly understood, including risk perception and communication, household and community preparedness for terrorist attacks, likely behavioral responses by the public, social and psychological vulnerability to terrorism, and strategies for mitigating negative psychologi-

cal effects and enhancing resilience in the face of the terror threat. The START center is also synthesizing existing research findings in order to provide timely guidance for decision makers and the public, paying special attention to how diverse audiences react to and are affected by threats and preparedness efforts.

In addition, the CDC has developed a national network of 50 Centers for Public Health Preparedness (CPHP) to train the public health workforce to respond to threats to our nation's health, including bioterrorism. These centers work to strengthen terrorism preparedness and emergency public health response at the state and local level and to develop a network of academic-based programs contributing to national terrorism preparedness and emergency response capacity. Information from the CPHP may be relevant and useful to the water sector.

Pretesting Risk Communication Messages

Although the message mapping workshops are a good start to assist stakeholders in preparing messages that will be relevant in a water security incident, the messages have not been tested and evaluated. Therefore, the EPA should engage the research community in pretesting messages being developed by the Center for Risk Communication so that case studies and scenarios can be analyzed for effectiveness in reaching key audiences, and problems can be corrected in advance. Sophisticated evaluation techniques and standard research procedures are used by the CDC to pretest public messages. This evaluation research should be based on standard criteria established in the risk communication literature (e.g., Mailback and Parrott, 1995; National Cancer Institute, 2002; Witte et al., 2001).

Analysis of the Risks and Benefits of Releasing Security Information

The decision of when to release or withhold water security information is critical to the development of a risk communication strategy. Therefore, the EPA should analyze the risks and benefits of releasing water security information, considering input from its broad range of constituents, and develop transparent agency guidance on when to release information versus when to withhold it due to security concerns.

The committee considers this a priority because of the difficulty and importance of the information sharing problem.

Water-Related Risk Communication Training

As the lead U.S. agency in water system security, the EPA should assume the responsibility for developing a national training program on water-related risk communication planning and implementation for water managers. This should be done in collaboration with the water and wastewater organizations, state government agencies, public health officials, health care officials, and others engaged in communication of risks during water-related emergencies.

Decontamination

Decontamination research is critical to improving response and recovery, and the products are applicable to address unintentional contamination events from natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and routine malfunctions (e.g., pipe breaks, negative pressures due to power losses). The EPA has numerous ongoing projects in this area that should be completed, but additional research topics are also suggested below.

Addressing Data Gaps

EPA decontamination research products released thus far have shown that fundamental physical, chemical, and/or biological characteristics of many threat agents of concern are not yet known. Therefore, additional laboratory research is needed related to the behavior of contaminants in water supply and wastewater systems and methods for decontaminating water infrastructure. For example, one research priority would be to develop inactivation rate data for all microbes of concern with both free and combined chlorine strategies, because both approaches are used in the water industry. Rate and equilibrium data for adsorption/desorption of contaminants on pipe walls is also needed, although the EPA could also take advantage of existing databases on structure-activity relationships to predict these behaviors. Long-term re-

search, perhaps in partnership with other Office of Research and Development units, could enhance our understanding of the fate, transport, and transformation of toxics in water and wastewater environments.

Decontamination Strategies

The EPA should build on its ongoing work in the area of decontamination and address gaps in the current knowledge base. For example, research is needed to examine readily available household inactivation methods for biological agents (including spore-formers), such as microwaving. The EPA should also work to further the development of innovative decontamination technologies that address important water security concerns. Research and development on new POU/POE technologies, such as superheated water devices, could help overcome operational disadvantages of the products currently on the market.

Prioritizing Future Surrogate Research

Surrogates are relevant to numerous water security research applications, including research on contaminant fate and transport, human exposure risks, and decontamination. Research is ongoing to identify surrogates or simulants for biological agents, to determine which surrogates are appropriate, and to determine the ability of typical drinking water disinfection practices (chlorination and chloramination) to inactivate those agents (see Chapter 4 , Section 3.2). Much of the research has focused on Bacillus anthracis and other bacterial agents, but the EPA should determine if surrogates for research on biotoxins and viruses are needed and whether additional surrogates are needed for other bacterial agents. A viral simulant or surrogate would be helpful to examine virus survival in fresh water, drinking water, and sewage, as well as virus susceptibility to water disinfectants. Research in this area has relevance to viral bioterrorism agents and also has strong dual-use research applications because viral surrogates could facilitate risk assessment studies on natural viruses (e.g., SARS, avian influenza).

Surrogate research is a laborious experimental process (see Box 4-1 ) that must be conducted in one of the few laboratories already authorized to keep and work with select agents. Considerable research is required to compare the select agent with candidate surrogates under the experimental conditions of interest. As discussed in Chapter 4 , surrogates need not

mimic in all respects the agents they stand in for. For some important security or decontamination uses, it may only be necessary that they provide an appropriate bound on the characteristic of interest in the target agent (e.g., persistence, disinfectant sensitivity). Therefore, the EPA should carefully consider and prioritize the agents and the research applications for which surrogates are needed. The prioritization process for surrogates should consider the following:

Which types of research could be greatly facilitated through the availability of surrogates?

Which types of research with surrogates might have “dual-use” applications (i.e., could the properties of certain surrogates also be usefully extrapolated to other common organisms)?

Which types of research should be done only with select agents?

How closely should the surrogate properties of interest match that of the target organism?

What are the costs and benefits to the research program associated with surrogate development versus use of the pathogenic agents?

The EPA should engage a limited number of individuals (e.g., federal partners, academics) who are involved in similar research in this prioritization process.

Lessons Learned from Natural Disasters

Midway through the committee’s work, NRC (2005; see Appendix A ) suggested the EPA take advantage of experience gained in the aftermath of Katrina so as to improve future response and recovery efforts for water security. While a hurricane caused this catastrophe, it is conceivable that a similar result might have occurred if the levees had been destroyed by terrorist explosives. Thus, New Orleans offered a living laboratory to study many aspects of the impacts of a disaster on water and wastewater systems of all sizes. Failure modes, infrastructure interdependencies, decontamination and service restoration strategies, the availability of alternative supplies, communication strategies, and the ability to service special institutions (e.g., hospitals) and special needs individuals could all have been examined in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane. To the best of the committee’s knowledge, however, the EPA has not attempted to compile a knowledge base from this experience. As

time passes, it will become increasingly difficult to reconstruct what transpired. Other natural or manmade disasters, such as the earthquakes in California in 1989 and 1994 or the “Great Flood of 1993” in the Mid-west, or natural contamination events, such as the Milwaukee C ryptosporidium outbreak, may also offer opportunities to mine important data about the failure or recovery of water and wastewater systems, but detailed information on these earlier occurrences may be lacking. In the future, the NHSRC should be poised to seize opportunities for learning about response and recovery after major natural or man-made disasters affecting water or wastewater systems.

Summary of Research Priorities for Improving Response and Recovery

Determine strategic plans for managing and maintaining the WCIT/CAT databases, considering the likely uses and long-term goals for the databases.

Develop and implement a strategy for evaluating the utility and usability of the response tools and databases, including stakeholder feedback and lessons learned during their use under “real-life” incidents.

Convene a working group to develop research strategies for filling the data gaps in WCIT/CAT and other planned emergency response databases.

Contingencies for Water Emergencies

Complete the work in progress on contingencies and infrastructure interdependencies under Section 3.5 of the Action Plan.

Test and evaluate the most promising innovative water supply technologies that enable or enhance the short- or long-term delivery of drinking water in the event of systemic failure of water systems. Analyze the positive features and those areas needing improvement prior to full-scale deployment.

Conduct research on potential contingencies for failures of the “human subsystem.”

Analyze factors that build trust, reduce fear, and prevent panic to improve overall communication strategies in a water-related emergency.

Investigate the behavioral science research being conducted by the Homeland Security University Centers of Excellence and other federal agencies for applicability to the water sector.

Pretest messages being developed by the Center for Risk Communication and analyze case studies and scenarios for effectiveness.

Analyze the risks and benefits of releasing security information to inform the EPA’s risk communication strategies and its practices on information sharing.

Fully integrate risk communication efforts into the overall risk management program and provide adequate resources that ensure these efforts remain a high priority in the EPA’s future water security research program.

Conduct research to better understand how agencies will interact in a water-related crisis situation and determine what strategies will be most effective in encouraging and maintaining collaboration in planning and preparedness.

Complete the many decontamination projects in progress under Section 3.4 of the Action Plan.

Develop predictive models or laboratory data for inactivation of bioterrorism agents in both free chlorine and chloramines that can be used in MS-EPANET and the TEVA model.

Explore development and testing of new POU/POE devices that may overcome the disadvantages of existing devices.

Examine readily available household inactivation methods for biological agents (including spore-forming agents), such as microwaving.

Determine the costs and benefits of further research to identify additional surrogates, considering which agents under which conditions or applications should be prioritized for surrogate development research.

Use the remaining data from the experience of Hurricane Katrina to analyze the optimal response and recovery techniques (e.g., water supply alternatives, contingency planning, and infrastructure interdependencies) that would also apply to water security events.

Integrate experience with decontamination of the distribution system in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina to improve EPA guidance for water security decontamination.

Evaluate risk communication strategies related to Hurricane Katrina or other past disaster events to determine if communication strategies related to drinking water safety reached the most vulnerable populations.

Develop a post-event strategy for learning from future natural disasters affecting water systems. This strategy should support on-site assessments of impacts and interdependencies and evaluations of successes and failures during response and recovery.

Continue to develop and maintain the WCIT/CAT databases according to the objectives set forth in the strategic database management plan. Incorporate a mechanism to provide on-going peer review of the data to meet its data quality objectives.

Continue experimental and computational research to fill critical data gaps in WCIT/CAT, including research on the health effects of both acute and chronic exposure to priority contaminants.

Develop new, innovative technologies for supplying drinking water to affected customers over both short- and long-term water system failures.

Risk Communication and Behavioral Sciences

Develop a program of interdisciplinary empirical research in behavioral sciences to better understand how to prepare stakeholders for water security incidents. The EPA should support original research that will help address critical knowledge gaps. For example:

What are the public’s beliefs, opinions, and knowledge about water security risks?

How do risk perception and other psychological factors affect responses to water-related events?

How can these risks be communicated more effectively to the public?

Develop a national training program on water-related risk communication planning and implementation for water managers.

Continue laboratory research to fill the data gaps related to behavior of contaminants in water supply and wastewater systems and methods for decontaminating water infrastructure.

Continue surrogate research based on the research prioritization determined in collaboration with an interagency working group. The EPA should also explore ways that this surrogate research could assist in responding to everyday agents or to other routes of exposure (e.g., inhalation, inactivating agents on surfaces).

The EPA has historically been a lead federal agency in understanding the fate and transport of contaminants in the environment and has a clear understanding of the practical concerns of the water sector. Thus, the EPA remains the appropriate lead agency to develop the tools for emergency response and to prioritize the research needed to fill the remaining gaps, with input from key stakeholders. The EPA is also well suited to develop a national training program on water-related risk communication and to evaluate lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and other past disaster events. However, innovative technology development research, such as the development of novel technologies for supplying water during system failures, should be conducted by other agencies,

university researchers, or firms with the greatest expertise. The EPA, instead, should focus its efforts on harvesting information on existing technologies, synthesizing this information for end users, and providing guidance to developers on unique technology needs for water security. Behavioral science research and evaluation research is more appropriately conducted by universities or other federal agencies (e.g., CDC) that have the necessary expertise to complete these tasks. However, the EPA still needs in-house behavioral science experts able to supervise and use this work to best advantage.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter, recommendations are provided for future research directions in the area of water security. Two key water security research gaps—behavioral science and innovative future system design—that were not considered in the short-term planning horizon of the Action Plan are identified. In accordance with the committee’s charge (see Chapter 1 ), short- and long-term water security research priorities are presented in three areas: (1) developing products to support more resilient design and operation of facilities and systems, (2) improving the ability of operators and responders to detect and assess incidents, and (3) improving response and recovery.

The EPA should develop a program of interdisciplinary empiri cal research in behavioral science to better understand how to pre pare stakeholders for water security incidents. The risks of terrorism are dynamic and uncertain and involve complex behavioral phenomena. The EPA should take advantage of existing behavioral science research that could be applied to water security issues to improve response and recovery efforts. At the same time, when gaps exist, the EPA should support rigorous empirical research that will help address, for example, what the public’s beliefs, opinions, and knowledge about water security risks are; how risk perception and other psychological factors affect responses to water-related events; and how to communicate these risks effectively to the public.

The EPA should take a leadership role in providing guidance for the planning, design, and implementation of new, more sustainable and resilient water and wastewater facilities for the 21st century. Given the investments necessary to upgrade and sustain the country’s water and wastewater systems, research on innovative approaches to make the infrastructure more sustainable and resilient both to routine and

malicious incidents would provide substantial dual-use benefits. The EPA should help develop and test new concepts, technologies, and management structures for water and wastewater utilities to meet objectives of public health, sustainability, cost-effectiveness, and homeland security. Specific research topics related to drinking water and wastewater, such as decentralized systems and in-pipe interventions to reduce exposure from contaminants, are suggested.

Recommended research topics in the area of supporting more resilient design and operation of drinking water and wastewater systems include improved processes for threat and consequence assessments and innovative designs for water and wastewater. A thorough and balanced threat assessment encompassing physical, cyber, and contaminant threats is lacking. To date, the EPA has focused its threat assessments on contaminant threats, but physical and cyber threats deserve more attention and analysis because this information could influence the EPA’s future research priorities and utilities’ preparedness and response planning.

Research suggestions that improve the ability of operators and responders to detect and assess incidents build upon the EPA’s current research in the areas of analytical methodologies and monitoring and distribution system modeling. In the short term, the EPA should continue research to develop and refine a first-stage RTMS based on routine water quality parameters with dual-use applications. Long-term research recommendations include the development of innovative detection technologies and cheaper, more accurate RTMSs. To support the simulation models in development, a substantial amount of fundamental research is needed to improve understanding of the fate and transport of contaminants in distribution systems. Based on the number of emerging technologies and agents of interest, the EPA should develop a prioritization strategy for technology testing to optimize the resources devoted to this effort.

Recommendations for future research priorities to improve response and recovery emphasize the sustainability of tools for emergency planning and response (e.g., WCIT/CAT) and improving research on water security contingencies, behavioral sciences, and risk communication. The EPA should also evaluate the relative importance of future laboratory work on surrogate development and address data gaps in the knowledge of decontamination processes and behavior. So far, the EPA has not taken advantage of the many opportunities from Hurricane Katrina to harvest lessons learned related to response and recovery, and the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

Some of the research recommendations provided in this chapter lie outside of the EPA’s traditional areas of expertise. The EPA will need to consider how best to balance intramural and extramural research funding to carry out this research, while maintaining appropriate oversight and input into the research activities. Increasing staff expertise in some key areas, such as physical security and behavioral sciences, will be necessary to build a strong and well-rounded water security research program.

This page intentionally left blank.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

7 Research-Based Recommendations for What Schools Should Do Next

• Share article

Normally, at this point in the summer, educators would be starting to think about the coming year, updating curricula, and purchasing supplies. But the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted these usual routines. Many educators don’t even know whether they will have jobs, whether they will be teaching in person, or how they will juggle their own educational and parenting roles. Policymakers face piles of bills and requests. It’s difficult to decide what to do because the educational enterprise is so dependent on a public-health crisis that is changing every day.

In situations like this, it helps to have a road map and a compass to figure out where to go next. Research can help play that role. And, unlike in many instances, there is a consensus among education researchers. From economists to sociologists, from qualitive to quantitative researchers, from liberal to conservative, we all agree—based on research—about what schools and policymakers should do to educate our nation’s students in the coming school year.

We invited a group of researchers with diverse perspectives and expertise to come together to discuss what the evidence tells us we should do to educate our students next year. While we write this as co-leaders of the project, the entire lead group was fundamental to this process: Matthew Chingos (Urban Institute), Linda Darling-Hammond (Stanford University and the Learning Policy Institute), Patricia Gándara (University of California Los Angeles), Dan Goldhaber (University of Washington and CALDER at AIR), Christine Greenhow (Michigan State University), Betheny Gross (Center for Reinventing Public Education), Elizabeth Kozleski (Stanford University), Wayne Lewis (Belmont University), Julie Marsh (University of Southern California), Pedro Noguera (University of Southern California), Anthony Rolle (University of Rhode Island), Mary Walsh (Boston College), Kevin Welner (University of Colorado Boulder), and Martin West (Harvard University). In the end, we produced an open letter with eight pages of suggestions, each linked to research evidence. In the five days since we invited others to sign on , nearly 450 researchers have added their names.

We have seven overarching recommendations for educators and policymakers:

1. Provide substantial additional resources to prevent looming school budget cuts. Since states cannot borrow funds for operating purposes, this must be a role for the federal government. Congress is debating this now, and there is no time to lose. Money matters , and while some states have found ways to plug holes in the short term, this will be insufficient as the fiscal crisis drags on. Getting money to schools now will be a good investment in schools’ short- and long-term capacity to educate our nation’s students. This recommendation comes first because all the others depend on it.

In situations like this, it helps to have a road map and a compass to figure out where to go next."

2. Implement universal internet and computer access. A lack of internet access affected how schools responded and how students experienced remote learning this past spring and is no doubt why many students had no interaction at all with their schools once the crisis started. The need for universal high-speed internet access is not, however, just an issue for this coming year. Schools and students will be making greater use of online resources for years to come . All students must be able to access these resources.

3. Target resources to those most in need. There is clear evidence that the pandemic-related school building closures are widening opportunity gaps by race, income, and class. To address this problem, educators must first understand the specific needs of their students and then use flexibility in funding where it is available to meet students’ individual needs. In addition, some groups of students will need more than others; we must target resources to low-income students , students of color , English-language learners, homeless students, and those with disabilities. If choices must be made about which students to bring back in person, we recommend those who are most vulnerable to academic, social, and psychological problems (including younger children who seem less likely to spread the virus) be brought back first.

4. Provide the most personalized and engaging instruction possible under the circumstances, even when it is necessary to be online. We make no recommendation about whether schools should open to in-person instruction—that is a matter for public-health experts. But it is clear already that remote learning will occur for many students throughout the country. The best evidence suggests that virtual schools generate much less learning than in-person schools . However, when online learning is well-designed , it can be a very helpful resource, at least for students who have other instructional supports . We therefore recommend frequent, direct, and meaningful interaction that combines synchronous and asynchronous instruction.

5. Address the learning losses created by the crisis by expanding instructional time in ways that challenge, support, and engage students. The amount of time students spend learning affects how much they learn—and that time decreased dramatically once school buildings closed. We can make up some of this lost learning time, and the associated learning loss, by lengthening the school year , offering summer school , and providing tutoring.

6. Offer tailored, integrated support to each child to address social-emotional needs, physical health, and family well-being. Schools—especially in a crisis—do more than provide academic instruction. Student-support staff such as school counselors, social workers, nurses, and family-outreach workers will be critical to schools’ efforts to care for children, especially for those students who have been most impacted by the pandemic.

7. Make decisions about teachers that support pedagogical quality and equity. Teachers are the most important school resources . While Congress should provide funding to ensure that teachers can remain employed, we have to be ready if those funds fall short. Districts should make every effort to retain certified teachers in special education and English-language learning. Bilingual teachers are especially important with at-home learning because many parents don’t speak English, and yet those parents are responsible for their children’s education.

None of these ideas is new. These are best practices, even under normal conditions, and they take on increasing urgency today. The pandemic has drastically altered the modes through which we must educate our children and deepened the inequities that have long plagued K-12 education in the United States. These recommendations are intended to help educators and policymakers focus their energies on the steps we can take to make sure we provide our students with the best education—for all that education means—in the midst of the chaos swirling around them.

Of course, education research can never be the only guide to educational practice. But it can provide a useful map and a valuable compass to direct how we educate students in the coming year.

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

Adams J, Bateman B, Becker F, et al. Effectiveness and acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing uptake of vaccinations in preschool children: systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Nov. (Health Technology Assessment, No. 19.94.)

Effectiveness and acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing uptake of vaccinations in preschool children: systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment.

Chapter 7 recommendations for future research.

Recommendations for future research have been considered in the discussion sections of Chapters 3 – 5 and are summarised here for ease of reference. We have attempted to place these in priority order.

• Further evidence is required on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of parental financial incentive and quasi-mandatory interventions for encouraging the uptake of preschool vaccinations. As such, interventions are likely to be implemented on a large scale; evaluation strategies such as natural experiments and step-wedge designs may be most useful in generating such evidence. 82
• Further evidence is required on the most effective and cost-effective configuration of any parental financial incentive and quasi-mandatory interventions for encouraging the uptake of preschool vaccinations. Intervention development work, taking account of existing behaviour-change theory, may be useful to maximise the potential effectiveness of incentive interventions. This should involve further consideration of the effective component, or components, of financial incentive interventions.
• Further consideration of reasons for non-vaccination should be incorporated into new interventions for promoting the uptake of preschool vaccinations. Parental financial incentive and quasi-mandatory interventions for encouraging uptake of preschool vaccinations may not adequately address the reasons for non-vaccination in high-income countries that tend to achieve overall high coverage of preschool vaccinations.
• Further consideration of how a quasi-mandatory intervention for encouraging the uptake of preschool vaccinations could be designed and implemented is required. Particular issues requiring further consideration include data sharing of vaccination status between health-care providers and schools, responsibilities of different sectors and staff, and how provision would be made for legitimate opt-out.
• If high-quality evidence of effectiveness of parental financial incentive and quasi-mandatory interventions for encouraging uptake of preschool vaccinations is generated, further evidence is required on how to effectively communicate this information to all stakeholders. As acceptability is linked to perceived effectiveness, further evidence on the impact of well-communicated effectiveness evidence on perceived acceptability is also required.
• The factors that may increase acceptance of mandatory schemes warrant further research, and additional DCEs could be conducted to explore parental preferences on how a mandate for vaccination might be imposed.
• Further consideration may be required of how existing systems and resources for encouraging the uptake of preschool vaccinations can be optimised. In particular, further evidence may be required on how to provide accessible information and education, and how to deliver accessible vaccination services. However, although these issues were raised in the present work, we did not conduct a systematic review on these topics and, as such, cannot make definitive recommendations for future research.
• Research engaging parents in an iterative codesign process to design optimally acceptable and usable information that conveys robust and balanced data on the consequences of disease and the benefits and risks of vaccinations is required.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License .

• Cite this Page Adams J, Bateman B, Becker F, et al. Effectiveness and acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing uptake of vaccinations in preschool children: systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Nov. (Health Technology Assessment, No. 19.94.) Chapter 7, Recommendations for future research.
• PDF version of this title (21M)

Other titles in this collection

• Health Technology Assessment

Recent Activity

• Recommendations for future research - Effectiveness and acceptability of parenta... Recommendations for future research - Effectiveness and acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing uptake of vaccinations in preschool children: systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers