research environment definition in thesis

A Guide to Responsible Research pp 1–17 Cite as

Research Environment

• Lana Barać   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0170-5972 3  
• Open Access
• First Online: 28 March 2023

3314 Accesses

Part of the book series: Collaborative Bioethics ((CB,volume 1))

Successful research environment requires joint effort by individual researchers, research groups and the organization. This chapter describes the basic principles and good research practices in the context of the research environment and serves as a guide to good, responsible research for research newcomers – researchers at the beginning of their scientific career. In this chapter we will help you navigate the organizational pathway to doing good research. The first step to understanding your rights, obligations and responsibilities in research is knowing that they exist. This chapter offers an introductory level orientation to codes, rules and regulations but also serves as a guide on how to identify whether your organization goes above and beyond offering guidance and assistance regarding research integrity or whether it provides a bare minimum or even nothing at all, and who/what you can turn to in the latter case. Furthermore, this chapter also describes the responsibilities that you as a researcher have towards the organisation regarding the importance of maintaining research integrity, so that you are aware of your accountability and the possible consequences if you disregard organizational responsibility for responsible research.

• Research climate
• Research culture
• Research ethics structures
• Research integrity structures

Download chapter PDF

What This Chapter Is About

Successful research environment requires joint effort by individual researchers, research groups and the organization. This chapter describes the basic principles and good research practices in the context of research environment and serves as a guide to good, responsible research for research newcomers – researchers at the beginning of their scientific career. In this chapter we will help you navigate the organizational pathway to doing good research. The first step to understanding your rights, obligations and responsibilities in research is knowing that they exist. This chapter offers an introductory level orientation to codes, rules and regulations but also serves as a guide on how to identify whether your organization goes above and beyond offering guidance and assistance regarding research integrity or whether it provides a bare minimum or even nothing at all, and who/what you can turn to in the latter case. Furthermore, this chapter also describes the responsibilities that you as a researcher have towards the organisation regarding the importance of maintaining research integrity, so that you are aware of your accountability and the possible consequences if you disregard organizational responsibility for responsible research.

Case Scenario: Research Environment and Research Integrity

This hypothetical scenario was adapted from a narrative concerning the links between research environments and research integrity. The case scenario was developed by the Members of The Embassy of Good Science and is available at the Embassy of Good Science . The case below is published under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, version 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0).

After 6 months of working as a novice researcher in a research lab at a university school, you meet up with a colleague who graduated with you and is now working as a novice researcher in a commercial research organization. She tells you that she may have encountered a potential research misconduct concerning intellectual property. She knew what she had to do because the company is very committed to making sure all employees are fully informed about all existing rules and regulations. Her action prevented the misconduct. That conversation made you think that you were never been briefed or informed in detail about rules and regulations regarding research when you signed your employment contract with your organization. You heard your mentor casually mention “standard rules of conduct in research,” expecting you to know what they are. The day after your meeting with your colleague, you check your school’s webpages for information on research integrity. Although there is no explicit mention of research integrity, your University’s website refers to its own code of conduct as well as the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Furthermore, a university-wide academic integrity complaints procedure and a research integrity committee are mentioned but details of which, however, cannot be found on the university’s public webpages. After talking to your fellow novice researchers, you realize that they too are uncertain about whether your school has written guidelines for research integrity. You also realize that they feel pressurized to generate more and more research outputs and that insecurity, linked to short-term contracts and scarce opportunities for professional advancement, means that they perceive the incentives to succeed in research and academia as outweighing the incentives to comply with the norms of good research practices. They not only feel that your school does not adequately promote research integrity but that that pressure comes within the organization, also as a result of the culture of “ publish or perish ” After talking to them you realise that there is more to this problem than just ignorance or integrity issues with individual novice researchers and that their views could indicate an environmental problem in academia.

Questions for You

In light of this case scenario, what do you think which person(s) or groups should be responsible for the early-career researchers’ general lack of knowledge concerning the university’s research integrity guidelines, codes of conduct and complaints procedures? What are the reasons for your answer?

In what ways could a research organization make its research integrity standards, guidelines and processes more visible to its researchers, especially early-career researchers? What initiatives should be promoted in a research organization in order to engage early-career researchers with research integrity standards, guidelines and processes?

Thinking about the ways in which your organization currently engages early-career researchers with research integrity standards, guidelines and processes, what could be done to improve such engagement at the level of your organization and the level of your department or laboratory?

The Responsibilities of the Organization: Above and Beyond, or the Bare Minimum?

Good research practice from the european code of conduct for research integrity:.

Research institutions and organisations promote awareness and ensure a prevailing culture of research integrity .

When starting at a new job in a new research organization you have to understand that an organization is a living organism – a system with organized structure that functions as an individual entity and is, as all organisms are, prone to constant change. One change that has been having a huge momentum in Europe in recent years is the initiative to encourage activities that show commitment of organizations to make research integrity (RI) and responsible research in general as a top priority. Empowering sound and verifiable research and fostering a research integrity culture, thus creating a proper research environment, is now empowered by embedding these principles as requirements in EU funding schemes. As research environment is a dimension that needs to be considered by all involved stakeholders, activities conducted in order to foster good research practices and a culture of research integrity will impact researchers at all levels.

When we talk about organization as a system, the terms organizational climate and organizational culture are sometimes used interchangeably or considered as complementary constructs. The two terms are different. Organizational climate is usually defined as shared perceptions of policies, practices and procedures experienced by the employees, as well as the behaviours the employees perceive as rewarding. It is considered to be the measurable manifestation of organizational culture , which is defined as the system of basic assumptions, deep values and beliefs that are prevalent in the organization. Organizational culture is something that has to be built, maintained and nurtured by supportive environment.

As a part of organizational culture, research integrity has become an integral part of a university’s mission, vision and strategy. For example; universities in France will, in the near future, in what seems to be the first national initiative of its kind, go as far as requiring Ph.D. recipients to take an integrity oath on the day they successfully defend their thesis. Research integrity is also dependent on human factors – collegiality, openness, reflection, shared responsibility and work satisfaction are vital elements of a successful working environment. As a novice researcher, you should try, from the very beginning of your career, to comply with the highest standards of ethics and integrity in the performance of your research.

How can you figure out the ethical landscape at the very start of your career? The first step to understanding your rights, obligations and responsibilities is knowing that they exist .

Rules, codes and regulations can be created by the organization itself but also by national or international bodies. They can have different names and vary in scope, but they are always a written set of instructions issued by an organization. Depending on the scope of action, codes can cover issues prescribed by legal regulations such as: human subject’s protection, animal care, intellectual property and confidentiality, legality and mechanisms to identify and procedure for reporting and dealing with research misconduct. Other than binding legal issues, codes can also cover fundamental principles of research which serve organisations in creating and preserving an environment for responsible research. Fundamental principles presented by the most widely recognized and accepted documents – European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (All European Academies 2017) and Fostering Integrity in Research (US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017), might not be identical in the naming of the principles but the meaning of the principles in RI perspective is similar (Table 1.1 ).

Not all research or academic organizations are as big or as well developed to have the resources to promptly and adequately inform you about all rules and obligations regarding research. That does not mean you are not required to follow them or that your rights are not protected by them. Organizational guides and codes should be easily accessible on the organization’s webpages and/or intranet. You should be provided with adequate training, tailored to the research discipline and the type of organization, and briefed about standard rules of conduct in research. Bear in mind that the organizational support structure is usually proportional to the size and complexity of the organization. Apart from having binding documents about responsible research, your organization should have established channels to facilitate an open dialogue at and between all levels; from management and senior researchers to novice researchers and other members of staff. Ideally, your organization should, apart from the standard rules and regulations, develop and implement a research integrity promotion plan (RIPP). This is a document that describes, on a general level, how the organization promotes research integrity and which concrete methods are employed or are being developed to foster research integrity and to deal with allegations of breaches of research integrity. Procedures to increase transparency of research investigation procedure and safe and effective whistle-blowing channels and the protection of alleged perpetrators should also be implemented in line with the legal principle of the presumption of innocence – someone accused of research misconduct is considered innocent until proven guilty.

When navigating the research environment, it is always advisable to consider the human factor. Some organizations are very organized. Some are not. Even though an organization may be committed to following the prescribed rules, do not expect to be given a clear and user-friendly version of these rules upon arrival. Some organizations have rules and regulations because they had to comply with national or international regulations. Other organizations have them because the management is devoted to actively promoting responsible research. Some organizations are understaffed, so the lack of organizational documents may not necessarily reflect the moral of the organization. In brief, even if your organization does not have instructions for the new employees written on a (virtual) bulletin board, that does not mean that they do not exist, so no matter whether you were briefed or not these rules apply to you and you should be governed by those rules.

Here is some advice for you on how to navigate responsible research environment in your organization:

Always get familiar with existing laws, codes and regulations in the organization and country where you work. If you are a member of a professional organization or if you are professionally bound to the code of ethics of your profession, check whether the professional code is aligned with that of your organisation. Some organizations may provide a checklist with sources and links to different guidelines and rules of procedure for good research practice available online. Do not forget to get familiar with international principles and EU standards such as The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity , principles prescribed for different professions (e.g., The Declaration of Helsinki or Convention on Biological Diversity ) and national guidelines, but first and foremost to the documents and guidance provided by your organization.

Consider that different views of research ethics around the world reflect differences in culture and legal frameworks, which can lead to differences in regulations. For example, the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has a very expansive definition of personal information that may warrant protection, whereas in the United States (US), there is a narrower (and often domain-specific) characterization of privacy-sensitive information. Even within the EU, there are differences among EU member countries – the examples are different laws on stem-cell research and human embryos. Differences in regulations unfortunately may lead to ethics dumping – the practice of researchers trained in cultures with rigorous ethical standards to go and conduct research in countries with laxer ethical rules and oversight, in order to circumvent the regulations, policies, or processes that exist in their home countries.

Keep in mind that codes and regulations change and can evolve. For example, The Nuremberg Code; which is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation was created by the US vs. Brandt et al. court case, as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the World War 2. The core elements of the Nuremberg Code are the requirements for voluntary and informed consent, a favourable risk/benefit analysis, and the right to withdraw from a study without consequences. That standard was confirmed in 1964, when the WMA’s Declaration of Helsinki was endorsed and again specified that experiments involving human beings needed the informed consent of participants. The Declaration of Helsinki has been updated overe the years, so make sure that you consult its latest version. Another example is the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study , funded by the US Public Health Service. The study was conducted between 1932 and 1972 at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama to evaluate the natural history of untreated syphilis in African American males. The study was conducted for 40 years without ethical review and denied participants the effective treatment for this curable disease. The study became a milestone in the history of US research regulations, as it was conducted without ethical re-evaluation in spite of both The Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki being accepted and established as a standard during the study. The aftermath of the public disclosure of the Tuskegee study led to the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research and the National Research Act that requires the establishment of institutional review boards (IRBs) at institutions receiving federal support.

Codes and regulations can also change due to scientific advancements that lead to new fields of research (e.g., the emergence of experimental psychology) or new technologies (e.g., gene editing, artificial intelligence). The changes can also come in response to changes in cultural values and behavioural norms that evolve over time (e.g., perceptions of privacy and confidentiality).

Consider emerging ethics topics , even if they are not listed or mentioned in current codes of your organization, such as bystander risk (impacts of research on other people; e.g. genetic testing and genetic research, second-hand exposure to a contagious disease) big data and open science (concerns about the potential to compromise privacy), and citizen science (involving community participation in science, allowing the research population to become researchers).

Research institutions and organisations demonstrate leadership in providing clear policies and procedures on good research practice and the transparent and proper handling of violations.

Knowing, understanding and using existing codes and regulations for good research is important and useful, but there may be times when you are in doubt about how what is written in a code translates into real life. Therefore, it is important to learn how to interpret, assess, and apply different research rules and how to make decisions to act ethically and responsibly in different situations or at least know who to turn to when in doubt . To put it simply: pure existence of the codes does not make an ethical environment. Or, in words of Aristotle: “One swallow does not a summer make.”

If codes, rules and regulations are the foundation of research integrity culture, building strong pillars to rest upon, establishing research ethics structures is the next crucial step for organizations to ensure proper research environment.

Different organizations may have different supportive mechanisms to ensure that researchers adhere to research ethics and integrity requirements. Depending on the size and the type of the organization, key organizational bodies and staff dealing with research ethics and integrity might quite vary in name and scope of work. It is important to understand that, depending on type of research organisation, you may encounter organisational bodies (or individuals) with various scope of activities regarding research ethics and integrity. This may seem confusing at first, as the concepts of ethics and integrity may seem intertwined and actually, for the most part, they are. Research ethics (RE) is the term that encompassed fundamental moral principles and research integrity (RI) is the quality of having moral principles, defined as active adherence to the ethical principles and professional standards essential for the responsible practice of research. Both of them are a necessary part of responsible conduct of research.

Ideally, your organisation will have all necessary structures, processes, and dedicated and adequately trained staff to uphold best research practices and standards, and deal with procedures relevant to the various research areas and disciplines within the organisation. Listed below are some of the common research ethics and integrity bodies (names might vary). If there is only one of these at your organisation, the scope of their responsibilities is probably wider and you can still contact them regarding any doubt and insecurity you might have about responsible research.

Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board is probably the most common body at academic and research organizations, because it has the longest history. Research Ethics Committees were developed after the World War 2, particularly in response to The Nuremberg Trials, as bodies responsible for oversight of medical or human research studies. The role of an Ethics Committee is to scrutinise research proposals and ensure that the proposed research adequately addressed all relevant ethics issues. This means that they make sure that proposed research protocols protect rights, safety, dignity and well-being of participants, that research protocols involving animals follow the highest animal care standards and that they facilitate and promote ethical research that is of potential benefit to participants, science and society. In smaller organisations that do not necessarily have other bodies, the role of the Ethics Committee would also be to facilitate and promote research integrity and good research practices, to have mechanisms to identify and procedure for reporting and dealing with allegations of breaches of research integrity (research misconduct).

Board/Office/ Commission for Research Integrity is a body that promotes responsible research conduct, serves as a knowledge base for questions regarding research integrity and research misconduct, informs on policies and procedures in and outside of the organization, handles allegations of research misconduct and conducts investigations, advises on administrative action and also responds to allegations of retaliation against whistle-blowers. It is responsible for providing advice for researchers on how to adhere to responsible research practices, usually through guidelines, checklists and other documents in which good research practices are presented. The organisational structures of RI committees and their responsibilities regarding cases of research misconduct may vary depending on the organisational or national regulations. For example, the Office for Research Integrity in the US is a governmental body that has monitoring and oversight role to ensure that researchers and organisations which receive federal funding for health research comply with existing regulations; it offers support to further good practice research and promote integrity and high ethical standards, as well as to have robust and fair methods to address poor research practices and misconduct.

Another individual position you may encounter at your organisation is the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) , a professional with a complex role. An organisation’s RIO promotes responsible research, conducts research training, discourages research misconduct, and deals with allegations of or evidence of possible research misconduct. The details of an RIO’s job vary from country to country, but the position is mandatory in many. For example, in US organisations, a RIO serves as the liaison between the federal Office for Research Integrity and the organisation of the researchers. In the EU, countries have different requirements and roles for their RIOs, but their task is essentially the same. Some countries do not have such bodies, and their role is most often taken by Ethics Committees.

Your organisation may have a Research Integrity Ombudsperson or Confidential Advisor on Scientific Integrity or Research Integrity Advisor . The aim of such an advisor is to promote fair, non-discriminatory and equitable treatment related to research integrity within the organisation and improve the overall quality of the research working environment. Such a position should be well known in the organisation, and there should be a low threshold for contacting this person. Researchers who experience research integrity dilemmas or have come into an integrity-related conflict should be able to discuss their case with the ombudsperson in a strictly confidential manner. The function of the ombudsperson should be clearly separated from a formal research integrity committee or ethics committee, so that it is clear to researchers that contacting the ombudsperson does not imply a formal registration of an allegation but a confidential and informal assistance in resolving research work-related conflicts, disputes and grievances (including, but not limited to complaints/appeals of researchers regarding conflicts between supervisor(s) and early-stage researchers).

Research institutions and organisations support proper infrastructure for the management and protection of data and research materials in all their forms (encompassing qualitative and quantitative data, protocols, processes, other research artefacts and associated metadata) that are necessary for reproducibility, traceability and accountability.

Even as an early-career researcher you probably realise that, while doing research, dealing with a fair amount of different types of data is inevitable. Ten years ago the Science journal polled their peer reviewers from the previous year on the availability and use of research data, and, about half of those polled stored their data only in their laboratories. If you had walked in any type of research organisation 10 years ago you would have had probably been briefed about keeping your lab notebook records and advised about keeping your data somewhere other than your lab desktop computer. Today, when we talk about data management, we go well beyond keeping your lab or research notebook in order. While maintaining a lab notebook is still essential for anybody performing research as a document of completed work so that research can be replicated and validated; or a legal document to prove intellectual property/invention, data management on an organisational level entails much more . It comprises the infrastructure (technology, services and staff support), training for researchers, and policies on data management (DMPs). Therefore, you should expect from your organisation to provide instructions and policies regarding data curation (repositories), management, use, access, publishing, and sharing. Regarding the technology for data management, your organisation should provide appropriate storage media that enables collecting, organizing, protecting, storing, and sharing data. It should also inform you about available data repositories, networks and different authentication systems. Research organisations should make DMPs easily accessible and organisations’ websites should provide extensive information about the concept of data sharing in general, as well as detailed information on DMP requirements and how to comply with them. Services and staff support for data management are highly dependent on the amount of funding and size of an organisation because the amount of work and time involved in these processes is extensive and costly. Some organisations have whole departments and others at best a single person for data management.

In 2019, Science Europe released its Practical Guide to the International Alignment of Research Data Management , and, as a follow-up, compiled the document to showcase some best practices. The document also demonstrated the variability of data management processes in different organisations. Although the readiness to develop DMPs can differ according to discipline, most research funders require researchers to include a DMP in their project proposals. You should expect from your organisation to have in place the structures and procedures to facilitate data management and curation procedures that are aligned with FAIR principles, which say that data should be F indable, A ccessible, I nteroperable, and R eusable. Bear in mind that researchers’ knowledge about research data management could be limited in countries and organisations where open science policies are not well developed. This leads to misunderstandings about the need to store and archive data. For detailed guidance on data practices and management throughout the lifecycle of research data and instructions to preparation of data management plans (DMPs) see Chap. 5 .

Research institutions and organisations reward open and reproducible practices in hiring and promotion of researchers.

No matter whether you have been in research for some time or you are a novice researcher, you have probably heard the catchphrase “ publish or perish !” because it has been uttered in whisper by stressed and burned-out researchers all over the world for years, putting pressures on individual integrity and potentially fostering practices harmful to scientific research. Publish or perish culture thrives on metrics (number of articles published and impact factors of journals) but fails to adequately take societal and broader impact into account . Some aspects of research are indeed quantifiable and cannot be and will not be ignored, but recent efforts towards more inclusive evaluation scheme of research and researchers could be a “game-changer”, meaning that yes, you are still required to publish, but the scientific efforts that translate better to a broader community will not be ignored.

When it comes to hiring and promotion in research, the need for transparency should be self-explanatory, but what does promoting open practices mean in reality? Geographically speaking, Europe might be ahead of the curve in endorsing and implementing changes as the new framework programme Horizon Europe makes Open Science mandatory throughout the programme and includes Open Innovation as one of three framework pillars. What does this mean for you? Although the attitude and the level of commitment of the organisation toward endorsing open science principles could vary and very much depend on the human factor, there is no reason for you not to be aware of the change to come and strive to fulfil the general idea of quality . Producing quality science would imply producing substantive, impactful science , science that reaches broader audience and addresses valuable questions, but is also reliable enough to build upon. This mean that evaluation and appraisal procedures may assess a researcher’s contribution to addressing societal needs and publishing all research completely and transparently, regardless of whether the results were positive or negative. This would also imply implementing open research practices and embedding these skills in training of early-career researchers, making preliminary results and final results available to the general public, potential users and the research community, in order to facilitate broader assessment and accountability of research.

There are also indications that the EU is moving towards a structured CV which would include Responsible Indicators for Assessing Scientists (RIAS), and other related information. For example; the department of psychology at LMU München added a paragraph to a professorship job advertisement which asks for an open science statement from the candidates: “Our department embraces the values of open science and strives for replicable and reproducible research. For this goal we support transparent research with open data, open material, and pre-registrations. Candidates are asked to describe in what way they already pursued and plan to pursue these goals.” Another example is University of Liège , where depositing papers in the repository is now the sole mechanism for submitting them to be considered when researchers underwent performance review.

Check whether your organisation has procedures related to the publication and communication of research results, such as preregistration, preprints, and online repositories, the organisational approach to open access, FAIR data curation, expectations about the use of reporting guidelines, procedures for avoiding predatory journals, strategies for responsible peer review practices, and mechanisms to support and acknowledge public communication of research findings. Also, check whether your organisation is ahead of the curve in promoting Open Science (Fig. 1.1 ) check for procedures and practices through the organisation’s own website or other established platforms on organisational or national level, check whether your organisation has signed any declaration relevant to Open Science .

Core principles of Open Science. For details, see the FOSTER project

The Responsibilities of the Researcher

Ask not what your organisation can do for you – ask what you can do for your organisation.

While The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC RI) provides general guidance for good research practices and serves as a framework for self-regulation, the document that details your role, responsibilities and entitlements as a researcher is The European Charter for Researchers . The Charter is a set of general principles and requirements that addresses all researchers in the European Union at all stages of their career, covers all fields of research and takes into account the multiple roles that researchers can have.

Being a researcher is highly related to context and not defined only by job positions, formal qualifications level of education or by seniority at work. According to The Frascati definition ; Researchers are professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge . They conduct research and improve or develop concepts, theories, models, techniques instrumentation, software or operational methods. The tasks performed depend on job characteristics and personal strengths but have to be related to research and innovation. Activities of a researcher are many, but first and foremost entail: conducting and evaluating research and innovation, applying for research funding, managing projects and teams, managing, sharing and transferring the generated knowledge (including through scholarly communication, science communication to society, knowledge management for policy, and knowledge transfer to industry) and higher education teaching.

As an early-career researcher, you should keep in mind that everything you do reflects upon your organisation . So be sure to comply with the highest values and ethical standards and aim at excellence. Even as a novice researcher, at a beginning of your career be aware that your organisation will treat you as a responsible adult and will hold you accountable . Also, depending on the applicable rules, your organisation might be held accountable for your wrongdoing, so, even if you are there for a brief amount of time (post-doctoral or project-based position) remember that you are a part of the research environment and are expected to contribute to a positive, fair and stimulating research culture.

Science is by definition a joint endeavour and you should learn to accept responsibility because that is what being accountable entails. Accountability refers to an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility for one’s actions, meaning that, when individuals are accountable, they understand and accept the consequences of their actions for the areas in which they assume responsibility. Remember that you, as an employee, have contractual and legal obligations. That basically means that you are liable in case of breach of contract and you have to adhere to such regulations by delivering the required results (e.g. thesis, publications, patents, reports, new products development, etc), as set out in the terms and conditions of the contract or equivalent document. You should be familiar with the strategic goals, seek all necessary approvals before starting your research or accessing the resources provided. You should, at all times, keep a professional attitude . This included maintaining a professional etiquette at workplace – respectful and courteous demeanour towards colleagues and respect in the sense of responsibilities (e.g. informing your supervisor if you are not able to meet deadlines).

As a researcher, you should, first and foremost, focus your research for the good of mankind and for expanding the frontiers of scientific knowledge. You should be guaranteed the freedom of thought and expression , and the freedom to identify methods by which problems are solved, according to recognized ethical principles and practices. But, bear in mind that there is a difference between using research freedom and abusing it. You should, by all means, recognize the limitations to this freedom that could arise as a result of particular research circumstances or operational constraints (e.g. for budgetary or infrastructural reasons or, especially in the industrial sector, for reasons of intellectual property protection). Such limitations should not contravene recognized ethical principles and practices in research. When it comes to ethical principles , you should adhere to the recognized ethical practices and fundamental ethical principles appropriate to your discipline, as well as to ethical standards defined in different national, sectoral or organisational codes of ethics. It is highly recommended to conduct ethics self-assessment at the very beginning of planning your research. Ethics self-assessment helps getting your research protocol ethics-ready , as it may give rise to binding obligations that may later on be checked through ethics checks and reviews. Consider that ethics issues arise in many areas of research and, as of recently, major scientific journals require researchers to provide ethics committee approval before publishing research articles. You should also adopt safe working practices, in line with national legislation, including taking the necessary precautions by preparing proper back-up strategies.

As we mentioned before, Open Science practices should be the norm, especially when performing publicly funded research, as they improve the quality, efficiency, responsiveness of research and trust in science. You should guarantee open access to research publications and research data and foster innovation in sharing research knowledge as early as possible in the research process, through adequate infrastructures and tools. You should ensure, in compliance with your contractual arrangements, that the results of your research are disseminated and exploited. Be public and open about your research . There are, of course, legitimate reasons to restrict access to certain data sets (for instance in order to protect the privacy of research subjects) so be guided by the principle “ As open as possible, as closed as necessary” . Ensure that your research activities are made known to society at large in such a way that they can be understood by non-specialists, thereby improving public understanding of science. Direct engagement with the public will help researchers better understand public interest in priorities for science and technology and also their concerns.

You should seek to continually improve yourself by regularly updating and expanding your skills and competencies. This may be achieved by a variety of means including, but not restricted to, formal training, workshops, conferences and e-learning.

Do not be afraid to diversify your research career , as research community is diverse in talents and expertise and can produce a wide range of research outputs (from scholar publications to scientific advice for policy makers, science communication to the public, higher education teaching, knowledge transfer to industry, and many others). Explore different career paths within the research profession, so that your talent finds the best place to produce richer research results.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lana Barać .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia

Ana Marusic

If You Want to Learn More

The embassy of good science.

Case scenario – Research Environments and Research Integrity

Guidelines – Creating a map of the normative framework informing and governing the state of Good Science

Education – Literature and tools in research integrity and ethics

Published Articles

Ashkanasy N, Wilderom C, Peterson M (2011) The handbook of organizational culture and climate. Sage Publications, New York

Fischer BA (2006) A summary of important documents in the field of research ethics. Schizophr Bull 32(1):69–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbj005

Moher D, Naudet F, Cristea IA, Miedema F, Ioannidis JPA, Goodman SN (2018) Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biol 16(3):e2004089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089

Qiao H (2018) A brief introduction to institutional review boards in the United States. Pediatr Investig 2(1):46–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/ped4.12023

Qin J (2013) Infrastructure, standards, and policies for research data management. In: Sharing of scientific and technical resources in the era of big data: the proceedings of COINFO 2013. Science Press, Beijing, pp 214–219

Schneider B, Ehrhart MG, Macey WH (2013) Organizational climate and culture. Ann Rev Psychol 64(1):361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809

Ščepanović R, Labib K, Buljan I, Tijdink J, Marušić A (2021) Practices for research integrity promotion in research performing organisations and research funding organisations: a scoping review. Sci Eng Ethics 27(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00281-1

Science Staff (2011) Special collection. Dealing with data. Challenges and opportunities. Science 331:692–693. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.331.6018.692

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2017). Fostering integrity in research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://nap.nationalacademies.org/21896

Zohar DM, Hofmann DA (2012) Organizational culture and climate. In: Kozlowski SWJ (ed) The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology, vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 643–666

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity - framework for self-regulation across all scientific and scholarly disciplines and for all research settings. ECoC is a reference document for research integrity for all EU-funded research projects and as a model for organisations and researchers across Europe. All European Academies (ALLEA). (2017). https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/

The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement – Working with research integrity; guidance for research performing organisations

SOPs4RI Toolbox – Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines that Research Performing and Funding Organisations can use to develop their own Research Integrity Promotion Plans

LERU – The League of European Research Universities (LERU) is a prominent advocate for the promotion of basic research at European research universities comprising of League of European Research Universities 23 leading universities pushing the frontiers of innovative research

Science Europe – Implementing Research Data Management Policies Across Europe: Experiences from Science Europe Member Organisations

Ask Open Science – Hosted by Bielefeld University, discussion (Q & A) on Open Science

The LSE Impact Blog – Six principles for assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure

The European Charter for Researchers – The European Charter for Researchers is a set of general principles and requirements which specifies the roles, responsibilities and entitlements of researchers

Rights and permissions

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

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

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Barać, L. (2023). Research Environment. In: Marusic, A. (eds) A Guide to Responsible Research. Collaborative Bioethics, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22412-6_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22412-6_1

Published : 28 March 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-22411-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-22412-6

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (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

• Undergraduate study
• Find a course
• Open days and visits
• New undergraduates
• Postgraduate study
• Find a programme
• Visits and open days
• New postgraduates
• International students
• Accommodation
• Schools & faculties
• Business & partnerships
• Current students
• Current staff

Regulations and Code of Practice for Research Degree Programmes

• Summary of regulatory changes and/or additions
• Section 1 – Introduction
• Section 2 – Institutional arrangements
• Section 3 – The research environment
• Section 4 – Admission and induction of students
• Section 5 – Supervision
• Section 6 – Progress and review arrangements
• Section 7 – Development of research and other skills
• Section 8 – Student representation
• Section 9 – Assessment
• Section 10 – Student appeals and complaints
• Annex 1 – Regulations for specific doctoral degrees
• Annex 2 – Regulations for master's degrees by research
• Annex 3 – Unsatisfactory academic progress
• Annex 4 – Dissertation format
• Annex 5 – Integration of publications as chapters
• Annex 6 – Online oral examinations
• Annex 7 – Criteria for award of research degrees
• Annex 8 – Academic integrity and plagiarism
• Annex 9 – Minor errors in a dissertation
• Annex 10 – Guidance from examiners on corrections and resubmissions
• Annex 11 – Policy for research degrees by distance learning
• Annex 12 – Personal and professional development policy
• Annex 13 – Policy on placements
• Annex 14 – Policy for maternity, adoption, paternity, shared parental, and parental leave
• Annex 15 – Medical and exceptional absence policy
• Annex 16 – Supporting research students: a guide for supervisors
• Annex 17 – COVID-19 statements
• Annex 18 – Policy on PGRs who teach
• Annex 19 - Failure to complete assessment for research degrees
• Annex 20 - Summary of academic awards

Related links

• Education and Student Success
• Bristol Institute For Learning and Teaching
• QAA Quality Code

Education and Student Success intranet

University home > Academic Quality and Policy Office > Postgraduate Education > Regulations and Code of Practice for Research Degree Programmes > Section 3 – The research environment

Section 3 - The research environment

The University provides a high-quality research environment, as shown by its consistent excellent performance in successive external research audits. The University's Strategy aims to maintain and improve on this longstanding success through a variety of actions.

The research environments in the faculties are designed to support the needs of the cognate disciplines within each faculty. The way in which research in different subjects is conducted therefore influences the organisation of research activities, the support for research students and the management of research degree programmes.

The University is part of many cross-institutional research collaborations and research students are encouraged, where appropriate, to contribute to collaborative research in order to develop the skills required for involvement in research of international excellence. 

There is a range of externally funded initiatives that provide doctoral training in the postgraduate research environment. These initiatives are often cross-institutional in nature and may contain research degree programmes that combine a structured taught component with the research project. There are a number of different models, which are grouped under the general term ‘doctoral training entities’, including: 

• A Centre for Doctoral Training (CDT) provides training for cohorts of research students within focused research areas, often defined strategically by the UK Research Council funder(s) and concentrated on academic and/or industrially relevant research topics. 
• A Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP) provides training for cohorts of research students across a broad range of subjects as determined by the research institution(s). 
• An Industrial Doctoral Centre (IDC) provides training for cohorts of research students and incorporates a strong industrial focus. 

In addition, Innovative Training Network (ITN) is an umbrella term for a group of European Council funded collaborative programmes, based on a multi-organisational and international model of training that facilitates mobility of PhD researchers who are classified as Early Stage Researchers (ESRs). ESRs are registered as both PhD students and employees of their home university. These programmes often offer dual/joint awards.

University of Bristol Beacon House Queens Road Bristol, BS8 1QU, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 928 9000 Contact us

Information for

• New students

Connect with us

Study at bristol.

• Students' Union
• Sport, exercise and health
• Find a researcher
• Faculty research
• Impact of our research
• Research quality and assessment
• Engaging with the public

About the University

• Maps and travel
• Tours and visits
• The University on film
• Explore the city of Bristol
• Board of Trustees

Support the University

• Alumni and friends
• Working at Bristol
• Job listings

A–Z of the University

• Terms and conditions
• Accessibility statements
• Privacy and cookie policy
• Modern Slavery statement
• © 2024 University of Bristol

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

What is a thesis | A Complete Guide with Examples

Table of Contents

A thesis is a comprehensive academic paper based on your original research that presents new findings, arguments, and ideas of your study. It’s typically submitted at the end of your master’s degree or as a capstone of your bachelor’s degree.

However, writing a thesis can be laborious, especially for beginners. From the initial challenge of pinpointing a compelling research topic to organizing and presenting findings, the process is filled with potential pitfalls.

Therefore, to help you, this guide talks about what is a thesis. Additionally, it offers revelations and methodologies to transform it from an overwhelming task to a manageable and rewarding academic milestone.

What is a thesis?

A thesis is an in-depth research study that identifies a particular topic of inquiry and presents a clear argument or perspective about that topic using evidence and logic.

Writing a thesis showcases your ability of critical thinking, gathering evidence, and making a compelling argument. Integral to these competencies is thorough research, which not only fortifies your propositions but also confers credibility to your entire study.

Furthermore, there's another phenomenon you might often confuse with the thesis: the ' working thesis .' However, they aren't similar and shouldn't be used interchangeably.

A working thesis, often referred to as a preliminary or tentative thesis, is an initial version of your thesis statement. It serves as a draft or a starting point that guides your research in its early stages.

As you research more and gather more evidence, your initial thesis (aka working thesis) might change. It's like a starting point that can be adjusted as you learn more. It's normal for your main topic to change a few times before you finalize it.

While a thesis identifies and provides an overarching argument, the key to clearly communicating the central point of that argument lies in writing a strong thesis statement.

What is a thesis statement?

A strong thesis statement (aka thesis sentence) is a concise summary of the main argument or claim of the paper. It serves as a critical anchor in any academic work, succinctly encapsulating the primary argument or main idea of the entire paper.

Typically found within the introductory section, a strong thesis statement acts as a roadmap of your thesis, directing readers through your arguments and findings. By delineating the core focus of your investigation, it offers readers an immediate understanding of the context and the gravity of your study.

Furthermore, an effectively crafted thesis statement can set forth the boundaries of your research, helping readers anticipate the specific areas of inquiry you are addressing.

Different types of thesis statements

A good thesis statement is clear, specific, and arguable. Therefore, it is necessary for you to choose the right type of thesis statement for your academic papers.

Thesis statements can be classified based on their purpose and structure. Here are the primary types of thesis statements:

Argumentative (or Persuasive) thesis statement

Purpose : To convince the reader of a particular stance or point of view by presenting evidence and formulating a compelling argument.

Example : Reducing plastic use in daily life is essential for environmental health.

Analytical thesis statement

Purpose : To break down an idea or issue into its components and evaluate it.

Example : By examining the long-term effects, social implications, and economic impact of climate change, it becomes evident that immediate global action is necessary.

Expository (or Descriptive) thesis statement

Purpose : To explain a topic or subject to the reader.

Example : The Great Depression, spanning the 1930s, was a severe worldwide economic downturn triggered by a stock market crash, bank failures, and reduced consumer spending.

Cause and effect thesis statement

Purpose : To demonstrate a cause and its resulting effect.

Example : Overuse of smartphones can lead to impaired sleep patterns, reduced face-to-face social interactions, and increased levels of anxiety.

Compare and contrast thesis statement

Purpose : To highlight similarities and differences between two subjects.

Example : "While both novels '1984' and 'Brave New World' delve into dystopian futures, they differ in their portrayal of individual freedom, societal control, and the role of technology."

When you write a thesis statement , it's important to ensure clarity and precision, so the reader immediately understands the central focus of your work.

What is the difference between a thesis and a thesis statement?

While both terms are frequently used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings.

A thesis refers to the entire research document, encompassing all its chapters and sections. In contrast, a thesis statement is a brief assertion that encapsulates the central argument of the research.

Here’s an in-depth differentiation table of a thesis and a thesis statement.

Now, to craft a compelling thesis, it's crucial to adhere to a specific structure. Let’s break down these essential components that make up a thesis structure

15 components of a thesis structure

Navigating a thesis can be daunting. However, understanding its structure can make the process more manageable.

Here are the key components or different sections of a thesis structure:

Your thesis begins with the title page. It's not just a formality but the gateway to your research.

Here, you'll prominently display the necessary information about you (the author) and your institutional details.

• Title of your thesis
• Your full name
• Your department
• Your institution and degree program
• Your submission date
• Your Supervisor's name (in some cases)
• Your Department or faculty (in some cases)
• Your University's logo (in some cases)
• Your Student ID (in some cases)

In a concise manner, you'll have to summarize the critical aspects of your research in typically no more than 200-300 words.

This includes the problem statement, methodology, key findings, and conclusions. For many, the abstract will determine if they delve deeper into your work, so ensure it's clear and compelling.

Acknowledgments

Research is rarely a solitary endeavor. In the acknowledgments section, you have the chance to express gratitude to those who've supported your journey.

This might include advisors, peers, institutions, or even personal sources of inspiration and support. It's a personal touch, reflecting the humanity behind the academic rigor.

Table of contents

A roadmap for your readers, the table of contents lists the chapters, sections, and subsections of your thesis.

By providing page numbers, you allow readers to navigate your work easily, jumping to sections that pique their interest.

List of figures and tables

Research often involves data, and presenting this data visually can enhance understanding. This section provides an organized listing of all figures and tables in your thesis.

It's a visual index, ensuring that readers can quickly locate and reference your graphical data.

Introduction

Here's where you introduce your research topic, articulate the research question or objective, and outline the significance of your study.

• Present the research topic : Clearly articulate the central theme or subject of your research.
• Background information : Ground your research topic, providing any necessary context or background information your readers might need to understand the significance of your study.
• Define the scope : Clearly delineate the boundaries of your research, indicating what will and won't be covered.
• Literature review : Introduce any relevant existing research on your topic, situating your work within the broader academic conversation and highlighting where your research fits in.
• State the research Question(s) or objective(s) : Clearly articulate the primary questions or objectives your research aims to address.
• Outline the study's structure : Give a brief overview of how the subsequent sections of your work will unfold, guiding your readers through the journey ahead.

The introduction should captivate your readers, making them eager to delve deeper into your research journey.

Literature review section

Your study correlates with existing research. Therefore, in the literature review section, you'll engage in a dialogue with existing knowledge, highlighting relevant studies, theories, and findings.

It's here that you identify gaps in the current knowledge, positioning your research as a bridge to new insights.

To streamline this process, consider leveraging AI tools. For example, the SciSpace literature review tool enables you to efficiently explore and delve into research papers, simplifying your literature review journey.

Methodology

In the research methodology section, you’ll detail the tools, techniques, and processes you employed to gather and analyze data. This section will inform the readers about how you approached your research questions and ensures the reproducibility of your study.

Here's a breakdown of what it should encompass:

• Research Design : Describe the overall structure and approach of your research. Are you conducting a qualitative study with in-depth interviews? Or is it a quantitative study using statistical analysis? Perhaps it's a mixed-methods approach?
• Data Collection : Detail the methods you used to gather data. This could include surveys, experiments, observations, interviews, archival research, etc. Mention where you sourced your data, the duration of data collection, and any tools or instruments used.
• Sampling : If applicable, explain how you selected participants or data sources for your study. Discuss the size of your sample and the rationale behind choosing it.
• Data Analysis : Describe the techniques and tools you used to process and analyze the data. This could range from statistical tests in quantitative research to thematic analysis in qualitative research.
• Validity and Reliability : Address the steps you took to ensure the validity and reliability of your findings to ensure that your results are both accurate and consistent.
• Ethical Considerations : Highlight any ethical issues related to your research and the measures you took to address them, including — informed consent, confidentiality, and data storage and protection measures.

Moreover, different research questions necessitate different types of methodologies. For instance:

• Experimental methodology : Often used in sciences, this involves a controlled experiment to discern causality.
• Qualitative methodology : Employed when exploring patterns or phenomena without numerical data. Methods can include interviews, focus groups, or content analysis.
• Quantitative methodology : Concerned with measurable data and often involves statistical analysis. Surveys and structured observations are common tools here.
• Mixed methods : As the name implies, this combines both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

The Methodology section isn’t just about detailing the methods but also justifying why they were chosen. The appropriateness of the methods in addressing your research question can significantly impact the credibility of your findings.

Results (or Findings)

This section presents the outcomes of your research. It's crucial to note that the nature of your results may vary; they could be quantitative, qualitative, or a mix of both.

Quantitative results often present statistical data, showcasing measurable outcomes, and they benefit from tables, graphs, and figures to depict these data points.

Qualitative results , on the other hand, might delve into patterns, themes, or narratives derived from non-numerical data, such as interviews or observations.

Regardless of the nature of your results, clarity is essential. This section is purely about presenting the data without offering interpretations — that comes later in the discussion.

In the discussion section, the raw data transforms into valuable insights.

Start by revisiting your research question and contrast it with the findings. How do your results expand, constrict, or challenge current academic conversations?

Dive into the intricacies of the data, guiding the reader through its implications. Detail potential limitations transparently, signaling your awareness of the research's boundaries. This is where your academic voice should be resonant and confident.

Practical implications (Recommendation) section

Based on the insights derived from your research, this section provides actionable suggestions or proposed solutions.

Whether aimed at industry professionals or the general public, recommendations translate your academic findings into potential real-world actions. They help readers understand the practical implications of your work and how it can be applied to effect change or improvement in a given field.

When crafting recommendations, it's essential to ensure they're feasible and rooted in the evidence provided by your research. They shouldn't merely be aspirational but should offer a clear path forward, grounded in your findings.

The conclusion provides closure to your research narrative.

It's not merely a recap but a synthesis of your main findings and their broader implications. Reconnect with the research questions or hypotheses posited at the beginning, offering clear answers based on your findings.

Reflect on the broader contributions of your study, considering its impact on the academic community and potential real-world applications.

Lastly, the conclusion should leave your readers with a clear understanding of the value and impact of your study.

References (or Bibliography)

Every theory you've expounded upon, every data point you've cited, and every methodological precedent you've followed finds its acknowledgment here.

In references, it's crucial to ensure meticulous consistency in formatting, mirroring the specific guidelines of the chosen citation style .

Proper referencing helps to avoid plagiarism , gives credit to original ideas, and allows readers to explore topics of interest. Moreover, it situates your work within the continuum of academic knowledge.

To properly cite the sources used in the study, you can rely on online citation generator tools  to generate accurate citations!

Here’s more on how you can cite your sources.

Often, the depth of research produces a wealth of material that, while crucial, can make the core content of the thesis cumbersome. The appendix is where you mention extra information that supports your research but isn't central to the main text.

Whether it's raw datasets, detailed procedural methodologies, extended case studies, or any other ancillary material, the appendices ensure that these elements are archived for reference without breaking the main narrative's flow.

For thorough researchers and readers keen on meticulous details, the appendices provide a treasure trove of insights.

Glossary (optional)

In academics, specialized terminologies, and jargon are inevitable. However, not every reader is versed in every term.

The glossary, while optional, is a critical tool for accessibility. It's a bridge ensuring that even readers from outside the discipline can access, understand, and appreciate your work.

By defining complex terms and providing context, you're inviting a wider audience to engage with your research, enhancing its reach and impact.

Remember, while these components provide a structured framework, the essence of your thesis lies in the originality of your ideas, the rigor of your research, and the clarity of your presentation.

As you craft each section, keep your readers in mind, ensuring that your passion and dedication shine through every page.

Thesis examples

To further elucidate the concept of a thesis, here are illustrative examples from various fields:

Example 1 (History): Abolition, Africans, and Abstraction: the Influence of the ‘Noble Savage’ on British and French Antislavery Thought, 1787-1807 by Suchait Kahlon.

Example 2 (Climate Dynamics): Influence of external forcings on abrupt millennial-scale climate changes: a statistical modelling study by Takahito Mitsui · Michel Crucifix

Checklist for your thesis evaluation

Evaluating your thesis ensures that your research meets the standards of academia. Here's an elaborate checklist to guide you through this critical process.

Content and structure

• Is the thesis statement clear, concise, and debatable?
• Does the introduction provide sufficient background and context?
• Is the literature review comprehensive, relevant, and well-organized?
• Does the methodology section clearly describe and justify the research methods?
• Are the results/findings presented clearly and logically?
• Does the discussion interpret the results in light of the research question and existing literature?
• Is the conclusion summarizing the research and suggesting future directions or implications?

Clarity and coherence

• Is the writing clear and free of jargon?
• Are ideas and sections logically connected and flowing?
• Is there a clear narrative or argument throughout the thesis?

Research quality

• Is the research question significant and relevant?
• Are the research methods appropriate for the question?
• Is the sample size (if applicable) adequate?
• Are the data analysis techniques appropriate and correctly applied?
• Are potential biases or limitations addressed?

Originality and significance

• Does the thesis contribute new knowledge or insights to the field?
• Is the research grounded in existing literature while offering fresh perspectives?

Formatting and presentation

• Is the thesis formatted according to institutional guidelines?
• Are figures, tables, and charts clear, labeled, and referenced in the text?
• Is the bibliography or reference list complete and consistently formatted?
• Are appendices relevant and appropriately referenced in the main text?

Grammar and language

• Is the thesis free of grammatical and spelling errors?
• Is the language professional, consistent, and appropriate for an academic audience?
• Are quotations and paraphrased material correctly cited?

Feedback and revision

• Have you sought feedback from peers, advisors, or experts in the field?
• Have you addressed the feedback and made the necessary revisions?

Overall assessment

• Does the thesis as a whole feel cohesive and comprehensive?
• Would the thesis be understandable and valuable to someone in your field?

Ensure to use this checklist to leave no ground for doubt or missed information in your thesis.

After writing your thesis, the next step is to discuss and defend your findings verbally in front of a knowledgeable panel. You’ve to be well prepared as your professors may grade your presentation abilities.

Preparing your thesis defense

A thesis defense, also known as "defending the thesis," is the culmination of a scholar's research journey. It's the final frontier, where you’ll present their findings and face scrutiny from a panel of experts.

Typically, the defense involves a public presentation where you’ll have to outline your study, followed by a question-and-answer session with a committee of experts. This committee assesses the validity, originality, and significance of the research.

The defense serves as a rite of passage for scholars. It's an opportunity to showcase expertise, address criticisms, and refine arguments. A successful defense not only validates the research but also establishes your authority as a researcher in your field.

Here’s how you can effectively prepare for your thesis defense .

Now, having touched upon the process of defending a thesis, it's worth noting that scholarly work can take various forms, depending on academic and regional practices.

One such form, often paralleled with the thesis, is the 'dissertation.' But what differentiates the two?

Dissertation vs. Thesis

Often used interchangeably in casual discourse, they refer to distinct research projects undertaken at different levels of higher education.

To the uninitiated, understanding their meaning might be elusive. So, let's demystify these terms and delve into their core differences.

Here's a table differentiating between the two.

Wrapping up

From understanding the foundational concept of a thesis to navigating its various components, differentiating it from a dissertation, and recognizing the importance of proper citation — this guide covers it all.

As scholars and readers, understanding these nuances not only aids in academic pursuits but also fosters a deeper appreciation for the relentless quest for knowledge that drives academia.

It’s important to remember that every thesis is a testament to curiosity, dedication, and the indomitable spirit of discovery.

Good luck with your thesis writing!

Frequently Asked Questions

A thesis typically ranges between 40-80 pages, but its length can vary based on the research topic, institution guidelines, and level of study.

A PhD thesis usually spans 200-300 pages, though this can vary based on the discipline, complexity of the research, and institutional requirements.

To identify a thesis topic, consider current trends in your field, gaps in existing literature, personal interests, and discussions with advisors or mentors. Additionally, reviewing related journals and conference proceedings can provide insights into potential areas of exploration.

The conceptual framework is often situated in the literature review or theoretical framework section of a thesis. It helps set the stage by providing the context, defining key concepts, and explaining the relationships between variables.

A thesis statement should be concise, clear, and specific. It should state the main argument or point of your research. Start by pinpointing the central question or issue your research addresses, then condense that into a single statement, ensuring it reflects the essence of your paper.

You might also like

How To Write An Argumentative Essay

Beyond Google Scholar: Why SciSpace is the best alternative

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Waldo Swiegers/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Technicians conduct Covid-19 antibody neutralisation testing in a laboratory at the African Health Research Institute (AHRI) in Durban, South Africa.

Research environment: people, culture and openness

Research to solve the urgent health challenges facing everyone depends on thriving research environments that are open, engaged, equitable, ethical and efficient.

• Share with Facebook
• Share with X
• Share with LinkedIn
• Share with Email

We believe that excellent research happens in environments where people from all backgrounds are treated with respect, supported and enabled to thrive.  

Solving the planet’s most urgent health challenges requires creative and high-quality ideas, that must be open and accessible to everyone, to achieve the greatest impact and save lives more quickly. It also requires ethically sound research that is engaged with the needs of the communities it is addressing.  

We see these as fundamental and necessary changes to the way that research usually happens and they are at the heart of the positive and inclusive research cultures we want to encourage. Only when these approaches are considered can we say that the research we fund is truly for the health challenges facing everyone.

By taking a holistic view of the environmental factors that impact research outcomes, Wellcome can achieve its ambition to be an inclusive funder of research to improve health for everyone.

Hannah Hope

Open Research Lead

What we're doing  

Our work cuts across Wellcome’s funding teams, supporting them to deliver their programmes of work on discovery research , climate and health , infectious disease  and mental health . 

Our ambition is that the research we fund and the processes by which we do this are open, engaged, ethical and efficient.  

In addition to our internally focused work, we aim to contribute to the wider research ecosystem to ensure that Wellcome researchers have access to the tools and skills to maximise the impact of their work. This includes convening community events, policy work, supporting infrastructure and occasionally, offering funding for relevant activities.

What do we mean by 'research environment'?

Typically, the strength of a ‘research environment’ is judged by the excellence of the infrastructure it provides for the research taking place.

Wellcome’s definition of the research environment goes beyond this to consider the culture and behaviours that create excellent research practice. For us, this includes research that is inclusive in design and practice, ethical and engaged with relevant community stakeholders. An open and transparent research process is a tool to enable these practices and to enable the outputs of the research to have the maximum impact.

Examples of our work  

• Europe PMC (PubMed Central) – an online database offering free access to published biomedical research
• Investigating the effects of open sharing commitments
• Global Infectious Disease Ethics Collaborative (GLIDE) – a platform for identifying and analysing ethical issues in infectious disease
• Emerging Cultures – a grant for a sociological and anthropological study of emerging research cultures in Wellcome’s 4-Year PhD Programmes
• In2Research – a social mobility programme that supports people from low socio-economic backgrounds to progress to postgraduate research

How this applies to your research  

As part of our goal to become a more inclusive funder and support research that is inclusive in design and practice, we made commitments to foster positive and inclusive research cultures as part of the application criteria on most of our awards.  

As part of this, our Discovery Award applications feature elements of the Resume for Research and Innovation (R4RI) , otherwise known as the Narrative CV. This gives researchers more flexibility in how they demonstrate their diverse skills and contributions to research.  

Wellcome has a number of research policies related to open and ethical research and we recommend that researchers consult these when designing funding applications and delivering successful awards. 

Appropriate engagement with key stakeholders throughout the research lifecycle supports the production of high-quality research that is rooted within the needs of those most affected. Wellcome will consider the costs of delivering engaged research within funding applications.

Looking for research funding?

Wellcome does not have a Research Environment funding scheme, however, it is a theme within all research grant funding and may be a criterion within other procurement processes.

Dan O’Connor

Head of Research Environment

Carleigh Krubiner

Bioethics Lead

Shomari Lewis-Wilson

Senior Manager, Research Culture and Communities

If you have general enquiries or ideas related to our Research Environment work, please contact us on

[email protected]

Related content  

Diversity and inclusion: helping more ideas thrive

Let's reimagine how we work together

Open research

Research environment

ORI  Introduction  to RCR: Chapter 7. Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities

University of Michigan Mentoring Guidelines

Email Updates

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

Published on January 11, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on August 15, 2023 by Eoghan Ryan.

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . It usually comes near the end of your introduction .

Your thesis will look a bit different depending on the type of essay you’re writing. But the thesis statement should always clearly state the main idea you want to get across. Everything else in your essay should relate back to this idea.

You can write your thesis statement by following four simple steps:

• Start with a question
• Write your initial answer
• Develop your answer
• Refine your thesis statement

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is a thesis statement, placement of the thesis statement, step 1: start with a question, step 2: write your initial answer, step 3: develop your answer, step 4: refine your thesis statement, types of thesis statements, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about thesis statements.

A thesis statement summarizes the central points of your essay. It is a signpost telling the reader what the essay will argue and why.

The best thesis statements are:

• Concise: A good thesis statement is short and sweet—don’t use more words than necessary. State your point clearly and directly in one or two sentences.
• Contentious: Your thesis shouldn’t be a simple statement of fact that everyone already knows. A good thesis statement is a claim that requires further evidence or analysis to back it up.
• Coherent: Everything mentioned in your thesis statement must be supported and explained in the rest of your paper.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

The thesis statement generally appears at the end of your essay introduction or research paper introduction .

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts and among young people more generally is hotly debated. For many who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education: the internet facilitates easier access to information, exposure to different perspectives, and a flexible learning environment for both students and teachers.

You should come up with an initial thesis, sometimes called a working thesis , early in the writing process . As soon as you’ve decided on your essay topic , you need to work out what you want to say about it—a clear thesis will give your essay direction and structure.

You might already have a question in your assignment, but if not, try to come up with your own. What would you like to find out or decide about your topic?

For example, you might ask:

After some initial research, you can formulate a tentative answer to this question. At this stage it can be simple, and it should guide the research process and writing process .

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Now you need to consider why this is your answer and how you will convince your reader to agree with you. As you read more about your topic and begin writing, your answer should get more detailed.

In your essay about the internet and education, the thesis states your position and sketches out the key arguments you’ll use to support it.

The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education because it facilitates easier access to information.

In your essay about braille, the thesis statement summarizes the key historical development that you’ll explain.

The invention of braille in the 19th century transformed the lives of blind people, allowing them to participate more actively in public life.

A strong thesis statement should tell the reader:

• Why you hold this position
• What they’ll learn from your essay
• The key points of your argument or narrative

The final thesis statement doesn’t just state your position, but summarizes your overall argument or the entire topic you’re going to explain. To strengthen a weak thesis statement, it can help to consider the broader context of your topic.

These examples are more specific and show that you’ll explore your topic in depth.

Your thesis statement should match the goals of your essay, which vary depending on the type of essay you’re writing:

• In an argumentative essay , your thesis statement should take a strong position. Your aim in the essay is to convince your reader of this thesis based on evidence and logical reasoning.
• In an expository essay , you’ll aim to explain the facts of a topic or process. Your thesis statement doesn’t have to include a strong opinion in this case, but it should clearly state the central point you want to make, and mention the key elements you’ll explain.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

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

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . Everything else you write should relate to this key idea.

The thesis statement is essential in any academic essay or research paper for two main reasons:

• It gives your writing direction and focus.
• It gives the reader a concise summary of your main point.

Without a clear thesis statement, an essay can end up rambling and unfocused, leaving your reader unsure of exactly what you want to say.

Follow these four steps to come up with a thesis statement :

• Ask a question about your topic .
• Write your initial answer.
• Develop your answer by including reasons.
• Refine your answer, adding more detail and nuance.

The thesis statement should be placed at the end of your essay introduction .

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, August 15). How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 20, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/thesis-statement/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write an essay introduction | 4 steps & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, academic paragraph structure | step-by-step guide & examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Public Health
• v.103(Suppl 1); Oct 2013

Defining the Environment in Gene–Environment Research: Lessons From Social Epidemiology

J. D. Boardman, J. Daw, and J. Freese all contributed equally to the writing and preparation of the article.

In this article, we make the case that social epidemiology provides a useful framework to define the environment within gene–environment (G×E) research. We describe the environment in a multilevel, multidomain, longitudinal framework that accounts for upstream processes influencing health outcomes. We then illustrate the utility of this approach by describing how intermediate levels of social organization, such as neighborhoods or schools, are key environmental components of G×E research. We discuss different models of G×E research and encourage public health researchers to consider the value of including genetic information from their study participants. We also encourage researchers interested in G×E interplay to consider the merits of the social epidemiology model when defining the environment.

Inquiry into the complex relationships between genetic and environmental influences on behavioral traits has increased substantially in the past decade, 1,2 and this trend is particularly pronounced in health research. 3–6 A PubMed search yielded 42 articles published in 2000 that contained the expression “gene–environment interaction” in the title, abstract, or keywords, and this number increased to 704 by 2012. Although new and important findings have emerged from this body of work, there are also strong criticisms of the existing gene–environment (G×E) interaction studies from researchers across health, psychological, and social sciences. 2,7–10 There has been a weak replication record for “established” G×E interaction results, 11,12 there are concerns about statistical power for G×E associations, 8 and few researchers articulate plausible biological pathways for G×E associations. 7 Each of these factors has reduced the potential impact of many candidate G×E studies.

To date, however, there has been very little discussion about one of the key shortcomings in the existing G×E research. Specifically, there is no real consensus about the nature and scope of the environment within G×E studies. 13 Because the “E” is one half of the G×E framework, it is critical to define the environment in a manner that maximizes the contributions from both social and biological sciences and improves our understanding about the health of populations. This need for cross-disciplinary discussions is echoed in the current efforts of the National Coalition for Health Profession Education in Genetics ( http://www.nchpeg.org/bssr ). This group, with support from the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has developed a project entitled “Genetics and Social Science” with the explicit goal to “create an educational program that will improve social scientists’ genetics literacy.” This project points to a variety of collaboration opportunities within the area of G×E interplay and states that “geneticists may be less familiar with measures used to quantify the observable external environments, and can benefit from the guidance of social and behavioral researchers.” 14 The goal of this article is to address this comment by offering guidance for operationalizing and measuring the social environment in G×E studies. Consensus regarding the definition of the social environment will help to guide future work and locate G×E evidence in a more coherent framework.

We make 3 contributions toward this goal. First, we discuss the importance of existing social epidemiological and sociological theory for understanding the environment in a multilevel, multidomain, longitudinal framework that accounts for upstream processes influencing health outcomes. In particular, this approach draws a sharp distinction between individual and family attributes and the broader social contexts in and through which they arise. Second, and relatedly, we emphasize the potentially important role that characteristics of intermediate levels of social organization, such as neighborhoods, schools, and the workplace, have to play in a more thoughtful account of the environment in G×E interplay research. Finally, we discuss different forms and models of G×E interplay with frequent reference to previous published research.

DEFINING THE ENVIRONMENT FROM A SOCIAL EPIDEMIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

In one of the first articles to describe a general framework for G×E associations in epidemiological research, Ottman defined the environment as follows:

The environmental risk factor can be an exposure, either physical (e.g., radiation, temperature), chemical (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), or biological (e.g., a virus); a behavior pattern (e.g., late age at first pregnancy); or a “life event” (e.g., job loss, injury). 15 (p764)

Although this statement accurately summarizes how most G×E research approaches the environment, it is limited in at least 2 respects. First, each of the factors that are described may be thought of as proximate environmental moderators of genetic associations. This same characterization of the environment is evident in the Gene Environment Association Studies consortium, which is led by NIH and National Human Genome Research Institute through the Gene, Environment, and Health Initiative. The list of published articles from this group includes “environments” such as obesity 16 and maternal smoking, 17 which are far downstream from social environmental factors that structure exposure in the first place. By contrast, the fundamental cause perspective argues that

individually-based [sic] risk factors must be contextualized, by examining what puts people at risk of risks, if we are to craft effective interventions and improve the nation’s health. 18 (p80)

Full understanding of the determinants of a health outcome requires understanding the social structure from which proximate risks and exposures arise.

Second, emphasis on individual environments does not account for group-level behavioral, normative, and cultural processes that shape individual health and behavior. To illustrate the importance of these issues within G×E research, a recent article in the American Journal of Epidemiology 19 examined the interaction between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within 38 genes and specific health behaviors (e.g., smoking, drinking, exercise, and nutrition) on body mass index (BMI) among White and Black adults. They provided evidence for gene–behavior interactions (G×B) by demonstrating that the association between each health behavior and BMI depended on the genotype of individuals. By labeling these G×Bs as G×Es, this approach, which was also evident in other research, 20 took a narrow view of the environment. Understanding how genes moderate the consequences of specific behaviors is an important component of a genetic epidemiological understanding of health, but as others have made clear, 21 it is distinct from G×E research. Individuals do help shape environments through their behaviors, but it is nevertheless important to distinguish between the actions of people and the circumstances in which these actions occur. The latter incorporates a much more comprehensive approach to the environment for G×E interplay research.

This distinction conforms to the social epidemiological emphasis on the upstream sources of risk exposure. Social epidemiology explicitly reframes traditional epidemiological paradigms by emphasizing the role played by an individual’s location within a particular social structure as a fundamental determinant of vulnerability and exposure. 22 Accordingly, we conceptualize the social environment as an external, multilevel, and multidimensional feature that determines an individual’s exposure to risks and access to resources and constrains or enables people to engage in healthy lifestyles at different stages of the life course. A unique contribution of social epidemiology is the emphasis on the embodiment of social arrangements, or “how we literally incorporate, biologically, the material and social world in which we live, from conception to death.” 23 (p672), 24 Sociologists’ contribution to this idea is the explication of pathways of embodiment that constrain and enable individuals’ capacities to live healthy lives, including social structures. 25–27 These pathways are multilevel, multidomain, and multi-time-scaled. Multilevel pathways incorporate contextual dynamics at supraindividual, often nested, levels of analysis (e.g., families, schools, neighborhoods, states, countries). Multidomain pathways span different spheres of people’s lives (e.g., social, economic, physical, and institutional). Multi–time-scaled pathways encompass both change within individuals over the life course and historical changes in populations. Importantly, Krieger 23 (p672) wrote that embodiment provides a “biological expression of social relations,” and as such, the complex, dynamic, and transactional nature of the social environment becomes a critical input into basic biological processes.

One important aspect of this perspective is that environmental risk factors are not characterized as independent of one another. For instance, the joint distribution of collective efficacy, socioeconomic status (SES), and crime rates across neighborhoods in Chicago, Illinois, makes it difficult to consider each of these factors as independent variables in traditional multivariate models. 28 Just as the “fundamental cause” perspective focuses on an individual location within the social order as relative factors rather than an objective indicator of “exposure,” the clustering of social characteristics within geographically defined neighborhoods and schools provides important evidence about the relative position of a particular social context along a continuum of privilege and disadvantage. Identifying the mechanisms through which this allocation system affects measured phenotypes is critical, but exclusive focus on downstream processes like stressful life events and behaviors loses sight of the possibility that ill health and social risks will often be derived from the same source.

This understanding is very important because it helps to contextualize findings from genetic epidemiology studies in which genetic associations are shown to be different for members of different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Environmental factors may fundamentally alter the way in which genes are associated with health outcomes because in some residential areas, health may be driven exclusively by the physical and social features of the neighborhood, and genes have virtually nothing to do with individual differences in health within these communities. For example, using data from the Chicago Health and Aging Project, researchers have shown that the association between the apolipoprotein E- ɛ 4 allele and change in cognitive function is the strongest in the most socially organized neighborhoods in the Chicago area. 29 Consistent with the “social distinction” model we describe in the following, these researchers argue that the comparably small influence of genotype is further muted by social factors that may profoundly influence cognitive decline in the most disorganized communities.

This understanding is also in line with the social construction perspective on racial and ethnic identity 30 that is shared by most social scientists. This includes research that focuses on features of the social environment that are amenable to policy interventions and are precursors to the observable behavior, rather than emphasizing racial identification as a cause. Without reliable and valid measures of the environment and theory linking environmental factors to health behaviors, results from genetic association studies may, at times, provide misleading conclusions. In an influential example, Turkheimer et al. 31 provided convincing evidence that the heritability of cognitive test scores was virtually zero for those who were raised in the most disadvantaged homes but increased dramatically as the level of socioeconomic resources increased. Others have reported similar results, 32 and together this research indicates that genetic factors linked to cognitive performance may not be fully realized for those in the most disadvantaged communities.

The social epidemiological focus on pathways from social structure to health is critical because it better clarifies the factors that structure both differential exposure and mitigating resources. Nevertheless, this approach is limited by its inattention to G×E interplay. Consider health-related behaviors such as exercise, nutrition, substance use, and adherence to medical treatments. All of these are necessarily linked to the ecosocial precursors, but, just as importantly, people from comparable ecosocial environments respond differently to similar environmental conditions. The links between social structure, the physical and social environment, health behaviors, and morbidities are well established, and yet it is increasingly clear that genotype may factor into this conceptual orientation at each stage of the process.

In this respect, G×E interplay provides a great opportunity for the elaboration of the social epidemiological perspective in public health. Advances in molecular technology have made it possible for researchers to incorporate genotypic information into this traditional social epidemiological framework to ask new and important questions that involve genetic differences yet remain true to core principles of social epidemiology. The notion of embodiment as both an indicator of social location and a cause of future health trajectories becomes more, not less, relevant as we learn more about the human genome. As others have made clear, understanding both social and genetic risks at each developmental stage is critical to understanding specific pathways to divergent health outcomes throughout the life course. 33–35

The ecosocial perspective emphasizes the role of places in which individuals reside, work, interact, and attend school, and life course theory emphasizes that the environments that are most important change in predictable ways across the life course. During gestation, the uterine environment and determinants of maternal health are the most important environmental influences on health outcomes. During childhood and adolescence, one’s parents, neighborhood, school, and social networks are the most influential. In adulthood, the workplace becomes an increasingly important environment, and one’s formed family and home become increasingly important from young adulthood to old age. Each of these social environments provide a conceptual bridge from individuals’ place in the broader social structure to the way in which they live their lives and embody their relative status in a particular social context. Measures exist for several well-established social environmental factors related to health, including social integration, 36 collective efficacy, 28 social capital, 37–39 psychosocial stressors, 40 behavioral norms, 41 and segregation. 42

We argue that genetic influences should be incorporated into this model, as they potentially influence all of these connections. 43 Genetic differences influence how individuals end up in different types of environments. 44 Genetic differences moderate how particular environments translate into environmental risks, resources, and health behaviors. Finally, genetic differences also likely moderate how these risks, resources, and behaviors all influence embodied health outcomes.

To summarize, we argue that previous G×E research has adopted an improperly atomistic view of the social environment, often even treating behaviors as environmental characteristics. By contrast, a social epidemiological perspective contextualizes individual actions and attributes within the broader organization of society into institutions and meaningful social groups, to which health risks and resources are systematically and jointly distributed. Taking the nature of this allocation system seriously in G×E interplay research entails a move away from mere risk factor epidemiology and toward a focus on environmental pathways to embodiment of social conditions from macro to micro levels. This joint distribution of health-relevant features of the social environment means that genetic influences on health may be far more important in some contexts than others, in some stages of the life course than others, and for some socially meaningful groups than others. Finally, it may frequently be the case that specific genetic loci serve to modify the effects of these environmental risks and resources on health outcomes, as is discussed presently.

TYPES OF GENE–ENVIRONMENT INTERPLAY

The social epidemiological perspective provides a useful framework to delineate meaningful social environments for research on G×E interplay. Most broadly, this interplay encompasses a combination of G×E interactions and gene-environment correlations (rGE). G×E interactions are cases in which genetic and environmental influences on a particular trait are conditional upon the level of the other. Such interactions can be usefully subdivided into 2 distinct types. A heritability–environment (H×E) interaction is a population-based model that estimates the relative contribution of genetic influences to overall phenotypic variance across different environments. 33,45 As with the bulk of the G×E research, much of this work focuses on proximate environmental influences at the individual and family levels. For example, Silventoinen et al. 46 used samples of twins from Denmark and Finland to examine the heritability of body size, showing that genetic associations for body mass were lower for those who exercised more and those whose diets contained a larger portion of protein compared with those who did not exercise and ate less protein. Likewise, Gottlieb et al. 47 used data from the Framingham Heart Study to demonstrate that the heritability of lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) increased from 0.05 in the entire population to 0.18 when they only considered current smokers. In this case, some genetic differences that can otherwise be inconsequential for lung function may influence lung function among those who smoke.

This same emphasis on proximate environmental determinants is also evident in studies that rely upon candidate G×E research designs. Because these studies focus on environmental moderation of the association between a specific allele and a health outcome, this type of G×E association can be referred to as an allele-by-environment (A×E) interaction (the distinction between H×E and A×E is also referred to as the difference between “latent” and “measured” G×E 48 ). The most widely cited A×E interaction, despite a fairly weak replication record, 8,49 is found in the work of Caspi et al., 50 who showed that carriers of the short allele in a gene that codes for serotonin ( 5HTTLPR ) are particularly sensitive to individual-specific stressful life events, but that the carriers of 2 long alleles at this loci are fairly immune to the deleterious effects of regular exposure to strain and stress. In a similar manner, Mitchell et al. 51 reported 2 genetic polymorphisms that are associated with a crossover in the relationship between SES and postpartum depression: the genotypes that conferred more risk for poor mothers conferred less risk for wealthier ones. There are countless examples of A×E research in the psychological, social scientific, and health literatures, but the overwhelming share of these findings operationalize and measure environmental exposure as a proximate- and individual-level characteristic (see Duncan and Keller 8 for a review).

This body of work is critical to public health research because it signals a need to consider specific environmental contingencies that may mask or illuminate genetic influences on health and well-being. However, it is limited because the environmental factors are typically either behaviors (e.g., smoking) or family characteristics (e.g., SES). In the past decade, a body of research has emerged that focuses on exogenous and more broadly defined social environments such as neighborhoods, 52 schools, 45,53 states of residence, 54 and historical periods 3,55,56 as important environmental moderators of genetic effects on health and health behaviors. The focus on these broad social environments is important because it delineates a range of social contexts in which individuals are socialized about health-related behaviors that are pegged to key developmental periods. These environments also provide socially and geographically meaningful boundaries for policymakers to implement specific public health initiatives.

The limited examples of this work have provided important substantive and methodological contributions to the G×E research. For example, a recent article showed that the magnitude of the association between one SNP (rs1801282) and metabolic syndrome varies depending on the availability of exercise facilities. 57 In other words, changes to the structure and aspects of built environments can affect the association between specific genetic variants and specific health outcomes.

G×E interactions can also be distinguished by the functional forms of the relationship between genotype, environment, and outcome. Figures 1 through 4 ​ 4 ​ ​ distinguish 4 models implied by a G×E typology that is used by researchers, 33,58 differentiated by their H×E formulation or A×E formulation. Figures 1 and ​ and2 2 depict the diathesis-stress and differential susceptibility models. 59–62 Both propose that individuals with long-term exposure to socially risky environments are more likely to display poor health. The diathesis-stress model suggests that the genetic differences that are associated with negative outcomes in risky environments will have either an attenuated or entirely muted relationship in low-risk environments. This is best characterized by the work of Caspi et al. 50,63 As shown in Figure 1 , a diathesis-stress model implies increasing heritability in negative environments, and an allelic divergence as adversity increases.

Diathesis-stress model of gene–environment interaction differentiated by (a) heritability-by-environment specifications and (b) allele-by-environment specifications.

Note. The dashed line corresponds to the presence of “risk” (or responsive in the case of differential susceptibility) allele.

Differential susceptibility model of gene–environment interaction differentiated by (a) heritability-by-environment specifications and (b) allele-by-environment specifications.

Social distinction model of gene–environment interaction differentiated by (a) heritability-by-environment specifications and (b) allele-by-environment specifications.

Social push model of gene–environment interaction differentiated by (a) heritability-by-environment specifications and (b) allele-by-environment specifications.

A complement to the diathesis-stress model is one that calls attention to how genetic associations can be attenuated by social control. 64 As an H×E example, previous research has shown that the heritability of regular smoking is significantly reduced in states that have the most restrictive policies regarding the sale of cigarettes and in states that have the highest taxes per pack on cigarettes. 54 An A×E counterpart is shown in the work of Fletcher, 65 who found that the association between an SNP in the CHRNA6 gene (rs2304297) and tobacco use described by others 66 was significantly reduced for those who lived in states with the highest levels of tax on tobacco products.

By contrast, the differential susceptibility hypothesis implies that alleles associated with negative outcomes in adverse environments may be associated with positive outcomes in the most salutary environments. The previously discussed study by Mitchell et al. 51 serves as an illustration. This is shown with the u-shaped H×E association and the crossover A×E association in Figure 2 . As another example, Simons et al. 62 showed that individuals with a higher number of plasticity alleles (the 7R allele in DRD4 and the S allele in 5HTTLPR ) were the most aggressive in the most adverse social environments and least aggressive in the least adverse social environments. Their study is an important extension to the G×E research because it employed an inherently multilevel perspective emphasizing social resources from the respondent’s neighborhood, school, and family levels of social support.

At the same time, the approach to the environment in this study does not contain any information describing the behavioral expectations, a description of the sanctions for violating norms, or a description of the mechanisms in place to enforce these norms. This difference is shown in the work of Daw et al. 67 who examined the link between school-level smoking behaviors and the likelihood that individuals will smoke themselves. They showed that increasing copies of the short allele in the 5HTTLPR gene increased the likelihood that individuals will adopt the smoking norms of their school. The association was even stronger for the drinking phenotype, and the differential susceptibility model seems to best characterize the link between school-level drinking patterns and individual risks of drinking. Specifically, in the schools that have the lowest drinking rates, those with the short allele drank the least, but the same allele is associated with the highest alcohol consumption in schools that have higher than average drinking levels. This is important because without this type of specification, one cannot see an association between genotype and phenotype. This has been discussed recently in the debates regarding the power of candidate G×E associations, 68 but it is also important because it suggests that normative factors that limit or enable specific behaviors should be considered as potentially important moderators of genetic effects.

This example also highlights the critical need to consider the full continuum of environmental conditions rather than simply exposure. Having a representative sample of the population has long been a concern of researchers in the social demographic community, but this concern is particularly relevant in G×E research. Consider a study in which differential susceptibility loci are the key elements placing individuals at risk for smoking cigarettes. If this study is done in communities in which very few people smoke cigarettes, researchers may conclude that allele A confers a benefit (those with the A allele smoke the least). However, if this same study is done in a community in which smoking is very popular, those with the A allele may actually smoke the most. Finally, if the same study is done in typical environments, researchers cannot observe any association. Without a complete representation of the individuals across the full range of environments, researchers can only tell one part of the story.

Characterizing the environment across the full continuum is also important because it allows one to examine the social push and social distinction G×E models. The social push model differentiates between typical and extreme social contexts and hypothesizes that genetic factors will be the most important within typical environments, whereas social influences dominate within extreme environments. In these extreme environments, social factors so strongly influence the phenotype that ordinary genotypic differences have little room to differentiate individuals from one another. However, environments that have fewer social factors that limit individual differences allow for “biology to shine through.” 69 The social distinction model is very similar to the social push model, but it anticipates that the highest social risk environments will have the lowest heritability and lowest measured genetic associations.

The social push and social distinction models are not necessarily causal G×E models in the biological sense of genes actually functioning differently in different environments. To illustrate the issue, researchers showed that genetic factors related to smoking were virtually nonexistent in the early 1960s, but then became increasingly important for smoking initiation following the Surgeon General’s report on the dangers of smoking. 3 The researchers argued that those for whom smoking was driven by social factors were far less likely to initiate smoking, as well as more likely to successfully quit smoking, after the 1964 report, compared with those for whom smoking was largely a result of genetic factors related to nicotine metabolism. In other words, this important scientific announcement had significantly less influence on the future smoking patterns for individuals with specific genetic risk profiles because it affected the social costs and benefits of smoking, rather than any moderation of the role of genetic differences in nicotine metabolism itself. To the extent that reduction of overall smoking rates might have occurred largely among those for whom smoking was intrinsically less rewarding, public health campaigns against smoking might have changed the actual allelic composition of the population of smokers while reducing the number of smokers overall. 55

Evidence for the social push and distinction models can be found in the public health and problem behavior literatures, such as the previously described work on apolipoprotein E. 29 A similar result can be seen in the work of Tuvblad et al. 70 who examined antisocial behavior in 1133 Swedish twin pairs (ages 16–17 years). The study used a broad indicator of the social, economic, and behavioral context of the neighborhoods and found that the heritability of antisocial behavior was significantly higher for those who resided in the most socioeconomically advantaged neighborhoods. As a last example, Boardman et al. 45 used the school-based design of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health to show that social understandings of body size substantially moderated the estimated influence of genetic differences on BMI. They examined the average BMI for those who said that they were “normal weight” to calculate a school-level norm about body size. In line with the social push models, they showed that the heritability of BMI was highest in schools with body size norms in the average range but lowest in schools in which the norm was very low or very high.

As noted earlier, G×E interplay encompasses not only G×E interaction but also rGE, in which genotypes are associated with causally relevant aspects of the environments to which an individual is exposed. 71 This type of correlation may create the appearance of a direct gene–health relationship where none exists. Passive rGE are perhaps the most common and are a result of the obvious fact that children inherit both genes and their environments from their parents; parents who smoke because of genetic reasons pass these genes to their children but also raise their children in a household in which cigarettes are available and where they model smoking behavior. Price and Jaffee 72 also described work in which parents with lower verbal ability raised children in environments that had more disorganization in the home, and that this disorganization had a causal effect on the child’s verbal ability. This has the side consequence of creating a spurious association between children’s genes and verbal ability.

Alternatively, genetically influenced individual traits can influence the environments that an individual may experience. Thus, genetic factors are an indirect cause of whatever other traits these environments may influence. The key distinction often drawn here is between traits influencing their selection of environments (active rGE) and environments responding differently to individuals based on observable traits (evocative rGE). As an example of the latter, if differences in skin color lead to differential treatment and experiences of discrimination, then pathways from discrimination to health outcomes could induce a correlation between genetic causes of skin color variation and health. 73 In this way, evocative rGE closely corresponds to the sociological notion of ascription, 74–76 insofar as the latter is based on genetic foundations. Active rGEs encompass genetic influences on the environments that individuals seek out. For instance, Cleveland et al. 77 found evidence for genetic influence on whether one has friends who smoke and drink. If these friendships, in turn, influence whether adolescents smoke and drink themselves, then friendship selection mediates a relationship between genes and these health behaviors.

rGE is very important for the G×E research described previously because a key assumption of G×E research is that the environmental exposure is assumed to be independent of genotype. Others have shown that violations of this assumption can have important implications for the interpretation of the G×E estimates. 78 The most effective strategy to deal with the possibility of rGE in G×E studies is to consider environmental factors that are exogenous to genetic characteristics of individuals. 79 This further highlights the importance of the ecosocial perspective because the emphasis on large environmental contexts such as schools, neighborhoods, or counties reduces the likelihood that genetic and environmental factors are correlated.

IMPLICATIONS

Although researchers have given much attention to G×E interplay, this work has thus far focused on a fairly narrow characterization of the environment. As social epidemiology and sociological research has shown, the social environment is more than a set of independent risk factors and protective influences. Instead, society and its major institutions and contexts are jointly distributed in a manner that disproportionately channels health-promoting resources to the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor and powerless. Thus, good schools and safe neighborhoods, 80 opportunities for good careers, 81 and access to nutritious food, health care, and conditions amenable to exercise 82 are disproportionately available to higher SES families. Equally important, the distribution of resources and risks obviously has substantial consequences for health inequality, 83 and genetic epidemiology has heretofore paid limited attention to these lessons from social epidemiology. To be sure, researchers have expressed valid concern regarding the blind enthusiasm for the marriage between genetic and social explanations for behaviors. 84 However, as others have pointed out, 26 sociological explanations become far more relevant when the genetic influences on social forces are made clear. Advancing understanding of these processes should therefore be a high priority for both sociology and public health.

However, much work remains to be done in this area of research. Perhaps the most important limitations are a limited conceptualization of the nature and scope of the environment and its interaction with the genome; limited sample sizes available to study this topic in a biologically informative manner; the weak replication record for some of the most widely cited G×E associations 8,49 ; and the lack of analytical strategies that offer causally satisfying interpretations. In this article, we have sought to address the first limitation, and the second is increasingly being addressed by efforts to genotype long-standing, large-sample, population-representative social science data sets such as the Health and Retirement Study, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, and the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. The incorporation of genetic samples into moderately sized and representative data sources may help to clarify the salience of the G×E perspective, and it will certainly help stabilize the G×E parameter estimates that show a great deal of variation across different, and at times, fairly small studies. 11 However, the sample sizes of these studies still fall well short of the nearly 100 000 observations that some have argued are needed to identify true G×E associations. 85 The presence of statistically significant G×E associations within the literature has led some to assert that the bulk of these associations are likely to be false positives and appear in scholarly journals because of publication bias. 8

Concerning the last limitation, most research on G×E interplay in public health and elsewhere is primarily correlative, providing evidence on interactive associations but not necessarily causal ones. Population stratification 86 and rGE 78,87 are strong potential challenges to any claim of exogenous environmental exposure. For instance, residential segregation by race and ethnicity remains a fundamental feature of social life in the United States. 88 Small differences among socially defined racial and ethnic differences in allele frequencies for genes that are related to specific health behaviors is the primary concern of population stratification, but these same small differences may be correlated with neighborhood characteristics that we are describing as exogenous. As such, we encourage researchers to employ one of the many standard statistical approaches to adjust for the possibility that environmental exposure and genotype are independent above and beyond population differences across the genome. These methods include ancestrally informative markers, 89 principal components, 90,91 and sibling fixed effects or family-based studies to reduce this influence of this form of rGE. 67,92,93

CONCLUSIONS

Our discussion offers 3 primary lessons for G×E interplay research within public health. These lessons are derived from the demonstration that most health behaviors of interest to public health researchers have a heritable component, but that the relative influence of genes is often contingent upon environmental factors. First, we advocate taking the multilevel, multidomain, and longitudinal nature of the environment seriously in G×E interplay research. We believe that the social epidemiological framework offers the best approach to do so because of its focus on the upstream processes of social organization that lead to the joint allocation of health risks, resources, and norms within society. This offers a fuller understanding of the environment than has been seen in most research on this topic. This approach emphasizes that behaviors are not environments, that individual and familial environmental influences are best understood in their broader social contexts, and that proximate risks and rewards in the pathway between social structure and health are often systematically and jointly distributed.

Second, we emphasize the role of intermediate levels of social organization, such as neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, and social networks, as important features of the social environment for understanding gene–environment interplay and health. These units of organization provide important linkages between the broader social structure and individual lives, and have the benefit of providing plausibly exogenous sources of environmental variation for models of G×E interplay. Which of these units of social organization are most consequential varies systematically through the life course. In addition, the specific ways that these intermediate levels influence individuals’ lives are highly variegated, but assessing their comparative importance can provide important clues toward identifying their key etiologic attributes.

Third, we highlight different basic forms of G×E interactions and rGEs with examples that have been observed. The differences between these forms affect our ability to predict the health of populations in light of current and anticipated environmental changes. Most importantly, distinguishing among the different models requires information on the full range of social environments. Articulating the models also provides an opportunity to emphasize the difference between biological and statistical interaction, because changing social conditions can influence the observed population association between a gene and an outcome without at all moderating the biological effect of genes.

It is our hope that the research will continue to provide new insights for public health research from the simultaneous consideration of genetic and social factors. We hope that this framework and language will help to organize the otherwise atomized results from the large body of G×E research. We stress the need to consider social components of the environment that provide cues about specific health behaviors in specific social contexts and specific times in the life course—environmental risks involve shared understandings about the meaning of risks that are critically related to norm formation and enforcement across different contexts. 94 Treating risk as a characteristic of an individual may be a very useful model for the medical sciences, but it does very little to advance our understanding of public health because we lose sight of the social origins of individual beliefs and behaviors. This point has been made clearly by others, 95 but we believe that this is particularly salient to research involving G×E interactions. In this manner, it is our hope that social scientists recognize that processes of G×E interplay are an important subsequence of the class of generic social processes, whereby features of the environment and the individual recursively influence health.

Acknowledgments

Support for this research was provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/NICHD (awards R01 HD060726 , R01 HD061622 , and R24 HD066613 ). J. Daw received additional training support from NIH (award T32HD007289-27 ).

Human Participant Protection

Human participant protection was not required because there were no human participants in any aspect of this article.

What is Research Environment in thesis?

The research environment refers to the populace that was researched. In a thesis, you should describe how and where the research was conducted.

Add your answer:

How do you do thesis?

That is the correct spelling of "thesis" (a proposition, or research paper).

How do you spell thesis?

How do you formulate a thesis on aristotelianism for research paper.

example of thesis on aristotelinism

What does it mean when you validate your thesis statement?

It means you prove with research what you stated in your thesis.

What is pananaliksik in English?

Research Thesis??

What is a phat thesis?

A "bomb" thesis with research that has been published by several journals and conferences.

What is research approach?

thesis in hotel management

What is the thesis to an essay?

A thesis is like the main idea when u research something and learn all about it then u write ur thesis.

Is a thesis a statement of absolute fact?

A thesis is not a statement of absolute fact. A thesis is usually an opinion supported by a lot of quality research.

Should What if your thesis statement should change to reflect what you learn during your research.?

No, you report what you found in your research as part of your summary. You have a thesis and proved with the research that your thinking was wrong. As you write you display the research and cite sources.

What is research instrument in thesis?

A research instrument is the source from which the research came from. A book or an entire library can be a research instrument.

What is the difference between thesis and project?

A thesis is more or less a research project. Part of the PhD/research work is given to you as your thesis topic. On the other hand, a project is not necessarily a research work. It is mostly a experimental work/practical work. Correct me if im wrong.

Top Categories

Scholars' Bank

Environmental studies theses and dissertations.

• By Issue Date

Search within this collection:

Recent Submissions

• Managing Life's Future: Species Essentialism and Evolutionary Normativity in Conservation Policy, Practice, and Imaginaries  Maggiulli, Katrina ( University of Oregon , 2024-01-10 ) Folk essentialist and normative understandings of species are not only prevalent in popular layperson communities, but also end up undergirding United States conservation policy and practice due to the simplistic clarity ...
• Unsettled Ecologies: Alienated Species, Indigenous Restoration, and U.S. Empire in a Time of Climate Chaos  Fink, Lisa ( University of Oregon , 2024-01-10 ) This dissertation traces environmental thinking about invasive species from Western-colonial, diasporic settlers of color, and Indigenous perspectives within U.S. settler colonialism. Considering environmental discourses ...
• Futuremaking in a Disaster Zone: Everyday Climate Change Adaptation amongst Quechua Women in the Peruvian Cordillera Blanca  Moulton, Holly ( University of Oregon , 2024-01-10 ) Indigenous women in Peru are often labeled “triply vulnerable” to climate change due to race, gender, and economic marginalization. Despite Peru’s focus on gender, Indigeneity, and intersectionality in national adaptation ...
• Land Acts: Land's Agency in American Literature, Law, and History from the Colonial Period to Removal  Keeler, Kyle ( University of Oregon , 2024-01-10 ) This dissertation examines land’s agency and relationships to land in the places now known as the United States as these relationships appear in literature and law from early colonization to the removal period. Land Acts ...
• PALEOTEMPERATURE, VEGETATION CHANGE, FIRE HISTORY, AND LAKE PRODUCTIVITY FOR THE LAST 14,500 YEARS AT GOLD LAKE, PACIFIC NORTHWEST, USA  Baig, Jamila ( University of Oregon , 2024-01-09 ) The postglacial history of vegetation, wildfire, and climate in the Cascade Range (Oregon) is only partly understood. This study uses high-resolution analysis from a 13-meter, 14,500-year sediment core from Gold Lake to ...
• On Western Juniper Climate Relations  Reis, Schyler ( University of Oregon , 2022-10-26 ) Western juniper woodlands are highly sensitive to climate in terms of tree-ring growth, seedling establishment and range distribution. Understanding the dynamics of western juniper woodlands to changes in precipitation, ...
• Stories We Tell, Stories We Eat: Mexican Foodways, Cultural Identity, and Ideological Struggle in Netflix’s Taco Chronicles  Sanchez, Bela ( University of Oregon , 2022-10-26 ) Food is a biological necessity imbued with numerous social, cultural, and economic implications for identity production and everyday meaning-making. Food television is a unique medium for the meanings of food and foodways ...
• Soil Nutrient Additions Shift Orthopteran Herbivory and Invertebrate Community Composition  Altmire, Gabriella ( University of Oregon , 2022-10-26 ) Anthropogenic alterations to global pools of nitrogen and phosphorus are driving declines in plant diversity across grasslands. As such, concern over biodiversity loss has precipitated a host of studies investigating how ...
• Multispecies Memoir: Self, Genre, and Species Justice in Contemporary Culture  Otjen, Nathaniel ( University of Oregon , 2022-10-04 ) Liberal humanism articulates an individual, rational, autonomous, universal, and singularly human subject that possesses various rights and freedoms. Although the imagined subject at the heart of liberal humanist philosophy ...
• Understanding How Changes in Disturbance Regimes and Long-Term Climate Shape Ecosystem and Landscape Structure and Function  Wright, Jamie ( University of Oregon , 2022-10-04 ) Long-term and anthropic climatic change intersecting with disturbances alters ecosystem structure and function across spatiotemporal scales. Quantifying ecosystem responses can be convoluted, therefore utilizing multiproxy ...
• Ikpíkyav (To Fix Again): Drawing From Karuk World Renewal To Contest Settler Discourses Of Vulnerability  Vinyeta, Kirsten ( University of Oregon , 2022-10-04 ) The Klamath River Basin of Northern California has historically been replete with fire-adapted ecosystems and Indigenous communities. For the Karuk Tribe, fire has been an indispensable tool for both spiritual practice and ...
• Grassland Restoration in Heterogeneous, Changing, and Human Dominated Systems  Brambila, Alejandro ( University of Oregon , 2022-10-04 ) Ecological restoration is a powerful tool to promote biodiversity and ecosystem function. Understanding underlying system variability and directional change can help predict outcomes of restoration interventions. Spatial ...
• Restoring What? And for Whom? Listening to Karuk Ecocultural Revitalization Practitioners and Uncovering Settler Logics in Ecological Restoration.  Worl, Sara ( University of Oregon , 2022-05-10 ) What does it mean to restore a landscape degraded by settler colonialism? How might a well intentionedprocess like ecological restoration end up causing harm from underlying settler colonial logics? This thesis explores ...
• Instigating Communities of Solidarity: An Exploration of Participatory, Informal, Temporary Urbanisms  Meier, Briana ( University of Oregon , 2021-11-23 ) This dissertationexamines the potential for participatory, informal urbanisms to buildcollaborative relations across ontological, cultural, and political difference. This research contributes to thefield of urban, environmental ...
• The Holy Oak School of Art and Ecology: A Proposal for Arts-Based Environmental Education Programming  Best, Krysta ( University of Oregon , 2021-11-23 ) The following is a proposal for arts-based environmental education programming in elementary schools, after-school programs, and day-camp programs, entitled the Holy School of Art and Ecology. Ecophenomenological, arts-based ...
• Settler Colonial Listening and the Silence of Wilderness in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area  Hilgren, Bailey ( University of Oregon , 2021-11-23 ) The Boundary Waters Canoe Area soundscape in northern Minnesota has a long and contested history but is most often characterized today as a pristine and distinctly silent wilderness. This thesis traces the construction and ...
• Species Dynamics and Restoration in Rare Serpentine Grasslands under Global Change  Hernandez, Eliza ( University of Oregon , 2021-11-23 ) Conserving rare serpentine grasslands is a challenge with ongoing nitrogen deposition. Nutrient-poor patches are fertilized by nitrogen-rich smog and exotic grasses can rapidly spread. Water resources are also being altered ...
• Place-making and Place-taking: An Analysis of Green Gentrification in Atlanta Georgia  Okotie-Oyekan, Aimée ( University of Oregon , 2021-11-23 ) Despite the benefits of urban greenspace, Atlanta’s Westside Park is causing gentrification and displacement pressures in Grove Park, a low-income African-American community in northwest Atlanta, Georgia. This study used ...
• Prairie Plant Responses to Climate Change in the Pacific Northwest  Reed, Paul ( University of Oregon , 2021-09-13 ) Understanding how plants respond to climate change is of paramount importance since their responses can affect ecosystem functions and patterns of biodiversity. At the population level, climate change may alter phenology ...
• Understanding Freshwater Mussel Distribution, Abundance, and Demography in the South Umpqua River Basin, Oregon: Impacts of Land Use and Stream Hydraulics  Johnson, Laura ( University of Oregon , 2021-04-27 ) Freshwater mussels are both keystone and indicator species within aquatic ecosystems and are declining across their historic ranges within the Pacific Northwest (PNW). This thesis provides baseline information necessary ...

View more submissions

Search Scholars' Bank

All of scholars' bank, this collection.

• Maggiulli, Katrina (2)
• Shtob, Daniel (2)
• Vinyeta, Kirsten (2)
• Altmire, Gabriella (1)
• Au, Lokyee (1)
• Bacon, J. (1)
• Baig, Jamila (1)
• Belanger, Kevin M., 1985- (1)
• Best, Krysta (1)
• Blount, Keyyana (1)
• ... View More
• Climate change (12)
• Environmental justice (8)
• Conservation (3)
• Environmental Justice (3)
• Environmental studies (3)
• Pacific Northwest (3)
• Restoration (3)
• Tourism (3)
• Agriculture (2)

Date Issued

• 2020 - 2024 (23)
• 2010 - 2019 (51)
• 2003 - 2009 (11)

Has File(s)

• Most Popular Items
• Statistics by Country
• Most Popular Authors