covid 19 dissertation topics

• How it works

Useful Links

How much will your dissertation cost?

Have an expert academic write your dissertation paper!

Dissertation Services

Get unlimited topic ideas and a dissertation plan for just £45.00

Order topics and plan

Get 1 free topic in your area of study with aim and justification

Yes I want the free topic

Coronavirus (COVID-19) and Global Economy Dissertation Topics

Published by Carmen Troy at January 6th, 2023 , Revised On August 15, 2023

Introduction

We are currently confined to our homes by a novel, global virus named Coronavirus, which in medical science is known as COVID-19. The Coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak has redefined our relationships with the outside world and the government. The crisis had a large-scale effect on the economy of the world.

To help you get started with brainstorming for ideas, we have developed a list of amazing topics that can be used for writing your dissertation.

These topics have been developed by PhD qualified writers of our team , so you can trust to use these topics for drafting your own dissertation.

You may also want to start your dissertation by requesting a brief research proposal from our writers on any of these topics, which includes an introduction to the topic, research question , aim and objectives, literature review , along with the proposed methodology of research to be conducted. Let us know if you need any help in getting started.

Check our dissertation example to get an idea of how to structure your dissertation .

Review step by step guide on how to write your own dissertation here.

Topic 1: COVID-19 and Disruptive Innovation in Global Supply Chains: A Study to Find Innovations in Supply Chain Processes due to COVID-19

Research Aim: This research aims to find the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on disruptive innovations in global supply chains. It will analyze the changes in the supply chain process across the globe. It will find the overall impact of COVID-19 based disruptive innovations on the global supply chain process and its segments such as production, distribution, etc. It will study different industries to show how COVID-19 forced them to innovate their supply chain networks and tailor them in future COVID-19 restrictions.

Topic 2: COVID-19 and Employment Disruption: A Study to find the Impact of COVID-19 on the Creation and Elimination of Employment around the Globe

Research Aim: This study intends to find the impact of COVID-19 on the creation and elimination of employment around the globe. It will show COVID-19 forced businesses around the world to let go of some jobs and adopt new ones. It will further show what kind of skills employee requires to work in the post-COVID world. Moreover, it will show the effects of COVID-19 employment disruptions on the equilibrium in the job markets (labor demand vs. supply) and the new wage rates.

Topic 3: Does COVID-19 Lockdowns Force Emerging Economies to Halt their CO_2 Emission Reduction Goal to Restart their Economies?

Research Aim: This research analyzes the impact of COVID-19 on the emerging economies’ progress in CO_2 emission reduction goal to restart their economies. It will assess the effects of COVID-19 on emerging economies’ aggregate production and employment levels. Therefore, it will show whether to take aggregate output and employment back to pre-COVID levels, do emerging economies need to forgo their CO_2 emission reduction goals. Moreover, it will use successful cases to recommend small emerging economies to increase output and employment and carry on CO_2 emission reduction goals.

Topic 4: Who Won the COVID-19 Vaccine War? A Study on the Global Inequality in the COVID-19 Vaccination among Underdeveloped and Developing Countries

Research Aim: This research assesses the global inequality in the vaccination distribution among underdeveloped and developing countries. It will find the political and economic factors which influenced the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, it will analyze the impact of inequality within underdeveloped and developing countries on vaccine distribution among the rich and poor. It will also find why underdeveloped and developing countries can’t vaccinate the entire population? How can they vaccinate the whole population, and what is the cost per individual?

Topic 5: The International Political Economy (IPE) of COVID-19: A Study to Find the Potential Political and Economic Winners of COVID-19

Research Aim: This study investigates the International Political Economy (IPE) of COVID-19. It identifies the major political and economic winners of this pandemic. It will find how some political powers and businesses took advantage of the pandemic and increased their political and financial capital. It will analyze significant countries such as the US, China, Japan, etc. Large businesses such as Google, Apple, Amazon, Pizer, etc., took advantage of the pandemic by selling new products. Moreover, it will highlight some significant lessons from the pandemic, which can help small countries to prepare themselves for the future.

Coronavirus Covid-19 and Global Economy Research Topics – Editor’s Pick

Research to identify the impacts of coronavirus on the economy.

Research Aim: This study will focus on identifying the impacts of Coronavirus on the global economy.

Research to study the impacts of Coronavirus on the real estate sector

Research Aim: This research aims at identifying the impacts of coronavirus on the real estate sector. Is real estate a better option for investment during COVID-19?

Research to study the impacts of Coronavirus on the stock market.

Research Aim: This research aims at identifying the impacts of Coronavirus on the stock market.

Research to identify the impacts of Coronavirus on banking and the future of banking after the pandemic.

Research Aim: This research aims at identifying the impacts of Coronavirus on banking and the future of banking after the pandemic. What are the predictions? What challenges may come across? How to overcome those challenges?

More Coronavirus and World Economy Dissertation Topics

Topic 1: an assessment of the coronavirus outbreak in the world.

Research Aim: The research would assess how the Coronavirus has spread worldwide. This would include the source of the virus, which is Wuhan, China. Along with it, the factors responsible for the spread of the virus, such as physical contacting, sneezing, and coughing must be discussed. The current death toll that has occurred because of the blowout of the virus must be discussed along with the countries affected the most such as Italy. The research aims to study the spread and effect of viruses overall.

Topic 2: The economic suffering due to the plague of COVID-19

Research Aim: The research must assess the disruption that has been created by the spread of COVID-19 in the world. This must include the countries’ global lockdown and the shutting of industries, resulting in soaring unemployment rates and a dramatic decline in economic statistics. The research aims to look at the economic consequences generated by the outbreak of coronavirus COVID-19 in general.

Topic 3: The major sufferings in the economy as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak

Research Aim: The research must assess the reasons behind the rising suffering in the specific business sectors and industries, for instance, the supply chain is suffering because China has become the manufacturing hub, which has brought disruption in the supply chain of the whole industry due to complete lockdown in the country. The research aims to study majorly affected regions such as the entertainment sector, tourism industry, restaurant sector, etc.

Topic 4: Estimated changes in the economic statistics by the outbreak of Coronavirus

Research Aim: The recent expected changes by the professionals about the impact of COVID-19 on the global economic statistics must be discussed in the research such as the estimated growth rates of the world and China were predicted to be 0% and 1.6%, respectively, for the year 2020 by the Ethan Harris, head of global economic research in the Bank of America according to his recent interview. Similarly, articles from other professionals must be included in the research to focus on the effects of an outbreak on the economy.

Topic 5: The impact of Coronavirus recession on consumer activity and economy

Research Aim: The research must assess the impact that the outbreak of the virus would have on the economy and, specifically, consumer behaviour as they drive three-quarters of the economic activity and are declining at a great pace. The impact on both small and large business enterprises must also be discussed in the research. The research aims to see whether the spread of the virus would alter consumer behaviour and the behaviours consumers would adapt.

Topic 6: The good and bad impacts of COVID-19 on the economy

Research Aim: The research would assess both the bad and the good side of the economy created by the spread of coronavirus COVID-19, such as the recession caused by the outbreak of the virus which is the bad side of the economy. The positive side consists of a reduction in mass consumption and stronger domestic supply chains.

Topic 7: The major regions and business industries affected by the spread of COVID-19

Research Aim: The research would assess the regions (cities and countries) which are being affected by the spread of coronavirus COVID-19 and the major impacted business industries such as the food industries like the restaurants are completely locked down after the outbreak of the virus and the people that were engaged in those industries are unemployed now. The research aims to focus on such industries and the impact of their lowered productivity on the economy.

Topic 8: The consequential effect of COVID-19 on financial markets and the economy.

Research Aim: The financial markets, for example, stock markets, are a great indicator of the economy’s stability. The research aims to focus on the effect on the financial markets generated by the spread of coronavirus COVID-19 such as the crash of global financial market 28th of March’ 2020 must be discussed herein which the people throughout the world witnessed a dramatic decline in the global stock market. The effects of this incident on the economy must be included in the research.

Topic 9: Recession as a consequence of the Coronavirus outbreak

Research Aim: The research would assess the consequences and the recession, which has already hit some parts of the world and is likely to hit others. The research aims to study the types of recessions that the world is likely to face, such as real recession, financial crisis, and policy recession. The consequences and the likelihood of an economic recession must be discussed in the research.

Topic 10: The recovery of the economy from the Coronavirus shock

Research Aim: Once the virus has been eliminated from the world and the people are cured through medical assistance, it would now be a crucial responsibility of the governments to get the economies back to their original conditions. The research aims to look at the recovery paths, consisting of a V-shaped, U-shaped, and L-shaped recovery path based on the economy’s scenario and condition. The effects of each type of recovery path must be discussed along with the fiscal and monetary policies applied.

Topic 11: The time spam of economic consequences of COVID-19 outbreak

Research Aim: The research would assess the intensity of the economic consequences of Coronavirus as it would help assess how long they would last in the economy. The research aims to assess certain aspects affected by the recession, such as the wealth of the people, the performance of financial markets and the consumer’s behaviour, and the disruption in the supply chain. The lasting capability of the recession depends on the disturbance in these regions mainly.

Topic 12: Economic risks generated by COVID-19 outbreak and government intervention

Research Aim: The research must assess the economic disruptions created by the outbreak of COVID-19 and the government’s role in controlling those risks. The research aims to study the historical insights of the roles played by the leaders at the times of recessions in the economy and apply them to the present time. Leaders play a great role in controlling the recessionary period of the economy.

Topic 13: Could the World Health Organization (WHO) play a role in controlling the economic recession headed by COVID-19?

Research Aim: The research must first assess what WHO has described  COVID-19 and what precautions it has asked the people to take. The research aims to link the precautionary measures suggested by WHO for controlling the spread of the pandemic, which would eventually result in the betterment of the economy as people would return to their work and the industries would start to function again.

Topic 14: How has the COVID-19 outbreak shaped the working practices of business?

Research Aim: The research must assess the alternative working practices which the businesses have adopted. The research aims to study the ‘work from home’ strategy of the business, its advantages and disadvantages, and how it disrupts the smooth functioning of the businesses. The research may include the interviews or the views of people studying or working from home in the current situation.

Topic 15: Which business industry has been affected the most by the COVID-19 outbreak?

Research Aim: The research would assess the most affected industries: the ‘tourism industry’ and ‘food industry’. The research aims to study the companies in the respective industries and how they fail with their rapidly declining profits. The research must study the huge airline industries such as Emirates and international food chains such as McDonald’s and their losses in the current situation.

Topic 16: City lockdowns due to COVID-19 outbreak and their effects on the global economy

Research Aim: The research must assess the lockdowns currently occurring throughout the globe and which has jammed the economic wheel completely. The research aims to evaluate the factors responsible for the city lockdowns and the people’s alternative ways. This must include the scarcity of resources as people have started to hoard the frequently used items.

Topic 17: Likelihood of the recessionary phase of COVID-19 turning into depression

Research Aim: The research must assess the intensity of the recession created by the COVID-19 and its effects on the economy of the world. The research aims to get an insight into the government activities in this regard and the business industry, which would indicate the likeliness of the recessionary phase turning into depression. Recommendations could be made to point out what changes must be brought for controlling the economic situation.

Topic 18: Government role in controlling the spread of COVID-19 and eventually the economic meltdown

Research Aim: The research would assess the role the government of every country is playing to control the spread of Coronavirus, such as the medical aids given to the people with the role of the medical department of the countries. The research aims to look at the government’s role to save the people, ultimately saving the collapsing economy. The role of the World Health Organization must also be discussed in that regard.

Topic 19: COVID-19 economic recession and the changing business strategies

Research Aim: The research would assess the alternative ways businesses adapt to cope with the recession, such as creating a cross-functional response team for COVID-19, supply chain stabilization, and moving to online platforms to get closer to the customers. The research aims to look at how the companies know the people’s demands and fulfill their needs despite the difficult situation.

Topic 20: What must the businesses do to overcome the recessionary consequences of COVID-19.

Research Aim: The research aims to look at the historical records of how companies have coped while going through a recessionary phase, the strategies they adopted and kept the employees motivated. The research could use examples from the recession of 2008 and recommend strategies to the company.

The world currently needs to know what the economic condition is currently prevailing around the globe. There are several themes related to this topic that is not yet discovered. In the area of Coronavirus and the global economy, the topics mentioned above could make a significant contribution.

How Can ResearchProspect Help?

ResearchProspect writers can send several custom topic ideas to your email address. Once you have chosen a topic that suits your needs and interests, you can order for our dissertation outline service , which will include a brief introduction to the topic, research questions , literature review , methodology , expected results , and conclusion . The dissertation outline will enable you to review the quality of our work before placing the order for our full dissertation writing service !

Important Notes:

As an economics student looking to get good grades, it is essential to develop new ideas and experiment on existing covid-19 and the global economy – i.e., to add value and interest in your research topic.

The covid-19 and global economy fields are sure to become vast and interrelated to many other academic disciplines like civil engineering , construction , law , and even healthcare . That is why it is imperative to create a covid-19 and global economy topic that is articular, sound, and actually solves a practical problem that may be rampant in the field.

We can’t stress how important it is to develop a logical research topic based on your entire research. There are several significant downfalls to getting your topic wrong; your supervisor may not be interested in working on it, the topic has no academic creditability, the research may not make logical sense, there is a possibility that the study is not viable.

This impacts your time and efforts in writing your dissertation , as you may end up in the cycle of rejection at the initial stage of the dissertation. That is why we recommend reviewing existing research to develop a topic, taking advice from your supervisor, and even asking for help in this particular stage of your dissertation.

While developing a research topic, keeping our advice in mind will allow you to pick one of the best covid-19 and global economy dissertation topics that fulfill your requirement of writing a research paper and add to the body of knowledge.

Therefore, it is recommended that when finalizing your dissertation topic, you read recently published literature to identify gaps in the research that you may help fill.

Remember- dissertation topics need to be unique, solve an identified problem, be logical, and be practically implemented. Please look at some of our above sample covid-19 and global economy dissertation topics to get an idea for your own dissertation.

How to Structure your Dissertation

A well-structured dissertation can help students to achieve a high overall academic grade.

• A Title Page
• Acknowledgements
• Declaration
• Abstract: A summary of the research completed
• Table of Contents
• Introduction : This chapter includes the project rationale, research background, key research aims and objectives, and the research problems. An outline of the structure of a dissertation can also be added to this chapter.
• Literature Review : This chapter presents relevant theories and frameworks by analysing published and unpublished literature on the chosen research topic to address research questions . The purpose is to highlight and discuss the selected research area’s relative weaknesses and strengths whilst identifying any research gaps. Break down the topic and key terms that can positively impact your dissertation and your tutor.
• Methodology : The data collection and analysis methods and techniques employed by the researcher are presented in the Methodology chapter, which usually includes research design , research philosophy, research limitations, code of conduct, ethical consideration, data collection methods, and data analysis strategy .
• Findings and Analysis : Findings of the research are analysed in detail under the Findings and Analysis chapter. All key findings/results are outlined in this chapter without interpreting the data or drawing any conclusions. It can be useful to include graphs, charts, and tables in this chapter to identify meaningful trends and relationships.
• Discussion and Conclusion : The researcher presents his interpretation of results in this chapter and states whether the research hypothesis has been verified or not. An essential aspect of this section of the paper is to link the results and evidence from the literature. Recommendations with regards to implications of the findings and directions for the future may also be provided. Finally, a summary of the overall research, along with final judgments, opinions, and comments, must be included in the form of suggestions for improvement.
• References : This should be completed following your University’s requirements
• Bibliography
• Appendices : Any additional information, diagrams, and graphs used to complete the dissertation but not part of the dissertation should be included in the Appendices chapter. Essentially, the purpose is to expand the information/data.

About ResearchProspect Ltd

ResearchProspect is a  UK based academic writing service  that provides help with  Dissertation Proposal Writing ,  PhD. Proposal Writing ,  Dissertation Writing ,  Dissertation Editing, and Improvement .

Our team of writers  is highly qualified. They are experts in their respective fields. They have been working for us for a long time. Thus, they are well aware of the issues and the trends of the subject they specialize in.

Free Dissertation Topic

Phone Number

Academic Level Select Academic Level Undergraduate Graduate PHD

Academic Subject

Area of Research

Frequently Asked Questions

How to find covid-19 and global economy dissertation topics.

To find COVID-19 and global economy dissertation topics:

• Examine the pandemic’s economic effects.
• Study sectors like tourism, health, and tech.
• Analyze policy responses worldwide.
• Explore supply chain disruptions.
• Investigate remote work trends.
• Consider long-term economic shifts.

You May Also Like

Need interesting computing engineering dissertation topics? Here are the trending Computing engineering dissertation titles so you can choose the most suitable one.

Urban geography is a growing field of study that provides learners with a comprehensive understanding of how cities, towns and other human settlements develop and change over time.

As the field of forensic psychology is still relatively new, there are numerous research issues to address. Investigate how psychology has been used to support certain legal theories.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Global Health (GHWG)

Content from global health (ghwg) working group, do you want to write a covid dissertation.

Professor Sophie Harman, a member of our Global Health Working Group, gives some advice about coming up with dissertation topics related to COVID.

Part of the joy and point of writing a dissertation is for students to come up with their own subject and research question. Both students and supervisors know this is often the most painful part of the process (second only to the week before deadline – start early, marathon not a sprint etc!). I know good supervisors can support students writing dissertations in all manner of subjects and this is what makes it so rewarding. However, in a year where we’re all dealing with increased pressure, demands on our time, and managing screen headaches, I thought I’d put my 15 years global health politics experience to good use and make some suggestions/pointers to help you when a student comes to you as says the inevitable: [1]

‘I was thinking of writing my dissertation on COVID-19’

Below are 10 suggested questions with suggested literature and methods, covering institutions, security, race, policy, vaccines, gender, aesthetics, expertise, knowledge. These by no means cover everything and by no means prescribe how I think a dissertation on that topic should be written. If helpful, see them as jump-off points to think about these topics. The only caution I have is make sure all projects are only focused on the start/first 6 months of COVID-19 – we are only at the end of the beginning. This is also a pre-emptive move to stop you getting your students to email me for ideas.

Institutions and global governance

1. Is the WHO capable of preventing and responding to major pandemics?

Literature: WHO, IHR, GOARN, global health security + previous outbreaks (Ebola, pandemic flu, HIV/AIDS)

Methods: Case Studies – look at the tools/instruments e.g. IHR, GOARN, Regional offices etc

2. Why did states pursue different responses to the COVID-19 outbreak?

Literature: Global health security, state compliance in IR, international law and international organisations

Methods: Pick two contrasting case studies e.g. England/Scotland, Canada/US, Germany/UK, Sweden/Denmark and then look at different levels of policy and decision making per chapter – Global, National, Regional/local and rationales behind decisions from – expert evidence, speeches, policy decisions, policy timelines

3. How can we understand the gender dimensions of COVID-19?

Literature: Gender and global health, Feminist IPE, Black Feminism, WPS (if looking at violence)

Methods: Explore 1 – 3 key themes from the literature – Care and domestic burden, Health Care Workers, Domestic violence in depth. Depending on networks and contacts, could run focus groups (ethics! And definitely NOT if doing violence), or analyse survey data – lots of surveys done on this and the raw data is always made available if have the skills to play with it.

Political economy

4. Are states the main barrier to vaccine equity?

Literature: Vaccine access and nationalism, access to treatment, IPE of health and trade, pharmaceutical companies, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Methods: Look at the different stages of vaccine development for 2/3 trials and consider the role of States (where putting money, public statements, any actions e.g. email hacks), Researchers (where get money from, how collaborating, knowledge sharing), Institutions (CEPI, GAVI, WHO), and the Private Sector (pharma and foundations – who’s investing, what is their return – and private security companies – who protects the commodity?). Think: interests, investment, barriers/opportunities.

Security and foreign policy

5. Were state security strategies prepared for major pandemics prior to COVID-19? If not, why not?

Literature: Global health security, securitisation and desecuritisation of health

Methods: 2 – 3 state case studies or 1 in detail, think about Strategy, Training/Preparedness, Actors. Content analysis of security strategies and defence planning and budget allocations, speeches, training, simulations etc.

6. What is the role of images in responding to outbreaks?

Literature: Aesthetics and IR, behaviour change communication and images in public health

Methods: 3 case studies on different types of images in COVID-19, e.g. 1. Global public health messaging; 2. National public health messaging; 3. Community Expression – OR pick one of these options and explore in depth.

Race and racism

7. Could the racial inequalities of COVID-19 been foreseen and prevented?

Literature: Racism and global health, racism and domestic health systems, Black Feminism, Critical Trans Politics

Method: Option 1 – look maternal health as a proxy in three case study countries e.g. Brazil, US, UK; Option 2 – pick one country and look at three health issues prior to COVID-19 e.g. Maternal Health, Diabetes, Heart Disease.

Knowledge, discourse, and experts

8. Is COVID-19 the biggest global pandemic of a generation?

Literature: Postcolonial/decolonial theory, poststructuralism, Politics of HIV/AIDS, pandemic flu

Method: Discourse analysis around ‘once in a lifetime rhetoric’ – who says it, when, and why; contrast with discourse around COVID-19 from countries with previous outbreaks e.g. Sierra Leone, DRC, China, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil (you’ll need to be selective as can’t measure discourse from all states! Think through why you make your choices here and how they relate to each other) OR contrast COVID-19 with a previous pandemic, e.g. HIV/AIDS

9. What knowledge counts in COVID-19?

Literature: Postcolonial/decolonial theory, post-structuralism, IR and Global Health, politics of experts

Methods: Review lessons learned from previous outbreaks (there are lots of source material on this after Ebola and SARS for example) and how they led to changes/what learned for COVID-19; Stakeholder mapping and/or network analysis – Who are the experts? Look at backgrounds, types of knowledge and expertise, did they work on the Ebola response/HIV/AIDS in the early 2000s for example?; Case Study – UK/US – where have high concentration of public health experts and institutions, export knowledge to low and middle income countries, evidence of importing knowledge from these countries, especially given the experience?

UK/State responses

10. How can we understand/explain the first 6 months of the US/UK/Sweden/Australia/South Africa/China/Brazil/you choose! response to COVID-19?

WARNING! This is the question that could descend into a polemic so approach with absolute caution. I would strongly advise against, but have included to give a clearer steer.

The key with this question is to remember you are not submitting a public health or epidemiology dissertation, so bear in mind you probably don’t have the skills and knowledge to assess what was a good/bad public health decision (other than obvious ones such as PPE stocks for example). What you do have the skills to do is to look at the politics as to  why  a decision was taken and  how  it was taken – investigate what the different recommendations/guidance suggested, who followed/ignored/subverted it and what outcomes this produced.

Literature: health policy, public policy, state compliance IR

Methods: 1. Global – map what global advice there was and how did the state follow (or not) in preparedness and response and what was the rationale for doing so – political circumstances at the time, stated rationale for decision, who was making decision; 2. National – key public health decisions, commodities, social-economic consequences – how were these planned for/overlooked and why. To look at these two levels may require mixed methods of global and national policy timelines, stakeholder analysis, content analysis of speeches and recommendations, mapping changes to data presentation and access.

[1]  For the first two years of my career I supervised countless projects loosely based around ‘Is the War in Iraq illegal?’ I’m hoping some of the variety here will stop two years of ‘Is the UK government’s respond to COVID-19 a national scandal?’ or ‘Is the WHO fit for purpose?’ – two great topics, but tiresome after a bit.

Reproduced with kind permission from Global Politics Unbound at QMU.

Photo by iMattSmart on Unsplash

BISA is entirely self-funded

Your donations help us to support the International Studies community. Choose to donate towards free memberships for Global South scholars, conference bursaries or student experience events. Then receive updates on how your donation has helped.

• Executive Committee
• Membership Terms and Conditions
• Working group end of year report 2022/23
• Anti-bribery and corruption policy
• Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism policy
• Anti-slavery and human trafficking policy
• Code of Conduct
• Complaints procedure
• Conflict of interest policy
• Constitution - Charitable Incorporated Organisation
• Cookie policy
• Data retention policy
• Duties of trustees
• Donations, sponsorship and fundraising policy
• Equality and diversity policy
• Political campaigning and lobbying
• Privacy standard
• Statement on academic freedom
• Working group guidance
• Global South countries
• Main in-person conference
• Virtual conference
• Face-to-Face Activity Fund - Working groups
• Early Career Small Research Grants
• Founders Fund application form
• Learning and Teaching Small Grant
• Working group end of year report
• Working group grant application
• Astropolitics Working Group
• Equality, diversity and inclusion policy
• Best Article in the Review of International Studies Prize
• Distinguished Contribution Prize nomination form
• Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Prize nomination form
• L.H.M. Ling Outstanding First Book Prize nomination form
• Michael Nicholson Thesis Prize nomination form
• New Voices In Cultural Relations Prize nomination form
• Susan Strange Best Book Prize nomination form
• Working Group of the Year Prize nomination form
• Nomination form for teaching prizes
• Early Career Excellence In Teaching International Studies Prize
• Excellence In Teaching International Studies By A Postgraduate Student Prize
• Review of International Studies
• European Journal of International Security
• Our book series

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
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The dissertation journey during the COVID-19 pandemic: Crisis or opportunity?

Despite dissertation's significance in enhancing the quality of scholarly outputs in tourism and hospitality fields, insufficient research investigates the challenges and disruptions students experience amidst a public health crisis. This study aims to fill the research gaps and integrate attribution and self-efficacy theories to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic influences students' decision-making and behaviours during the dissertation writing process. Qualitative exploration with 15 graduate students was conducted. The results indicate that adjustment of data collection approaches was the most shared external challenge, while students' religious background and desire for publishing COVID related topics were primary internal motivations.

1. Introduction

Dissertation writing is an essential part of academic life for graduate students ( Yusuf, 2018 ). By writing the dissertation, students can build research skills to analyse new data and generate innovative concepts to inform future scientific studies ( Fadhly et al., 2018 ; Keshavarz & Shekari, 2020 ). Therefore, scholars in higher education are dedicated to guiding students to complete impactful dissertations. Duffy et al. (2018) note that thesis advisors can empower students to explore novel ideas and identify new products or services for the tourism and hospitality industry beyond the traditional contribution of extending the existing research literature. Namely, the intriguing ideas proposed in students’ dissertations will eventually enrich and diversify the literature in the tourism and hospitality academia. Furthermore, the process of identifying impactful ideas will prepare students for a successful career either as a researcher or practitioner.

However, dissertation writing can be a challenging experience for both native and non-native writers. Students are sometimes confused about the characteristics of the dissertation or the expectations from the academics and practitioners ( Bitchener et al., 2010 ). A graduate student has to make numerous decisions during the dissertation writing journey. To successfully guide the students through this complicated writing journey, thesis advisors need to understand the factors influencing students' writing motivation and decision-making process. Previous studies have suggested these influential factors can be broadly classified into external sources (e.g., advisor/supervisor's influence, trends in the field, or publishability of the topic) and internal sources (e.g., researcher's background or researcher interest; Fadhly et al., 2018 ; I'Anson & Smith, 2004 ; Keshavarz & Shekari, 2020 ). Despite this classification, the discussions related to the impacts of macro-environments, such as socio-cultural trends, economic conditions, or ecology and physical environments, on students' dissertation writing are extremely lacking. Since the time background and the world situation when writing a dissertation are also critical factors influencing students' writing goals, more research should be done to broaden students' dissertation writing experiences.

The COVID-19 pandemic has immensely impacted global education, students' learning, and research activities. According to Dwivedi et al. (2020) , the COVID-19 pandemic has affected international higher education leading to the closure of schools to control the spread of the virus. Meanwhile, Alvarado et al. (2021) found that the global health crises have seriously disrupted doctoral students' Dissertations in Practice (DiP). Specifically, students must learn new methodologies and adjust the research settings and sampling techniques because of virtual-only approaches. Some have to find new topics and research questions since the original one cannot be investigated during the quarantine period. However, students may turn this current crisis into an opportunity as they build a shared community and support each other's private and academic lives. Apparently, the crisis can result in a stronger bond of friendship, and this may generate more collaborative research projects in the future.

As mentioned earlier, some studies have tried to identify factors influencing students' dissertation writing journey, albeit lack considerations related to the effects of macro-environments. Given the severe impacts of COVID-19 on the macro-environments of global higher education and the tourism industry, this study aims to fill the research gap and explore how a public health crisis may influence graduate students' dissertation writing, especially in the field of tourism and hospitality. Specifically, this study utilizes attribution and self-efficacy theory as the research framework to examine the internal and external factors that influenced graduate students' dissertation journey amidst the COVID-19 pandemic (see Fig. 1 ). The use of attribution and self-efficacy theory is appropriate in the current study because both explain how people make sense of society, influences of others, their decision-making process and behaviours. Although some may argue these theories are outdated, many scholars have used them to explain students' behaviours and experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Xu et al. (2021) found that social capital and learning support positively influence students' self-efficacy, employability and well-being amidst the crisis. Meanwhile, Lassoued et al. (2020) used attribution theory to explore the university professors and their students' learning experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. They found that both groups attributed the problems to reaching high quality in distance learning to students' weak motivation to understand abstract concepts in the absence of in-person interaction.

The theoretical framework.

Understanding the lived experience of students would enable stakeholders in tourism and hospitality education to deeply comprehend the plight and predicaments of students face and the innovate ways to mitigate those challenges amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, this study utilizes a qualitative approach to explore the impacts of internal and extremal factors on the dissertation writing process. The study was set in the context of an international graduate hospitality and tourism program in Taiwan known for its diverse student body. The research question that guides such qualitative exploration is: How have external and internal factors influenced graduate students’ dissertation writing journey during the COVID-19 pandemic?

This study is timely and critical considering the uncertainties that characterize pandemics which aggravates the already perplexities that associate dissertation writing. It throws light on factors that are susceptible to pandemic tendencies and factors that are resilient to crisis. The findings of this study would provide insights into how crises affect academia and suggest effective ways for higher educational institutions, academicians, and other key stakeholders to forge proactive solutions for future occurrences. Especially, higher education institutions would be well-positioned and informed on areas to train students and faculty members to ameliorate the impacts associated with pandemics.

2. Literature review

2.1. covid-19 and its impacts on educational activities.

Public health crises have ramifications for educational behaviour and choices; this is especially true of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most countries and institutions of higher education are still battling with the consequences suffered from the COVID-19 pandemic. Not surprisingly, there has been a tsunami of studies on the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Dwivedi et al., 2020 ; Manzano-Leon et al., 2021 ; Alam & Parvin, 2021 ). Assessing these studies, we found that although there are substantial extant studies on the negative implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, limited studies have also emphasised the positive side of the pandemic on education. For example, Dwivedi et al. (2020) concluded that the COVID-19 had revealed the necessity of online teaching in higher educational institutions. For they observed that at Loughborough, though face-to-face teaching is practised, one cannot relegate online teaching as some students will be unable to return to campus due to border closures. Thus, faculty members have to convert existing material to the online format. Furthermore, Manzano-Leon et al. (2021) also pointed out that the COVID-19 has allowed students to interact with their peers beyond traditional education. They pinpointed that playful learning strategies such as escape rooms enable students to interact well. Alam and Parvin (2021) also underscored students who studied during the COVID-19 pandemic performed better academically than those before. This finding suggests that online education is supposedly more active than face-to-face mode.

Apart from these positive implications aforementioned, most studies have emphasised the negative impacts of COVID-19 on education. Dwivedi et al. (2020) reviewed how the global higher education sector has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. It caused the closure of schools, national lockdowns and social distancing, and a proliferation of online teaching. COVID-19 forced both teachers and students to work and study remotely from home. According to Dhawan (2020) , the rapid deployment of online learning to protect students, faculty, communities, societies, and nations affected academic life. Online learning seemed like a panacea in the face of COVID-19's severe symptoms; however, the switch to online also brought several challenges for teachers and students. Lall and Singh (2020) noted that disadvantages of online learning include the absence of co-curricular activities and students' lack of association with friends at school. Many studies have also confirmed the pandemic's adverse effects on students' mental health, emotional wellbeing, and academic performance ( Bao, 2020 ; de Oliveira Araújo et al., 2020 ).

Despite the pandemic has caused numerous difficulties for many educational institutions, scholars and educators have risen to the challenges and tried to plan effective strategies to mitigate such stressing circumstances. For example, to respond the needs of a better understanding of students' social-emotional competencies for coping the COVID-19 outbreak, Hadar et al. (2020) utilized the VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) framework to analyse teachers and students' struggles. Each element of VUCA is defined as follows:

• ● Volatility: the speed and magnitude of the crisis;
• ● Uncertainty: the unpredictability of events during the crisis;
• ● Complexity: the confounding events during the crisis;
• ● Ambiguity: the confusing and mixed meanings during the crisis.

This analysis and conceptualization of crises help to explain some of the students’ concerns on mental health, emotional wellbeing, and academic performance ( Bao, 2020 ; de Oliveira Araújo et al., 2020 ).

The pandemic also exacerbated existing challenges facing students and universities across the globe. According to Rose-Redwood et al. (2020) , the COVID-19 endangered the career prospects of both students and scholars. University partnerships with the arts sector, community service, and non-governmental organizations also suffered. The tourism and hospitality (academic) field faced unique challenges in light of COVID-19 without exception. Forms of tourism such as over-tourism and cruise tourism were temporarily unobservable, and most pre-crisis studies and forecast data were no longer relevant ( Bausch et al., 2021 ). Consequently, many empirical and longitudinal studies were halted due to the incomparability of data. Even though many studies have been conducted to explore the impacts of the COVID pandemic on educational activities, none of these studies has addressed how this public health crisis has affected graduate students’ dissertation journey. Therefore, the present research is needed to fill the gaps in the mainstream literature.

2.2. Attribution theory and self-efficacy

The current study employs attribution theory and self-efficacy to understand graduate students' dissertation writing journeys. Attribution theory explains how individuals interpret behavioural outcomes ( Weiner, 2006 ) and has been used in education and crisis management ( Abraham et al., 2020 ; Sanders et al., 2020 ). For example, Chen and Wu (2021) used attribution theory to understand the effects of attributing students' academic achievements to giftedness. They found that attributing students' academic success to giftedness had a positive indirect relationship with their academic achievement through self-regulated learning and negative learning emotions. However, attribution theory has been criticised for its inability to explain a person's behaviour comprehensively. This is well enunciated by Bandura (1986) that attribution theory does not necessarily describe all influential factors related to a person's behaviour. Instead, it provides in-depth accounts of one's self-efficacy. Hence, scholars have advocated the need for integrating self-efficacy into attribution theory ( Hattie et al., 2020 ).

Self-efficacy is closely related to attribution theory. Extant studies have investigated the essence of self-efficacy in education and its role on students' achievements ( Bartimote-Aufflick et al., 2016 ; Hendricks, 2016 ). For instance, in their educational research and implications for music, Hendricks (2016) found that teachers can empower students' ability and achievement through positive self-efficacy beliefs. This is achieved through Bandura's (1986) theoretical four sources of self-efficacy: vicarious experience, verbal/social persuasion, enactive mastery experience, and physiological and affective states. The current study integrates attribution theory and self-efficacy as the research framework to provide intellectual rigour and reasons underlined students' decision-making during their dissertation journey.

2.3. Internal and external factors that influence dissertation writing processes

This study considered both internal and external factors affecting graduate students' dissertation journeys in line with attribution theory. Internal factors are actions or behaviours within an individual's control ( LaBelle & Martin, 2014 ; Weiner, 2006 ). Many studies have evolved and attributed dissertation topic selection to internal considerations. For instance, I'Anson and Smith's (2004) study found that personal interest and student ability were essential for undergraduate students' thesis topic selection. Keshavarz and Shekari (2020) also found that personal interest is the primary motivation for choosing a specific thesis topic. In another study focused on undergraduate students at the English department, Husin and Nurbayani (2017) revealed that students' language proficiency was a dominant internal factor for their dissertation choice decisions.

On the other hand, external factors are forces beyond an individual's control ( LaBelle & Martin, 2014 ). Similar to internal factors, there is an avalanche of studies that have evolved and uncovered external factors that characterize students' dissertation decisions in the pre-COVID period (e.g., de Kleijn et al., 2012 ; Huin; Nurbayani, 2017 ; Keshavarz & Shekari, 2020 ; Pemberton, 2012 ; Shu et al., 2016; Sverdlik et al., 2018 ). For instance, de Kleijn et al. (2012) found that supervisor influence is critical in the student dissertation writing process. They further revealed that an acceptable relationship between supervisor and student leads to a higher and quality outcome; however, a high level of influence could lead to low satisfaction. Meanwhile, Pemberton (2012) delved into the extent teachers influence students in their dissertation process and especially topic selection. This study further underlined that most supervisors assist students to select topics that will sustain their interest and competence level. Unlike previous research, Keshavarz and Shekari (2020) found that research operability or feasibility was a critical external factor that informed students' dissertation decisions. In other words, practicality and usefulness are essential in determining the dissertation choices.

These studies above show how internal and external factors may determine students' dissertation decisions. Despite those studies providing valuable knowledge to broaden our understanding of which factors may play significant role in students' dissertation journeys, most of their focus was on undergraduate students and was conducted before COVID-19. Given that the learning experiences among graduate and undergraduate students as well as before and during the pandemic may differ significantly, there is a need to investigate what specific external and internal factors underline graduate students’ dissertation decisions during the COVID-19. Are those factors different from or similar to previous findings?

3. Methodology

Previous studies have disproportionately employed quantitative approaches to examine students' dissertation topic choice (e.g., Keshavarz & Shekari, 2020 ). Although the quantitative method can aid the researcher to investigate focal phenomena among larger samples and generalize the results, it has also been criticized for the lack of in-depth analysis or does not allow respondents to share their lived experiences. Given the rapid evolution and uncertainty linked with the COVID-19 pandemic, the contextual and social factors may drive individuals to respond to such challenges differently. Therefore, efforts toward analyzing individual experiences during the public health crisis are necessary to tailor individual needs and local educational policy implementation ( Tremblay et al., 2021 ). Accordingly, the current study adopts a qualitative approach grounded in the interpretivism paradigm to explore the factors affecting graduate students’ dissertation research activities and understand the in-depth meaning of writing a dissertation.

3.1. Data collection

Since statistical representation is not the aim of qualitative research, the purposive sampling instead of probability sampling technique was used for this study ( Holloway & Wheeler, 2002 ). Graduate students who were composing their dissertation and could demonstrate a clear understanding on the issues under study are selected as the target research subjects. To gain a rich data, the sample selection in the current study considers background, dissertation writing status, and nationality to ensure a diversified data set ( Ritchie et al., 2014 ). Data was collected from graduate students in Taiwan who were currently writing their dissertations. Taiwan was chosen as the research site because the pandemic initially had a minor impact on Taiwan than on other economically developed countries ( Wang et al., 2020 ). In the first year (2019–2020) of their study, the graduate students could conduct their research projects without any restrictions. Therefore, traditional data collections and research processes, such as face-to-face interview techniques or onsite questionnaire distributions were generally taught and implemented in Taiwanese universities at that time. However, in their second year of the graduate program (2021), the COVID-19 cases surged, and the government identified some domestic infection clusters in Taiwan. Thus, the ministry of education ordered universities to suspend in-person instruction and move to online classes from home as part of a national level 3 COVID-19 alert. Many graduate students have to modify their data collection plan and learn different software to overcome the challenges of new and stricter rules. As they have experienced the sudden and unexpected change caused by the COVID-19 in their dissertation writing journey, Taiwanese graduate students are deemed as suitable research participants in this research.

Following Keshavarz and Shekari (2020) , interview questions were extracted from the literature review and developed into a semi-structured guide. Semi-structured interview was employed allowing for probing and clarifying explanations. This also allowed both the interviewer and the interviewee to become co-researchers (Ritchie et al., 2005). The questions asked about internal, and external factors influencing dissertation writing (including topic selection and methodology) during COVID-19. Specifically, students were asked how they chose their dissertation topic, how they felt COVID-19 had impacted their dissertation, and what significant events influenced their academic choices during the pandemic. Before each interview, the purpose of the study was explained and respondents provided informed consent. All the interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed.

Interviews, lasting about 50–60 min, were conducted with 15 graduate students as data saturation was achieved after analysing 15 interviews. The saturation was confirmed by the repetition of statements like, “personal interest motivated me”, “my supervisor guided me to select a topic”, and “I changed my data collection procedure to online”.

3.2. Data analysis and trustworthiness

Before the formal interview, two educational experts who are familiar with qualitative research were solicited to validate the wording, semantics, and meanings of the interview questions. Then, a pilot test was conducted with three graduate students to check the clarity of the expression for every interview question and revise potentially confusing phrasing. Validity and trustworthiness were also achieved through the use of asking follow-up questions. The transcripts of formal interviews were analysed using Atlas.ti 9. Qualitative themes were developed following open, selective, and axial coding procedures ( Corbin & Strauss, 1990 ). Finally, the relationships among themes and codes were identified, facilitating the research findings and discussions.

In order to prevent biases from affecting the findings of the study, series of procedures were undertaken following previous qualitative research. First, multiple quotations from respondents underlined the research findings which meant the respondents' true perspectives and expressions were represented. Moreover, the analyses were done independently and there was peer checking among the authors. There was also member checking where themes found were redirected to respondents for verification. In addition, external validation of the themes was done by asking other graduate students who share similar characteristics for comparability assessment to make the findings transferable.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. profile of respondents.

Respondents were purposively drawn from diverse backgrounds (including nationality, gender, and programs) to enrich the research findings. The sample includes graduate students who began dissertation writing in Taiwan during the COVID-19 pandemic period. The majority of the respondents are female and from South East Asia. Table 1 provides background information of these interviewees.

Background information of study respondents.

4.2. Internal factors

As Table 2 depicts, the themes ascertained from the data analysis were categorised according to internal and external factors which underpin the attribution theory ( Weiner, 2006 ). In consonance with previous studies, graduate students’ dissertation writing during the pandemic was influenced by internal factors (i.e., personal interest and religious background) and external considerations (i.e., career aspirations, society improvement, language issues, supervisor influence, COVID-19 publishable topics, data collection challenges). The analyses of each factor are presented below.

Major themes and codes emerging from the data.

The most salient internal factors affecting dissertation topic selection were (1) personal interest and (2) religious background. For personal interest, respondent 1 expressed:

The first thing is that [it] comes from my interest. I'm currently working on solo female traveller [s], which is the market I want to study. So, the priority comes from my personal preference and to learn about this market no matter the external situation. I also think that this is due to how I was brought up. My parent nurtured me that way, and I love to do things independently, especially when travelling.

This finding is in line with previous studies such as Keshavarz and Shekari (2020) ; I’Anson and Smith (2004) , who emphasised the relevance of personal interest in students' dissertation decision-making. Informed by the self-efficacy and attribution theories, we found that students who attribute their decision-making on dissertation writing to internal factors (i.e., personal interest) have relatively high self-efficacy levels. As argued by Bandura (1977) , efficacy expectation is “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behaviour required to produce the outcomes” (p. 193). Namely, self-efficacy is determined by an individual's capability and ability to execute decisions independently, devoid of any external considerations. Despite the uncertainties and challenging circumstances amidst COVID-19, students who believe their ability and research skills usually adhere to their original dissertation topics and directions.

Religious consideration is another conspicuous factor informing graduate students' dissertation journey during the COVID-19 pandemic. As respondent 7 mentioned:

Islam has become my way of life. I am a Muslim. It is my daily life, so I like to research this. I was born into this faith, and I am inclined to explore Halal food. I feel committed to contributing my research to my faith no matter outside circumstances. Maybe if I combine it with academic (research), it will be easier to understand and easier to do.

Although not much has been seen regarding religious considerations in students' dissertation topic selection in previous studies, this research reveals religious background as a significant internal factor. From a sociology perspective, religious orientation and affiliation could affect individual behaviour ( Costen et al., 2013 ; Lee & Robbins, 1998 ), and academic decision-making is not an exception. Religious backgrounds are inherent in the socialisation process and could affect how a person behaves or how they make a particular decision. This premise is further accentuated by Costen et al. (2013) , who argued that social connectedness affects college students' ability to adjust to new environments and situations. Social connectedness guides feelings, thoughts, and behaviour in many human endeavours ( Lee & Robbins, 1998 ). Social connectedness and upbringing underpin peoples' personality traits and behavioural patterns. Therefore, this study has extended existing literature on factors that affect graduate students' decision-making on dissertation writing from a religious perspective, which is traceable to an individual's socialisation process. In other words, during crises, most students are inclined to make decisions on their dissertation writing which are informed by their social upbringing (socialisation).

4.3. External factors

As Table 2 indicates, abundant external factors inform graduate students’ decision-making on their dissertation writing process. Except for career aspirations, language concerns, and supervisor influences that previous studies have recognized ( Chu, 2015 ; Jensen, 2013 ; Keshavarz & Shekari, 2020 ; Lee & Deale, 2016 ; Tuomaala et al., 2014 ), some novel factors were identified from the data, such as “COVID-19 publishable topic” and “online data collection restrictions”.

Unlike extant studies that have bemoaned the negative impacts of the COVID on education ( Qiu et al., 2020 ; Sato et al., 2021 ), the current study revealed that graduate students were eager to research on topics that were related to COVID-19 to reflect the changes of the tourism industry and trends.

Initially, overtourism [was] a problem in my country, and I want to write a dissertation about it. However, there is no tourism at my research site because of the COVID-19 pandemic. So, I had to change my topic to resilience because resilience is about overcoming a crisis. I had to discuss with my supervisor, and she suggested the way forward that I revise my topic to make it relevant and publishable due to the COVID-19 pandemic (respondent 8).

This response shows the unavoidable impacts of the COVID-19 on the research community. As Bausch et al. (2021) pointed out, tourism and hospitality scholars have to change their research directions because some forms of tourism such as overtourism and cruise tourism were temporarily unobservable amidst the pandemic. Thus, many pre-pandemic studies and forecast data were no longer relevant. However, the COVID-19 pandemic can bring some positive changes. Nowadays, the industry and academics shift their focus from pro-tourism to responsible tourism and conduct more research related to resilience. As Ting et al. (2021) suggested, “moving forward from the pandemic crisis, one of the leading roles of tourism scholars henceforth is to facilitate high-quality education and training to prepare future leaders and responsible tourism practitioners to contribute to responsible travel and tourism experiences.” (p. 6).

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has significant ramifications upon the research methods in hospitality and tourism. As respondent 1 denoted,

Because of [the] COVID-19 pandemic, there were certain limitations like I cannot analyse interviewee's body language due to social distancing … some interruptions when we conduct online interviews due to unstable internet connectivity, which would ultimately affect the flow of the conversation.

The adjustments of research methods also bring frustrations and anxiety to students. For instance, respondent 3 expressed: “I became anxious that I won't be able to collect data because of social distancing, which was implemented in Taiwan.” The volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) feelings caused by the COVID-19 pandemic significantly influences students' mood, thinking and behaviour ( Hadar et al., 2020 ).

Apparently, during crises, graduate students' decision-making on their dissertation writing was precipitated by external considerations beyond their control. Based on self-efficacy and attribution theory, the fear that characterises crises affects students' self-efficacy level and eagerness to resort to external entities (e.g., supervisor influences or difficulties in collecting data) to assuage their predicament. In other words, some students may have a low self-efficacy level during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was triggered by the negative impacts of the crisis. Furthermore, scholars may need to notice that COVID-19 is likely to affect conclusions drawn on studies undertaken during this period due to over-reliance on online data collection.

5. Conclusions and implications

Although numerous studies have been conducted to understand the influences of the COVID-19 crisis on educational activities, none of them focuses on the graduate student's dissertation writing journey. Given the significant contributions dissertations may make to advancing tourism and hospitality knowledge, this study aims to fill the gap and uses attribution and self-efficacy theories to explore how internal and external factors influenced graduate students' decision-making for dissertations amidst the crisis. Drawing on qualitative approaches with graduate students who began writing their dissertation during the COVID-19 period, the study provides insights into students' learning experiences and informs stakeholders in hospitality and tourism education to make better policies.

There are several findings worthy of discussion. Firstly, graduate students' sociological background (i.e., personal interest and religious background), which is inherent in an individual's socialisation processes, inform their decision-making in the dissertation processes during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is in line with the self-efficacy theory, which argues that an individual has the conviction that they have the necessary innate abilities to execute an outcome ( Bandura, 1977 ). Namely, respondents with high self-efficacy levels attributed their decisions to internal factors. Unlike previous studies' findings that personal interest was a factor that underpinned graduate students' decision-making ( I'Anson & Smith, 2004 ; Keshavarz & Shekari, 2020 ), it is observed that religious background is an additional factor that was evident and conspicuous during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Secondly, the complexity and uncertainty that characterised the COVID-19 pandemic made emotion a dominant factor that affected graduate students’ dissertation journey and indirectly triggered other external factors that provoked behavioural adjustments among students. The trepidation and anxiety that COVID-19 has caused significantly affects the self-efficacy level of students and predisposes them to external considerations, such as the will of the supervisor or the difficulties in data collection, in their dissertation journey. This study paralleled previous research and revealed that respondents with low self-efficacy were influenced by external considerations more than individuals with high self-efficacy ( Bandura, 1977 ). However, this study highlights how a public health crisis accelerates students who have low self-efficacy to attribute their unsatisfactory academic life to the external environment, leading to depression and negative impacts on ideology ( Abood et al., 2020 ).

Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically influenced the direction of research and body of knowledge in tourism and hospitality. This is seen in the light of the influx of COVID-19 related research topics adapted by graduate students. Furthermore, over-reliance on online data collection approaches were observed in this research. Although online surveys and interviews have many advantages, such as low cost and no geographic restrictions, the results drawn from this approach frequently suffer from biased data and issues with reliability and validity. For example, Moss (2020) revealed that survey respondents from Amazon MTurk are mostly financially disadvantaged, significantly younger than the U.S. population, and predominantly female. As more and more students collect data from online survey platforms such as Amazon MTurk, dissertation advisors may need to question the representativeness of the study respondents in their students’ dissertation and the conclusions they make based on this population.

5.1. Theoretical implications and future study suggestions

This paper has extended the attribution and self-efficacy theories by revealing that a public health crisis moderates attributive factors that underpinned the decision-making of individuals. The integration of self-efficacy theory and attributive theory has proven to better unravel the behaviour of graduate students during the COVID-19 pandemic than solely utilizing one of them. The application and extension of the self-efficacy and attribution theories are rarely observed in the context of hospitality and tourism education, and thus, this study creates the foundation for future scholars to understand students’ attitudes and behaviour in our field.

The findings highlight some factors triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic and have not been identified previously. For example, the religious background was a significant driver to selecting a particular research topic. This research also shows a shift in research direction to hot and publishable issues related to COVID-19. The utility of the dissertation becomes a significant consideration among graduate students. Additionally, emotion is recognized as another critical factor affecting the dissertation writing journey. The current study informs academia and the research community on the extent to which the COVID-19 would influence idea generation and the direction of research in the foreseeable future, as extant studies have overlooked this vital connection. Future studies should consider those factors when investigating relevant behaviours and experiences.

The time that the current study was done is likely to affect the findings. Therefore, it is recommended that future research explore graduate students’ dissertation journey in the post-COVID-19 era to ascertain whether there will be similarities or differences. This would help to give a comprehensive picture of the impacts of the COVID-19 on education. Moreover, the findings of this study cannot be generalised as it was undertaken at a particular Taiwanese institution. We recommend that quantitative research with larger samples could be conducted to facilitate the generalisation of the findings. Finally, it is suggested that a meta-analysis or systematic literature review on articles written on the COVID-19 pandemic and education could be done to further identify more influential factors related to the public health crisis and educational activities.

5.2. Practical implications for hospitality and tourism education

The findings revealed that negative emotion might trigger students' attribution to external factors that affected the dissertation journey. Thus, relevant stakeholders should develop strategies and innovate ways to ease the fears and anxieties of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study calls for immediate actions to prevent spillover effects on upcoming students. Faculty members, staff, and teachers should be trained on soft skills such as empathy, flexibility, and conflict solutions required by the hospitality and tourism industry.

Moreover, the thesis supervisors should notice students' over-reliance on online data collection due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As it may possibly affect the quality and findings of their students' dissertations, there should be sound and logical justification for this decision. Collecting data online should be backed by the appropriateness of the method and the research problem under study instead of the convenience of obtaining such data. There is an urgent need for students to be guided for innovative data collection methods. The school can turn the COVID-19 crisis into an opportunity to improve the online teaching materials and equipment. The research programs may consider including more teaching hours on online research design or data collection procedures to bring positive discussions on the strengths of such approaches.

Credit author statement

Emmanuel Kwame Opoku: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Project administration. Li-Hsin Chen: Conceptualization, Supervision, Review, Editing, Response to reviewers. Sam Yuan Permadi: Investigation, Visualization, Project administration.

• Abood M.H., Alharbi B.H., Mhaidat F., Gazo A.M. The relationship between personality traits, academic self-efficacy and academic adaptation among university students in Jordan. International Journal of Higher Education. 2020; 9 (3):120–128. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abraham V., Bremser K., Carreno M., Crowley-Cyr L., Moreno M. Exploring the consequences of COVID-19 on tourist behaviors: Perceived travel risk, animosity and intentions to travel. Tourism Review. 2020; 74 (2):701–717. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alam G.M., Parvin M. Can online higher education be an active agent for change? Comparison of academic success and job-readiness before and during COVID-19. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021; 172 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alvarado C., Garcia L., Gilliam N., Minckler S., Samay C. Pandemic pivots: The impact of a global health crisis on the dissertation in practice. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice. 2021; 6 (2):5–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 1977; 84 (2) 191-125. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. Prentice Hall; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bao W. COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking university. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies. 2020; 2 (2):113–115. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartimote-Aufflick K., Bridgeman A., Walker R., Sharma M., Smith L. The study, evaluation, and improvement of university student self-efficacy. Studies in Higher Education. 2016; 41 (11):1918–1942. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bausch T., Gartner W.C., Ortanderl F. How to avoid a COVID-19 research paper tsunami? A tourism system approach. Journal of Travel Research. 2021; 60 (3):467–485. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bitchener J., Basturkmen H., East M. The focus of supervisor written feedback to thesis/dissertation students. International Journal of English Studies. 2010; 10 (2):79–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen M., Wu X. Attributing academic success to giftedness and its impact on academic achievement: The mediating role of self-regulated learning and negative learning emotions. School Psychology International. 2021; 42 (2):170–186. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chu H. Research methods in library and information science: A content analysis. Library & Information Science Research. 2015; 37 (1):36–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbin J.M., Strauss A. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology. 1990; 13 (1):3–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costen W.M., Waller S.N., Wozencroft A.J. Mitigating race: Understanding the role of social connectedness and sense of belonging in African–American student retention in hospitality programs. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education. 2013; 12 (1):15–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dhawan S. Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2020; 49 (1):5–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duffy L.N., Pinckney IV H.P., Powell G.M., Bixler R.D., McGuire F.A. Great theses and dissertation start with an intriguing idea. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education. 2018; 22 :82–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwivedi Y.K., Hughes D.L., Coombs C., Constantiou I., Duan Y., Edwards J.S., Gupta B., Lal B., Misra S., Prashant P. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on information management research and practice: Transforming education, work and life. International Journal of Information Management. 2020; 55 [ Google Scholar ]
• Fadhly F.Z., Emzir E., Lustyantie N. Exploring cognitive process of research topic selection in academic writing. Journal of English Education. 2018; 7 (1):157–166. English Review . [ Google Scholar ]
• Hadar L.L., Ergas O., Alpert B., Ariav T. Rethinking teacher education in a VUCA world: Student teachers' social-emotional competencies during the Covid-19 crisis. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2020; 43 (4):573–586. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie J., Hodis F.A., Kang S.H. Theories of motivation: Integration and ways forward. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 61 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendricks K.S. The sources of self-efficacy: Educational research and implications for music. UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education. 2016; 35 (1):32–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holloway I., Wheeler S. Wiley-Blackwell; London, UK: 2002. Qualitative research in nursing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Husin M.S., Nurbayani E. The ability of Indonesian EFL learners in writing academic papers. Dinamika Ilmu. 2017; 17 (2):237–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• I'Anson R.A., Smith K.A. Undergraduate Research Projects and Dissertations: Issues of topic selection, access and data collection amongst tourism management students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education. 2004; 3 (1):19–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen P.H. Choosing your PhD topic (and why it is important) The Australian Economic Review. 2013; 46 (4):499–507. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jeynes W.H. Religiosity, religious schools, and their relationship with the achievement gap: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. The Journal of Negro Education. 2010:263–279. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keshavarz H., Shekari M.R. Factors affecting topic selection for theses and dissertations in library and information science: A national scale study. Library & Information Science Research. 2020; 42 (4) [ Google Scholar ]
• de Kleijn R.A., Mainhard M.T., Meijer P.C., Pilot A., Brekelmans M. Master's thesis supervision: Relations between perceptions of the supervisor–student relationship, final grade, perceived supervisor contribution to learning and student satisfaction. Studies in Higher Education. 2012; 37 (8):925–939. [ Google Scholar ]
• LaBelle S., Martin M.M. Attribution theory in the college classroom: Examining the relationship of student attributions and instructional dissent. Communication Research Reports. 2014; 31 (1):110–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lall S., Singh N. Covid-19: Unmasking the new face of education. International Journal of Research in Pharmacy and Science. 2020; 11 (1):48–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lassoued Z., Alhendawi M., Bashitialshaaer R. An exploratory study of the obstacles for achieving quality in distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences. 2020; 10 (9):232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee S.H., Deale C.S. A matter of degrees: Exploring dimensions in the Ph.D. student–advisor relationship in hospitality and tourism education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism. 2016; 16 (4):316–330. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee R.M., Robbins S.B. The relationship between social connectedness and anxiety, self-esteem, and social identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1998; 45 (3):338–345. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manzano-León A., Aguilar-Parra J.M., Rodríguez-Ferrer J.M., Trigueros R., Collado-Soler R., Méndez-Aguado C.…Molina-Alonso L. Online escape room during COVID-19: A qualitative study of social education degree students' experiences. Education Sciences. 2021; 11 (8):426. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moss A. 2020. Demographics of people on Amazon mechanical Turk. https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/blog/who-uses-amazon-mturk-2020-demographics/ Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• de Oliveira Araújo F.J., de Lima L.S.A., Cidade P.I.M., Nobre C.B., Neto M.L.R. Impact of Sars-Cov-2 and its reverberation in global higher education and mental health. Psychiatry Research. 2020; 288 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pemberton C.L.A. A “How-to” guide for the education thesis/dissertation process. Kappa Delta Pi Record. 2012; 48 (2):82–86. [ Google Scholar ]
• Qiu H., Li Q., Li C. How technology facilitates tourism education in COVID-19: Case study of nankai university. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie J., Lewis J., Nicholls C.M., Ormston R. 4th ed. Sage; London, UK: 2014. Qualitative research practice. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rose-Redwood R., Kitchin R., Apostolopoulou E., Rickards L., Blackman T., Crampton J., Rossi U., Buckley M. Geographies of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dialogues in Human Geography. 2020; 10 (2):97–106. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanders K., Nguyen P.T., Bouckenooghe D., Rafferty A., Schwarz G. Unraveling the what and how of organizational communication to employees during COVID-19 pandemic: Adopting an attributional lens. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2020; 56 (3):289–293. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sato S., Kang T.A., Daigo E., Matsuoka H., Harada M. Graduate employability and higher education's contributions to human resource development in sport business before and after COVID-19. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education. 2021; 28 [ Google Scholar ]
• Sverdlik A., Hall N.C., McAlpine L., Hubbard K. The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students' completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies. 2018; 13 (1):361–388. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ting H., Morrison A., Leong Q.L. Editorial - responsibility, responsible tourism and our responses. Journal of Responsible Tourism Management. 2021; 1 (2):1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tremblay S., Castiglione S., Audet L.-A., Desmarais M., Horace M., Peláez S. Conducting qualitative research to respond to COVID-19 challenges: Reflections for the present and beyond. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2021 doi: 10.1177/16094069211009679. Advance online publication. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tuomaala O., Järvelin K., Vakkari P. Evolution of library and information science, 1965–2005: Content analysis of journal articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2014; 65 (7):1446–1462. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang C.J., Ng C.Y., Brook R.H. Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan: Big data analytics, new technology, and proactive testing. JAMA. 2020; 323 (14):1341–1342. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weiner B. Psychology Press; New York: 2006. Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional approach. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu P., Peng M.Y.P., Anser M.K. Effective learning support towards sustainable student learning and well-being influenced by global pandemic of COVID-19: A comparison between mainland China and Taiwanese students. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021; 12 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yusuf A. Factors influencing post graduate students' choice of research topic in education at Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi-Nigeria. Sumerianz Journal of Education, Linguistics and Literature. 2018; 1 (2):35–40. [ Google Scholar ]

• Frontiers in Public Health
• Public Health Education and Promotion
• Research Topics

COVID-19 - Social Science Research during a Pandemic

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

In response to the coronavirus pandemic, we have witnessed a huge number of epidemiological, clinical and laboratory studies which are helping policy makers to understand how best to manage the current and future clinical and public health responses. In addition to impacting on infection and mortality rates ...

Keywords : COVID-19, Public Health, Sociology, Anthropology, Social Science, coronavirus

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines.

Submission closed.

Participating Journals

Total views.

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

• Contact Tracing
• Pandemic Data Initiative
• Webcasts & Videos
• 30-Minute COVID-19 Briefing

Research Papers

Jhu has stopped collecting data as of.

After three years of around-the-clock tracking of COVID-19 data from...

The Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center has collected, verified, and published local, regional, national, and international pandemic data since it launched in March 2020. From the beginning, the information has been freely available to all — researchers, institutions, the media, the public, and policymakers. As a result, the CRC and its data have been cited in many published research papers and reports. Here we have gathered publications authored by CRC team members that focus on the CRC or its data.

July 14, 2022

Misaligned Federal and State Covid data limits demographic insights

CDC underreports cases and deaths among African American and Hispanic or Latino individuals.

February 17, 2022

Experts Call for Open Public Health Data

Johns Hopkins team highlighted the urgent need for better COVID data collection.

Unifying Epidemiologists and Economists

Researchers from disparate fields join to chart a new path for formulating policies in response to future pandemics.

Mobility Data Supported Social Distancing

Study found that physical distancing was an effective COVID mitigation strategy.

Johns Hopkins Engineers Build COVID Dashboard

Lancet Infectious Diseases published first paper detailing how the global map was built.

Researchers Identify Disparities in COVID Testing

Johns Hopkins team conducted an analysis of state-published demographic data

• Deakin Home
• Student news
• StudentConnect
• Help and contact us

COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all aspects of our lives is well known.

Victoria experienced six lockdowns between March 2020 and October 2021 that collectively totalled 262 days. Deakin University sought to mitigate this impact on the research by higher degree by research students in various ways, including providing priority access to laboratories and support to pivot research projects. Not all impact on research could be mitigated with direct and indirect effects of limited domestic and international travel, closed university campuses and restricted in-person access to human research participants.

Within this context, you have the option of describing the impact of COVID-19 on your research and how you modified your topic, methods and data collection due to COVID-19 restrictions. The COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement aims to provide the examiners with a clearer understanding of how the research was affected and shaped due to COVID-19 disruptions.

A COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement is not required and you may submit your thesis for examination without reference to the COVID-19 pandemic. Should you wish to submit your thesis with a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement, do so only under the advice of your supervisory panel.

Please note that you may opt to include a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement for examination and remove it from your library copy but you cannot do the reverse. A COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement cannot be included in your library copy if it wasn’t included in the examination copy.

Content of a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement

Following is some examples and advice of what and what not to include in your COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement.

• How your planned research activities such as topic, research question, methods and data collection and/or the scope of your research were disrupted or changed due the pandemic. For instance: inability to conduct fieldwork or face-to-face research; access to facilities such as labs, archives or other working spaces; inability to collect or analyse data due to travel restrictions.
• How the research was shaped by the disruption: the actions or decisions taken to mitigate the disruption; new focus; revised research questions or development; pivoting or adjusting the research project.
• Any other relevant factors relating to the impact of the COVID-19 disruption on your research.
• Ensure that you do not infer that your thesis is of a lower standard due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Your COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement should not address any effect on your personal circumstances.

Format of a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement

You may choose to include the statement as an upfront additional page in your thesis and/or address the impact within the content of the thesis.

If placed as a separate page at the beginning of your thesis, it should be no more than 600 words.

We encourage you to discuss with your supervisor the format of a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement that best fits your thesis and impact on your research.

We use cookies to improve your experience. You consent to the use of our cookies if you proceed. Visit our Privacy policy for more information.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

One-year in: COVID-19 research at the international level in CORD-19 data

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Project administration, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Software, Validation, Visualization

Affiliation Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Shidler College of Business, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, United States of America

• Caroline S. Wagner, 
• Xiaojing Cai, 
• Yi Zhang, 
• Caroline V. Fry

• Published: May 25, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

The appearance of a novel coronavirus in late 2019 radically changed the community of researchers working on coronaviruses since the 2002 SARS epidemic. In 2020, coronavirus-related publications grew by 20 times over the previous two years, with 130,000 more researchers publishing on related topics. The United States, the United Kingdom and China led dozens of nations working on coronavirus prior to the pandemic, but leadership consolidated among these three nations in 2020, which collectively accounted for 50% of all papers, garnering well more than 60% of citations. China took an early lead on COVID-19 research, but dropped rapidly in production and international participation through the year. Europe showed an opposite pattern, beginning slowly in publications but growing in contributions during the year. The share of internationally collaborative publications dropped from pre-pandemic rates; single-authored publications grew. For all nations, including China, the number of publications about COVID track closely with the outbreak of COVID-19 cases. Lower-income nations participate very little in COVID-19 research in 2020. Topic maps of internationally collaborative work show the rise of patient care and public health clusters—two topics that were largely absent from coronavirus research in the two years prior to 2020. Findings are consistent with global science as a self-organizing system operating on a reputation-based dynamic.

Citation: Wagner CS, Cai X, Zhang Y, Fry CV (2022) One-year in: COVID-19 research at the international level in CORD-19 data. PLoS ONE 17(5): e0261624. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624

Editor: Alberto Baccini, University of Siena, Italy, ITALY

Received: July 14, 2021; Accepted: December 6, 2021; Published: May 25, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Wagner et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16620274.v1 .

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

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

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic upended many normal practices around the conduct of research and development (R&D); the extent of disruption is revealed across measures of scientific research output [ 1 – 3 ]. This paper revisits the extent to which patterns of international collaboration in coronavirus research during the COVID-19 pandemic depart from ‘normal’ times. We present publication patterns using one full year of publications data from the CORD-19 database, and observations on non-COVID peer-reviewed publications using the Web of Science, to examine national and international publication rates and network patterns. We examine topics of research on COVID-19, and reflect on lessons learned about international collaboration from the disruption. The analysis may be useful to research administrators, international affairs professionals and science studies scholars.

We study the international collaborative linkages as a network. In the absence of a global governing body, international collaborations operate by network dynamics. Scientific connections at the global level reflect collective decisions of hundreds of individuals who seek to connect to each other. Connections are not random; they are influenced by five factors: two personal and three contextual. Personal choices tend towards those previously known or known by reputation or introduction. Contextual choices are 1) resources available, 2) geopolitical factors, and 3) time and attention. Network dynamics emerge from interplay of these factors, although there is little research on how a disaster, such as a pandemic, will affect productivity, collaboration, and topic focus. Moreover, it is difficult to determine expectations of network dynamics in a pandemic because global exogenous disruptions are rare and studies about science in a disaster are sparse. This paper seeks to fill some of these gaps.

This paper is organized to describe the literature supporting our inquiries, and to present hypotheses derived from the literature. We then describe coronavirus research prior to the pandemic, and early policy responses to the crisis. A section on data and methodology presents approaches designed to answer the questions emerging from the hypotheses. A results section describes outcomes of the analyses, followed by limitations of the data and approaches presented here. A discussion section details responses to the hypotheses as well as observations about the research project and avenues for further research. An S1 Appendix provides additional technical details.

Literature review and hypotheses

In the decades preceding the pandemic, R&D spending and output grew rapidly. OECD data shows that, among member nations, R&D spending was 25% higher in 2017 than a decade earlier. The US National Science Foundation (NSF) reports that from 2008–2018 the annual number of citable publications (articles, notes and letters, hereafter, “publications”) worldwide grew by 3.83% per year from 1.8 million to 2.6 million [ 4 ]. Increases in spending, trained practitioners, and publications contributed to an overall growth of the research enterprise in natural sciences and engineering, social sciences, and arts and humanities. Within the research enterprise, among scientifically advanced nations, international collaborative publications grew at a faster rate than national publications, accounting for as much as one-quarter of all publications in 2018, with variations observed across fields, according to the National Science Foundation [ 4 ]. Those fields that rely on large-scale equipment are more highly globalized, but increases in international linkages is observed in most fields, tied, not to funding or equipment, but to the interests of researchers to work together. The size of these teams has grown larger over time [ 5 ].

International collaborative patterns have been dominated by scientifically advanced nations, although, over time, many low-income, emerging and developing nations have become more active, and have partnered with more advanced nations [ 6 ]. Some tendency to collaborate among nations with former colonial ties is observed [ 7 ], but this is likely due to incentivized funding provided by the former colonial power. Political differences do not appear to hinder collaboration, evidenced most notably by the rise of China to be the number one collaborating nation with the United States. Abramo et al. [ 8 ] added to literature on tendency of neighbors to work together, but Choi [ 6 ] shows this tendency to be decreasing over time.

Prior research into collaboration around viral disease events found that, during the 2014 West African Ebola epidemic, collaboration grew between scientists from scientifically advanced nations and the most affected nations [ 9 ], suggesting that connections were made based upon disease location. Ebola outbreaks brought in researchers from scientifically advanced nations to work with local researchers on specific events. Collaborative ties did not persist past the disease event.

A global community of coronavirus researchers predated the advent of the 2019 novel coronavirus; this community formed after the 2002 SARS coronavirus epidemic [ 1 ]. As the new threat emerged in 2019, governments provided emergency R&D funding to encourage targeted research on the novel coronavirus. Most of these funds were committed by governments in scientifically advanced countries and were allocated to national institutions, although the European Union (EU) and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) fund both national and foreign applicants. National actors receiving funds may then choose, in some instances, to connect to foreign collaborators, creating an international connection. The resulting connections can be studied through coauthorship attributions on paper and interpreted as a self-organizing network of connectivity [ 10 ]. In Fry et al. [ 1 ], we showed that, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, international collaborations in coronavirus research emerged among just a few nations, and, on average, publications had fewer coauthors per paper than pre-pandemic levels. Most nations did not publish on the novel coronavirus in early pandemic research.

We expect that, as funds became available to researchers, and as more knowledge was generated through the first year of the pandemic, cross-national collaborative ties will grow. That said, because of travel limitations and a need for urgent results, we expect the rate of international collaboration and network ties to remain lower than pre-pandemic levels. This expectation is also informed by the research of Rotolo and Frickel [ 11 ] who found that there were fewer ties and smaller teams among researchers just after a hurricane disaster. Further, based upon findings in the wake of the Fukushima disaster [ 12 ] and a survey by Myers et al. [ 2 ] we expect that attention to pandemic-related R&D (including basic science, patient care, and public health) has lessened the output of other scientific research as well as reduced the rate of international collaborations in other fields. In addition to changed collaborative patterns, we expect to see changes in topics throughout the first year of the pandemic with topics becoming more focused as knowledge about events grows, which we explore in a separate article. In Zhang et al. [ 3 ], we showed that, at the beginning of the pandemic, the disrupted knowledge system exhibited very little topic focus. As the pandemic progresses, we expect to see greater topic focus. We further expect to see international collaboration focus on basic science and less on patient care and public health which may have a local, regional, or national characteristics. We expect continued consolidation among leading nations and elite institutions through the pandemic year due to pressures for rapid results and the lack of mobility to begin new collaborations. Further, we expect that geographic distance will mean less during the pandemic because remote collaborators will rely on communications technologies rather than face-to-face consultations.

Science during the COVID-19 pandemic

Coronavirus research predated the COVID-19 crisis, but it was a community of 22,000 researchers working on SARs, MERs, and the porcine diarrhea epidemic [ 1 , 3 ]. Coronavirus research output doubled in number over the decade between 2008–2018, in keeping with numbers in the biological sciences. As the new threat of a novel coronavirus emerged in 2019, governments provided emergency R&D funding to encourage targeted research, which attracted many new researchers from a wide range of fields. More than 156,000 researchers published on COVID-19 in 2020, growing the original community that had worked on coronaviruses by over 130,000.

The United States Government committed the largest amount of funds to the novel coronavirus, through the CARES Act and other legislation, allocating at least $5 billion to basic research, applied research, and development of vaccines, diagnostics, mapping of disease occurrence, analytics, public health, and medicine. The bulk of funds were appropriated by the US Congress to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), and through them to BARDA, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Other agencies also received additional R&D funds over and above their annual appropriations, including the National Science Foundation ($74 million) and the Department of Energy ($99.5 million). The U.S. government also provided funds to private companies to aid in vaccine development and procurement. For example, Moderna, a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Massachusetts, received $1 billion of R&D funds and in $1.5 billion in advanced purchase agreements.

Germany provided $891 million in R&D funds into coronavirus as well as to vaccine development. The European Commission provided €469 million in R&D funds, along with permission to recipients to reallocate funds originally slotted for other topics. The UK government reports spending £554 million on 3,600 initiatives related to COVID-19. In China, the Ministry of Science and Technology invested $100 million for emergency projects and unknown millions of funds for vaccine development, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China also reallocated approximately $15 million for projects related to COVID-19.

Many research organizations and researchers from various disciplines shifted to focus on aspects of the pandemic and received grant funds to do so. Just as with any other R&D funding, the expectation is that funded research will result in published works, enhanced equipment, and medicines and vaccines. Very early in the pandemic, preprints [ 13 ] (non-peer-reviewed articles) and peer reviewed articles began flooding into publishing venues. The number of scholarly publications related to the crisis grew spectacularly in the early months of the pandemic [ 1 ].

The rush to publish is expected: Zhang et al. [ 14 ] note that historical patterns show that researchers have, in previous cases, responded quickly to public health emergencies with publications, which is the same pattern we see with COVID-19 research. In updating our earlier work [ 15 ], we found that the number of coronavirus publications in CORD-19 grew considerably in the early days of the novel coronavirus, rising at a spectacular rate from a total of 4,875 articles produced on the topic (preprint and peer reviewed) between January and mid-April to an overall sum of 44,013 by mid-July, and accumulated to 87,515 by the start of October 2020. (In comparison, nanoscale science was a rapidly growing field in the 1990s, but it took more than 19 years to go from 4,000 to 90,000 articles [ 16 ]).

The dissemination of publications changed during the pandemic. COVID-19 peer-reviewed and edited publications became available to other researchers through new (CORD-19) and pre-existing (National Library of Medicine) web platforms. COVID-19 publications were much more likely than other works to be published as open access in 2020 [ 17 ]. In 2020, open-access, peer-reviewed publications related to COVID-19 accounted for 76.6% of all publications compared to 51% of all non-COVID publications. Highly cited papers—those in the top 1% most highly cited, with over 500 citations—were more likely than other work to be published in subscription-based journals such as The Lancet , Science , New England Journal of Medicine or Nature but these works were placed into open Web portals for rapid access. The National Library of Medicine served as a repository for most new publications related to COVID-19. The publishing house Elsevier—which publishes many subscription-based journals—created a "Public Health Emergency Collection" to make COVID-19 articles rapidly available regardless of the access status of the original work (subscription or open access). Similarly, CORD-19 (the database which provided data for this article) through Semantic Scholar, made relevant research (including historical work) rapidly and readily available and allowed researchers to deposit work they viewed as relevant.

Researchers from China and the USA increased the rate of collaborative publications on coronavirus in the earliest days of the pandemic Fry et al. [ 1 ]. Liu et al. [ 18 ] showed a surge of what they call ‘parachuting collaborations’–new connections not seen prior to the pandemic–which dramatically increased during the pandemic. Together with the findings in Fry et al. [ 1 ], these findings suggests that search and team formation changed to adapt to the needs of COVID-19 research, a finding also reported by Lee & Haupt [ 19 ]. Liu et al. [ 18 ] found that COVID-19 research papers were less likely to involve international collaboration than non-COVID-19 papers during the same time period, a finding reported by Aviv-Reuven & Rosenfeld [ 20 ] as well, a finding we can confirm.

Several research articles note the absence of emerging and developing nations in early COVID-19 research. Fry et al. [ 1 ] and Lee & Haupt [ 19 ] showed that very few developing nations were involved in the earliest day of the crisis. Zhang et al. [ 3 ] confirmed Fry et al. in finding that the USA, China, and the UK were the three countries with the largest number of articles by mid-year. Several articles report that fewer coauthors appear on article bylines [ 1 , 20]. This is likely due to the need for rapidity in responding to the crisis: fewer coauthors reduces the time needed to communicate, synthesize and submit results.

Data and methodology

Data for this study were extracted in March 2021 from the Covid-19 Open Research Dataset, “CORD-19,” an open resource of scientific papers on COVID-19 and related historical coronavirus research. CORD-19 is designed to facilitate the development of text mining and information retrieval systems for COVID-19 research over its rich collection of metadata and structured full-text papers. It is accessible through the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, USA. In addition, we accessed the whole of Scopus 2020 data to examine non-COVID publications over the year. To search for evidence of government funding for COVID-19 research, we searched Web of Science, which has a field for funding acknowledgements. (Non-COVID publications were any peer-reviewed, published work that did not include one of the keywords for the COVID search below).

To maintain consistency across our studies, we applied the same search terms as used in Fry et al. [ 1 ], Cai et al. [ 15 ], and Zhang et al. [ 3 ] and limited the search to the dates January 2020 to December 2020 and citation data to March 2021. The following search terms were applied to titles and abstracts to obtain an initial dataset of coronavirus publications:

• coronavirus
• corona virus
• Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
• Middle East Respiratory Syndrome

The initial dataset was cleaned to remove the following artifacts: conference papers, preprints, collections of abstracts, symposia results, articles pre-dating 2020, and meeting notes. Preprints were excluded in this report to avoid double-counting in cases where a work is subsequently peer-reviewed and published. The author names, institutional affiliation, and addresses were extracted for analysis. For articles derived from the PubMed Central website, the citation count was extracted up to March 2021. The resulting dataset provided us with 106,993 publications for the calendar year 2020. The final dataset was further divided into four quarters, shown in Table 1 , according to “Published Date”, i.e., the electronic publication dates (if any) or else print publication date: January to March (2020 Q1), April to June (2020 Q2), July to September (2020 Q3), and October to December (2020 Q4). Full counting is used to count the number of publications of a specific country or institution. Among all the publications with at least one author and address, 8,158 (8.9%) are single-author articles, with the rest involving coauthors at the national (78%) or international levels, with 20,203 (22.0%).

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

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.t001

We analyzed the number of authors and coauthors per paper for descriptive statistics of people publishing on the novel coronavirus; we analyzed keyword usage and topics drawn from keywords and abstracts, and we analyzed geographic location of authors to study cooperative patterns at the international level. We collected additional data to answer questions about activities not available in CORD-19 in funding and on non-COVID research publications. We compared the CORD-19 data to a defined dataset of coronavirus research derived from scientific articles on coronavirus-related research on historical data we had earlier extracted from PubMed, Elsevier’s Scopus, and Web of Science (details of the construction of this data can be found in Fry et al. [ 1 ]). The datasets are available at https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/One_Year_of_COVID-19_Int_l_Collaboration/16620274 . For the CORD-19 articles that are also indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science (WoS), we retrieved funding information to get a rough view about which funding agency is contributing to the coronavirus research in the pandemic period; 35% of CORD-19 articles acknowledged funding. Dimensions database was used to analyze the open access categories.

To test for change in the number of participants in research groups between pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods, we use double-tailed T-tests to compare the average “team” structure between periods. (We employ the word “team” for convenience to describe coauthor groups even though we do not know the mechanism of cooperation among the group.) Statistical significance is assessed at 0.05 level. Team structure is measured as average number of authors per publication, average number of nations per publication, and the percentage share of internationally collaborated articles. We also use regression models to test the relationship between team structure and citation impact. Since the dependent variable, i.e., citations, is a non-negative integer, we apply count-data regression models (i.e., negative binomial regression) that can account for the nature of the data.

To test the relationship between geographic distance and international collaboration among nations, we calculate the geographic distance and collaboration strength between country pairs. The geographic distance between nations is defined as distance between capitals of each nation, based on geographic data about world cities in the R package “map”. Following the normalization approach used in previous research [ 6 , 24 , 25 ], we apply Salton’s cosine measure of international collaboration strength, which takes the publication size of nations into account. It is calculated as the number of collaborative publications divided by the square root of the product of the number of publications of the two collaborating nations (See Appendix Table 2 in S1 Appendix ).

The process of collecting and cleaning the CORD-19 database produced a set of 106,993 publications. The set used for this study is limited to work published in 2020, responding to the search string. We compared the CORD-19 results to Elsevier’s Scopus for 2020: the search of Scopus produced 73,000 COVID-19 publications, so fewer than CORD-19. Scopus limits its indexing of publications to specific journals, while CORD-19 encouraged open deposit of materials, which would include venues not indexed by Scopus—this likely accounts for the differences in numbers among databases.

For all research in 2020, Scopus shows a total of 2,584,701 publications, COVID and non-COVID topics (recall that non-COVID topics are not included in CORD-19). Against expectations, growth in life and health sciences output between 2019 and 2020 is shown in most disciplines of life and health sciences fields, both COVID and other topics. The number of publications on novel coronavirus and resulting disease is about 20 times higher in 2020 than coronavirus research published between 2018 and 2019, when work focused on SARS and MERS—earlier disease events that were not as devastating as COVID-19.

Fig 1 shows the number of coronavirus publications by month compared to the number of reported disease case outbreaks worldwide. Publication numbers grew quickly between February and May 2020 at the same time as the number of COVID-19 cases increased at an alarming rate. Since May 2020, the number of publications has remained stable at over 10,000 publications per month, while the rate of growth in COVID-19 cases declined slightly relative to the earliest months. The surge of publications on COVID-19 clearly result from thousands of ‘new’ researchers from various fields publishing on coronavirus in 2020. In pre-COVID-19 period, coronavirus researchers were drawn mainly from Life Sciences & Biomedical Sciences (e.g., Virology, Infectious Disease) and Natural Sciences (e.g., Multidisciplinary Chemistry and Organic Chemistry). The pandemic calls upon researchers from all research fields, with noticeable increased efforts from Social Sciences (including the authors of this work).

Data on publications and cases are collected from CORD-19 and WHO ( https://covid19.who.int/ ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.g001

Table 2 shows the top 25 life sciences fields in 2020 from Scopus, with the total number of COVID-19 and non-COVID articles in the same field. Fields that show the highest number of COVID-19 research are medicine, infectious disease, and public health. For all research in life and health sciences, highest growth is seen in surgery, plant science, and psychiatry and mental health. We can assume that the COVID-19 articles were written in 2020, since they are topical—“COVID” was not a keyword in 2019. Moreover, journal editors greatly sped up the processing time for COVID-related review and publication [ 26 , 27 ]. Conversely, the non-COVID articles may represent work conducted years prior, since it takes time to write, review and publish research results [ 28 ]. In fact, peer review in non-COVID related disciplines was delayed in 2020 due to the pandemic [ 26 ] so there may be insufficient time to fully assess the impact of the crisis on non-COVID research of publication output. Data in 2021 will be more telling of the impact of the pandemic year on non-COVID research publication patterns.

Data: Elsevier’s Scopus.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.t002

Contributions by author location

COVID-19 publishing numbers differ considerably by regions of the world. Fig 2 shows regionally aggregated contributions on COVID-19. Asian countries contributed over one-third of world publications in early 2020, but this percentage share dropped in the later months of 2020 as China reduced its output. Europe showed the opposite trend: Europe’s share of world COVID publications increased since April 2020 and the number remained stable through the latter months of 2020. North America’s share of publications increased throughout 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.g002

As expected, scientifically advanced nations, including China, account for the majority of COVID-19 publications. Among all nations publishing related work, USA, China, and UK produced (together and separately) 50% of the coronavirus articles during 2020, shown in Table 3 . As of early 2021, their publications accumulated around 68% of citations made to global publications supporting the expectation of consolidation around expertise and reputation. In the earliest days of the pandemic, three articles from Chinese authors [ 29 – 31 ] contributed key findings that guided much of the ensuing research; each of these articles garnered thousands of citations. Italy, UK, India, and Spain were slower to begin publishing but became more prolific through 2020, and particularly so in the final quarter. Fig 3 shows the rapid growth of monthly publications for selected countries, which also tracks with the trend in national COVID-19 cases; this finding is similar to one found in the 2014 West African Ebola epidemic [ 9 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.g003

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.t003

International collaborative publication rates in coronavirus research took six months to recover to pre-COVID levels. Collaborative research projects take longer to publish results, so the ‘recovery’ time may simply reflect more communication and production time needed due to the physical distances and time zone differences. As expected, during 2020, international collaborative papers showed fewer nations per paper in the early days, but this number increased through the year. This number stabilizes in the fourth quarter to pre-pandemic levels. Supporting other findings [ 18 ], about 65% of internationally coauthored papers include only two nations—this is a drop from usual patterns.

In earlier work, we noted that developing nations were largely absent from the publication records in the early COVID-19 period. We explored the participation of developing nations in global coronavirus research over the full year, expecting to see some recovery, but it was weak. Pre-COVID-19 coronavirus research in 2018–2019 shows that low-income nations [ 32 ] accounted for 26% of all nations participating in the research, publishing 4% of global articles. This drops during 2020: In the first two quarters of 2020, low-income nations accounted for 21% of active nations and produced 3.4% of global articles (Low-income countries (LIS) are defined by the World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/country/XM . China, India and Brazil are not low-income countries.). That said, throughout 2020 low-income nations increase their contribution to the coronavirus research, contributing just slightly more in number of publications compared to their participation in pre-COVID-19 period, but much lower than scientifically advanced nations. Against expectations and in contrast to the trend before the pandemic and in the first few months of 2020, we find, by mid-year, Chinese institutions no longer appear in the list of top 10 producing institutions, supporting Liu et al. [ 18 ]. For example, the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences ranked third and fourth in pre-COVID-19 research but dropped down the list in 2020. This drop tracks with the drop in number of COVID-19 cases in China.

Academic institutions worldwide were responsible for the largest share of publications about coronavirus during the pandemic, although private companies participated in research, usually through coauthorship with academic coauthors. We identified a list of 40,287 institutions involved in coronavirus research with the following rules: (1) we retrieved valid institution names with a list of key strings, such as “hospital”, “univers*”, and “instit*”; and (2) we consolidated variations of the same institutions, such as “MIT” and “Massachusetts Institute of Technology”, and “University of Sydney” and “Sydney University”. Fig 4 shows the institutions making top contributions to COVID-19 cooperation. As expected, the figure shows that highly reputed institutions—Harvard University (Massachusetts, USA), Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Wuhan, China), and the University of California System—produced the largest absolute numbers of publications on coronavirus in 2020. From the CORD-19 data, we find there are 2,232 articles (2.43%) involving authors from private corporations, which is average for corporate participation in Web of Science [ 33 ]. Nevertheless, this percentage is a drop from private sector participation in pre-COVID-19 dataset, where we found that 3.4% of articles involved the private sector, so it was higher than average and dropped to average in 2020.

The percentage shares of publications in global articles of top 10 prolific institutions in COVID-19 (2020) and pre-COVID-19 (2018–2019) are shown.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.g004

Table 4 shows the most frequently acknowledged funding agencies in coronavirus research indexed in Web of Science in 2020. Funders from the USA, China, and UK (or Europe) are the most commonly acknowledged, which is consistent with the publication outputs as shown in Table 3 . The US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest scientific organization dedicated to health and medical research, tops the list and is acknowledged in 15.8% of funded articles. The dominant funder in China, National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), ranks second and contributes to 10.4% of publications, despite decreased publication shares in later periods. European funding agencies, including European Commission, UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), and Medical Research Council UK (MRC), also play a vital role as COVID-19 cases and number of publications increase in Europe.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.t004

Co-occurrence network on coronavirus research

Terms retrieved from titles and abstracts of research articles provide useable clues to understand topic focus (Data for network analysis is available at Wagner, Caroline (2021): Figshare_Network files.rar. figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16652752.v1 ). The co-occurrence between terms and entities (e.g., funding agencies), and among terms, reveals their semantic connections in research, and may answer questions such as which agencies support which topics. The connection is measured by how many times two terms appear in proximity in the entire dataset, within and across articles. We identified 4,865 terms from a raw set of 1.2 million terms retrieved from titles and abstracts of the 106,993 articles published in 2020 via natural language processing techniques and a term clumping process [ 34 ], with the aid of VantagePoint (VantagePoint is a text mining tool for analyzing bibliometric data. See the link: https://www.thevantagepoint.com/ ). Specifically, the term clumping process facilitated a set of thesauri to remove meaningless terms (e.g., conjunctions, pronouns, and prepositions) and common terms in academic articles (e.g., “method” and “conclusion”), and it then consolidated terms with the same stem (e.g., terms in singular and plural forms).

Fig 5 analyzes the co-occurrence between the top 20 high-frequency terms and the major funding sources, visualized by Circos [ 35 ]. The Chinese agency, National Science Foundation of China (NSFC), was much more likely to fund research related to “Wuhan” while the United States’ National Institutes of Health (NIH) is much more likely to fund research with the term “United States.” Small differences can be observed for “clinical characteristics” (proportionately more from NSFC), and “hospitalization” (proportionately more from NIH) but these two terms are quite similar, so differences may be due to semantics only. Aside from these two differences, it appears that each of the agencies fund similar term portfolios differentiated only in proportion to their contribution, so more focused on basic research, which was our expectation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.g005

To assess whether international collaborations had different topic focus from domestic collaborations—which we expected—we analyzed co-terms at both levels. Fig 6 shows the co-term network for the internationally collaborative research, and Fig 7 shows the co-term network for domestic-only collaborations. In both networks, one sees the topics that are shown in Fig 5 as focus areas for government funders. With data extracted using Vantagepoint’s Natural Language Processing function ported into VOSViewer, Fig 6 shows international collaboration dominated by three clusters: 1) research on the virus (red, bottom left), 2) on patient care (purple, top right), and 3) on public health (green, bottom left).

Interactive version accessible at https://app.vosviewer.com/?json=https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1MVWE1bsTGi6jJeeU7BNCcjKTd2yjTiv0 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.g006

Interactive version accessible at https://app.vosviewer.com/?json=https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1RraBpIYbLY5_DfOMC0YJ7IZoq3_sRiKa .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.g007

Fig 7 shows domestic topics, highlighting greater emphasis on patient care and disease characteristics (gold, top center) than seen in Fig 6 . Moreover, a fourth cluster emerges (blue, center) with details about outbreaks, effects, viral loads, and other aspects of health are seen that are not as prevalent at the international level. A table in the S1 Appendix provides more details about the topics. As expected, the domestic publications focus on public health and patient care more than is seen at the international level, where basic science dominates the topics.

Collaboration rate

Table 5 compares collaboration rates in coronavirus publications before the COVID-19 pandemic and in four quarters of 2020. As expected, and in comparison to the number of co-authors in pre-COVID-19 coronavirus research, publications in 2020 show fewer authors, fewer nations per paper, and less frequent international collaboration overall. Team size—represented by the number of authors on a publication—shrank shortly after the outbreak of COVID-19, a finding we highlighted in Fry et al. [ 1 ], but by the end of the year, the number had recovered and risen to just above levels seen in pre-COVID-19 coronavirus research. As expected, the average number of nations per international publication remained at lower levels than pre-COVID-19 levels for USA articles; there was no significant difference in numbers of international partners for Chinese articles in pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.t005

We explored the relationship between team structure as represented by coauthors on papers and the number of citations to COVID-19 publications for publications produced in 2020 (looking at citation records up until March 2021). Table 5 shows the regression results that explore the relationship between citations to publications and international collaborative team structure, for publications with authors from USA, China, and the UK respectively. As expected, a positive correlation is shown between numbers of citations and international collaboration. Further, also meeting expectations, there is a correlation between number of authors and citations, which may reflect an audience affect due to a larger reader network. Also as expected, international teams attracted more citations than domestic-only teams, again, with a possible audience affect. These findings held for all nations except the USA, where international articles are not cited more than domestic-only research when holding constant the number of authors ( Table 6 , column 6).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.t006

Network analysis

Figs 8 and 9 compare internationally collaborative networks in the pre-COVID-19 (2018–2019) and COVID-19 (2020) periods. Recall that these numbers represent about 22% of all COVID research in 2020. Fig 8 shows pre-COVID coronavirus research with two large clusters: one, a European cluster, and two, a global cluster brokered by the USA. The US collaborated closely with China, the UK, France, the Netherlands, and Germany. The dominance of the USA is partly accounted for by the volume of research when compared to the output per nation; the USA leads in publications, citations, and connectivity in coronavirus research prior to the pandemic and remained the leader during the pandemic.

Interactive version accessible at https://app.vosviewer.com/?json=https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1_1ASbt-FheQE6_VQNc5eFhy578jot9co .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.g008

Interactive version accessible at https://app.vosviewer.com/?json=https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1TLdcW-lNUQ1k0kDlpZYOUQL57E8MKNqM .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.g009

Fig 9 shows the COVID-19 collaborative network, where, as expected based upon research by Rotolo & Frickel [ 11 ], we observe more clusters and more brokering hubs than pre-COVID-19. The number of clusters has grown, with four clusters revealing a broader set of countries acting as centralized nodes or hubs, with the UK, Italy, and Germany increasing their bridging role from positions shown in the pre-COVID-19 network. The European research clusters form into two large groups, one with Italy as the brokering hub and one with the UK in a central brokering hub. Italy intensively links to France, the USA, and Switzerland. African nations join the network through the UK connection. Australia is central to a cluster that includes Spain, Brazil, and many smaller nations from South America. As expected, geographic distance between country pairs is negatively related to the collaboration strength of the two countries in all cases (see Appendix Table 2 in S1 Appendix ). However, during COVID-19 period, the negative impact of geographic distance on collaboration strength was weakened as demonstrated by positive and significant coefficient of interaction of COVID and geographic distance. As expected, physical distance was less of a barrier to collaboration than in other scientific research. The result reveals that the pandemic weakened the role of geographic distance in international collaboration (OLS regression analysis of the relationship between geographic distance and collaboration strength).

Table 7 shows the network metrics for the above networks and for four quarters of 2020. (Visuals of the four quarterly networks are shown in the S1 Appendix ) Consistent with the growing number of internationally collaborative articles throughout 2020, the network statistics reveal expanded connections from the first period (January to March) to the third period, cumulative (July to September) in 2020, but then stabilizing.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.t007

The network statistics suggest that COVID-19 research involved many more participants than those who worked on coronavirus in the years prior to the pandemic, as we find by examining the number of unique author names. From the pre-COVID-19 coronavirus network to the COVID-19 network, we see that number of nodes increases from 103 nations before COVID to 173 during COVID. More importantly, the number of links among nations more than triples, suggesting that many more connections were made at the international level than existed prior to the pandemic. Average degree doubles, supporting the observations of many new links. These links likely were forged remotely in a process that Liu et al. [ 18 ] call “parachuting collaborations” that post-date the pandemic. These types of collaborations may have emerged through friend-of-friend connections, since people could not meet face-to-face due to travel restrictions during 2020. Betweenness centrality drops over the year indicating a shift in influence of the initial, dominant hubs to include more participants from more nations over the pandemic year.

Table 8 shows the network metrics for top producers (USA, UK, and China) in the global network. As shown by the average degree of the three countries, the USA was a hub in the network in both periods, more so early in the pandemic, supporting our expectation of consolidation around expertise and reputation, but betweenness centrality drops as researchers from more countries joined into the research. The UK played a much more active role in the COVID network compared to China in the second half of the year. Despite being a hub in the pre-COVID network and in the first months of the pandemic [ 1 ], China played a less prominent role in the network in 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.t008

Limitations of this research

This research project had a number of limitations of data, time, analysis, and scope. Data limitations include constraints of what is measurable in published work (publications, networks, and citations). We decided to use CORD-19 data because it was the most expansive dataset for COVID-19 research, but we may have picked up lower quality work as a result; it is an open dataset with attendant problems. We extracted desired features, but there may be gaps and errors. In order to get a count of open-access publications, we used Dimensions data, but the total number of COVID-19 publications in Dimensions were lower than CORD-19, so open-access publications are likely under-counted. We present the percentages of COVID-19 research that is open access; these calculations are broadly representative, but they cannot be further verified. Moreover, we are unable to show extent of R&D occurring in private research laboratories if it is not published. We hoped to inform policymakers about COVID-19 research trends in a timely manner, which meant we worked with data available at the time (in Spring 2021) rather than waiting until data has been expanded, cleaned or validated. Elsevier and Clarivate databases were also examined; these databases are more carefully curated for quality. We tapped them for comparisons to CORD-19, and especially for non-COVID research. We had planned to test whether the pandemic had an impact on non-COVID research but we were unable to show this outcome: During 2020, peer reviews were delayed [ 36 ], researchers were not able to access labs or other resources, and scholarship was interrupted, but these obstacles are not yet evident in the data. Disruptions to 2020 research activities likely will not be seen in publication data until 2022 and after. We also exclude preprint publications from this analysis, which could present a limitation, given the important role of preprints during the pandemic.

Further, a limitation of this analysis is the reliance on nations as ‘super-nodes’ in a network that consists of individuals with associated cultural contexts that are not captured in network data. This reliance on nations is partly justified in that nations represent the underlying political and social systems that support scientific activities by offering funding, infrastructure, training, and dissemination of results. We acknowledge that the reliance on nations as a unit of measurement is a limitation, imposed on the analyst based upon the ways in which data are collected. Future research will need to ensure cleaner data to validate comparisons presented here. None of these datasets can truly represent the scope of activities that contributed to what is known about COVID-19, and mechanisms to assess knowledge flows are quite limited and time consuming to collect.

A review of one year of research publications about the novel coronavirus that emerged in Wuhan China in late 2019 shows the research community reacting rapidly and robustly to the challenge. The rapidity of response to COVID-19 suggests flexibility in the research system: thousands of researchers from many fields began working on the crisis. Research was disseminated initially in a flood of preprints; rapidly peer-reviewed publications were placed on open data platforms or shared openly on subscription-based platforms. COVID-related, peer-reviewed publications rose sharply in number in early 2020, and these publications were much more likely to be shared on open-access platforms or formats to enable rapid knowledge diffusion than is the norm in scholarly publishing [ 17 ]. The earlist COVID-19 research efforts were conducted by China, the USA, and the UK, and these three nations constitute close to 50% of all COVID publications on the subject in 2020. European nations started off slowly in research publications, but these nations continued to grow their output throughout 2020, as China’s output dropped.

As expected, international collaborations accounted for a smaller percentage of publications than is generally seen in ‘normal’ times, where internationally co-authored articles often account for more than one-quarter of articles [put new footnote here that was added on page 4 and delete this note] We expected the drop-off in international publications because a lack of mobility meant that people were unable to meet and discuss shared insights, or to devise, carry out or compare research results. Remote collaborations involve higher transaction costs and could be expected to slow progress. This possibly explains why international teams were smaller: to cut down on the time needed for communication. Further, the lower rate of international collaboration may be due to topics related to patient care and public health specific to particular regions or nations rendering them less suited to international collaboration [ 3 ]. We also noted that distance was less of a barrier to collaboration than is shown in other studies in times before the COVID-19 crisis.

Interestingly, the number of papers per nation tracks closely with the outbreak of COVID-19 cases in that nation. We expected to find numbers of publications to be more closely correlated to research funding. This may still be the case, but the data is too variable and incomparable to elicit a correlation between funding and output. We surmise that researchers were motived by a desire to be helpful to those suffering with the disease. It may also be the case that local COVID cases provided observational opportunities for researchers, and thus publication opportunities, as well, which produced data that resulted in more national publications.

The low rate of participation by lower-income nations was somewhat unexpected. Lower-income nations had a very low rate of participation in the early days of COVID, and only slowly joined the global publication counts. This may be due to a number of factors, including the need to publish locally to address the crisis, the inability of researchers to access laboratories or data during lock-down periods, the lack of access to one’s office, or the inability of national ministries to provide emergency research funds. People may not have had access to the Internet at home. The lower showing for developing nations is a concern, since these nations need the scientific knowledge to battle viral events just as much or more than advanced nations. This finding clearly requires more research and perhaps policy action.

We expected that the combined rush to work on COVID and the pandemic lock-downs would reduce non-COVID research activities. This may still be the case (reported in a survey by Myer et al. [ 2 ]), but it could not be detected in publication numbers at this writing. Publications in life and health sciences in non-COVID topics increased in number over 2019. As researchers become more comfortable with remote work, they may have persisted in publishing earlier results, however, this does not comport with the findings of Myer et al. [ 2 ]. As the pipeline catches up these activities, it will be worth revisiting the impact on productivity again at the end of 2021.

The stratification and consolidation comport with a model of global science as a reputation-based system creating a social hierarchy: the global network reverts to scientifically advanced nations and elite institutions in a crisis. We expected that the number of papers would align with reputation and resources. The role of reputation is confirmed by the consolidation of actors to fewer, elite institutions in scientifically advanced nations cooperating together more so than prior to the pandemic. The role played by access to resources is unclear—we observe that national output is closely tied to number of COVID-19, which could be due to a desire of scientists to help the effort. This requires more inquiry.

The influence of geopolitical factors also appears to play some role in research output, partnership and productivity. Arguably, Chinese publications initiated most of the COVID-19 research into the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself [ 29 – 31 ]. Nevertheless, in April 2020, the Chinese government changed requirements for review of articles related to the origins of COVID-19, requiring a more central review for work about the source of the novel coronavirus, which may have reduced the willingness of Chinese authors to cooperate internationally, although this requires more inquiry. Negative political comments made in the United States against China regarding the source of the virus may also have dampened international collaboration, although we did not test for this possibility.

Time and attention may have played a role in the drop in the share of internationally co-authored papers. Transaction costs of distance communications may have hampered some international connections. The drop-off in number of developing nations participating at the start of the pandemic may have contributed to the drop in international collaboration numbers, as well, by lowering the number of potential collaborators.

A remaining question arises around the mechanisms by which people, who had not already worked together before the pandemic, became connected to one another in a year when most people were physically isolated from each other. These connections are what Liu et al. [ 18 ] term “parachuting collaborations.” One would expect that people connect face-to-face: Research shows that the vast majority of collaborative projects start face-to-face or side-by-side. When that cannot take place, it is unclear whether people look for physically proximate partners, choose to work alone, become connected to new people through friend-of-a-friend, through social media, or perhaps just a ‘cold-call’ outreach to someone they do not know. It is clear that many of the connections made around COVID-19 may not have existed prior to the pandemic, so further research is needed to understand how people connected with each other under crisis conditions.

Supporting information

S1 appendix. network visuals..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.s001

Acknowledgments

Thanks go to Clayton E. Tillman and Thomas Collins for help with data collection and formatting.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 4. National Science Board. The state of U.S. science and engineering. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2020.
• 7. Glänzel W, Schubert A. Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems, Moed H., ed., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, 2004. pp. 257–76.
• 13. Preprints contain the results of research activities, but they have not yet been subject to peer review.
• 17. Fry CV, MacGarvie M. Drinking from the firehose: Preprints, Chinese researchers, and the diffusion of knowledge in COVID-19. 2021.
• 18. Liu M, Bu Y, Chen C, Xu J, Li D, Leng Y, et al. Can pandemics transform scientific novelty? Evidence from COVID-19. arXiv. 2020.
• 20. Aviv-Reuven S, Rosenfeld A. Publication patterns’ changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal and short-term scientometric analysis. arXiv. 2021:02594.
• 26. Horbach SPJM. No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic. Research Evaluation. 2021;(rvaa037).
• 32. DFID. Low-income countries (LIS) as defined by Department for International Development (DFID) of UK [cited 2021]. https://g2lm-lic.iza.org/call-phase-iv/list-of-lic/ .

• Fact sheets
• Facts in pictures
• Publications
• Questions and answers
• Tools and toolkits
• Endometriosis
• Excessive heat
• Mental disorders
• Polycystic ovary syndrome
• All countries
• Eastern Mediterranean
• South-East Asia
• Western Pacific
• Data by country
• Country presence 
• Country strengthening 
• Country cooperation strategies 
• News releases
• Feature stories
• Press conferences
• Commentaries
• Photo library
• Afghanistan
• Cholera 
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• Greater Horn of Africa
• Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
• Disease Outbreak News
• Situation reports
• Weekly Epidemiological Record
• Surveillance
• Health emergency appeal
• International Health Regulations
• Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
• Classifications
• Data collections
• Global Health Observatory
• Global Health Estimates
• Mortality Database
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Health Inequality Monitor
• Global Progress
• World Health Statistics
• Partnerships
• Committees and advisory groups
• Collaborating centres
• Technical teams
• Organizational structure
• Initiatives
• General Programme of Work
• WHO Academy
• Investment in WHO
• WHO Foundation
• External audit
• Financial statements
• Internal audit and investigations 
• Programme Budget
• Results reports
• Governing bodies
• World Health Assembly
• Executive Board
• Member States Portal
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) /

Global research on coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

Section navigation.

• WHO COVID-19 Solidarity Therapeutics Trial
• "Solidarity II" global serologic study for COVID-19
• Accelerating a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine
• Solidarity Trial Vaccines 

WHO is bringing the world’s scientists and global health professionals together to accelerate the research and development process, and develop new norms and standards to contain the spread of the coronavirus pandemic and help care for those affected.

The  R&D Blueprint  has been activated to accelerate diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for this novel coronavirus. 

The solidarity of all countries will be essential to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 health products.

WHO COVID-19 Research Database

The WHO COVID-19 Research Database was a resource created in response to the Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). It contained citations with abstracts to scientific articles, reports, books, preprints, and clinical trials on COVID-19 and related literature. The WHO Covid-19 Research Database was maintained by the WHO Library & Digital Information Networks and  was funded by COVID-19 emergency funds. The database was built by BIREME, the Specialized Center of PAHO/AMRO. Its content spanned the time period March 2020 to June 2023. It has now been archived, and no longer searchable since January 2024. 

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions

Developing talents, advancing research

Projects researching COVID–19, SARS-CoV-2 and related topics

The current COVID-19 outbreak has not caught EU-funded research off guard. The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) of the European Commission are supporting outstanding researchers in finding solutions to challenges posed by the novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.

This page will be regularly updated with MSCA projects, results and testimonials relevant to COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and related topics.

DIAGNOSTICS AND TREATMENTS (including vaccines)

Diabetic nephropathy modelling in hesc-derived 3d kidney organoids.

EPIORGABOLISM is studying how SARS-Co-V2, the coronavirus responsible for the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), interacts with and infects kidney cells. Together with the lung, the kidney is one of the main organs affected by the COVID-19 disease. Dr Carmen Hurtado, researcher of EPIORGABOLISM, is currently generating human kidney organoids from human pluripotent stem cells.

The use of human organoids allows to test treatments against coronavirus in an agile way, dramatically reducing the time human drug trials take. Hurtado is part of international research team has identified a drug capable of blocking the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The findings have been partially supported by EPIORGABOLISM and published in the journal ‘Cell’.

Find out more

• Trial drug shows promise in fighting coronavirus
• Watch the testimonial of Carmen Hurtado , researcher of the EPIORGABOLISM project.

Host switching pathogens, infectious outbreaks and zoonosis; a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Training Network

HONOURs is teaching 15 talented young researchers, including coronavirologists, to become “preparedness-experts”. The project involves 11 laboratories, all at the forefront of novel virus investigations and characterizations. HONOUR reacted in January 2020, immediately after the emergence of COVID-19, by starting work on SARS-CoV-2. A synthetic biology virus culture system was developed to swiftly evaluate therapy options, next to rapid tests to determine virus shedding on location. The quality of protective immunity was evaluated, and a search started on the most suitable animal model to battle the virus and provide therapy options. HONOURs is devoting its expert knowledge to fight this coronavirus and provide therapy options.

• HONOURs: Virus Outbreak Preparedness and COVID-19
• Visit the HONOURs website

INnate-ImmunomeTabolIsm as Antiviral TargEt

The global COVID-19 pandemic highlights an urgent need for innovation in the development of novel antiviral strategies and therapies. INITIATE has recruited 15 young PhD candidates to become experts in the field of antiviral immunometabolism, with a focus on RNA viruses – including coronaviruses. While it is clear that viral replication, metabolic pathways, and host immune responses are tightly interconnected, the host molecular pathways that impact viral pathogenesis are not well-defined. With the emergence of COVID-19, eight of the INITIATE projects have included SARS-CoV-2 in their research programs to understand coronavirus molecular virology, the role of the host immune response in driving COVID-19 immunopathogenesis and the potential of targeting host metabolism as therapeutic strategies.

Organoids for Virus Research - An innovative training-ETN programme

ORGANOVIR  is contributing to COVID-19 research in a variety of ways, and several of its researchers are currently working on the development of new antivirals to combat the disease. Researchers at KU Leuven (Belgium) are studying the way in which coronaviruses evolve, and are searching out possible targets for further remedies. The project also investigating active substances – or a combination of them – in existing medicines that could be effective against SARS-CoV-2. ORGANOVIR is also conducting pre-clinical tests for a vaccine against COVID-19 using a technology based on the yellow fever vaccine.

In parallel, a group of researchers at the Jagiellonian University (Poland) is studying the infection on the single-cell and tissue level in different organs and cell types, working on virus inhibitors and collaborating with companies to create a point of care diagnostics based on different platforms. The group is also studying the course of the pandemic in Poland and monitoring the virus variability in the country.

ORGANOVIR’s coordinators have been intensively working on clinical and diagnostic tasks and set up new COVID-19 research at the Amsterdam UMC (The Netherlands). This has resulted in the launch of COVID-KIDS, a study on immunity in children, and the use of 3D culture models for COVID-19 studies.

• Read about the COVID-19 activities of ORGANOVIR partners
• Read the testimonial of Mariana Guedes , researcher for the OrganoVir project
• Read the testimonial of Thuc Do , researcher for the OrganoVir project
• Air-liquid interface cultures of nasal epithelial cells to investigate factors critical for viral entry into host cells

MECHANISMS OF INFECTION, IMMUNE REACTIONS AND HOST-PATHAGEN INTERACTION

Unravelling species barriers of coronaviruses.

COV RESTRIC  targeted the precise mechanisms that allow coronaviruses to jump across species. Dr Stephanie Pfänder, researcher of COV RESTRIC, worked on various virological aspects of emerging viruses – with a focus on emerging coronaviruses. Her work has the potential to lead to novel strategies to protect cells against coronavirus infection. This is crucial to fight the COVID-19 pandemic – and to help insulate society against future coronavirus outbreaks.

• Read the testimonial of Stephanie Pfänder , researcher of the COV RESTRIC project.
• Host proteins involved in species barriers of viral infections

DIGITAL TOOLS, DATA AND MODELLING

Research and innovation staff exchange network of european data scientists.

The NeEDS  consortium is currently focusing on the emerging data challenges that come with the COVID-19 pandemic. In Spain, the first cases of the COVID-19 pandemic were confirmed late February 2020 and data started to be collected daily by the different regions. Data and Data Science tools turned out to be crucial to assist decision makers in this highly uncertain context. NeEDS and the scientific collaborations they enjoy were fundamental to create a working group of data scientists from different European universities, which has developed an Artificial Intelligence tool to provide short-term predictions of the pandemic’s evolution. With this novel methodology, NeEDS as contributed to the cooperative efforts coordinated by the Spanish Commission of Mathematics to support data-driven decision making related to the COVID19 pandemic. In a recent interview , Project Coordinator Dolores Romero Morales has reflected on the potential of the NeEDS expertise and the efforts of tackling these data challenges within the team. The consortium is tackling other important Data Science questions, e.g., using spatial data to support COVID19 information apps or addressing the pressing data privacy needs.

• Read about the COVID-19 activities of NeEDS and its partners
• On Sparse Ensemble Methods: An Application to Short-Term Predictions of the Evolution of COVID-19
• Read the testimonials of Remedios Sillero, Cristina Molero and Sandra Benitez , seconded researchers for the NeEDS project.

Pan-genome Graph Algorithms and Data Integration

Researchers involved in PANGAIA  are investigating how massive amounts of genome sequence data can be ordered and analysed for their use in biomedicine. Their work has important implications in areas such as bacteria and virus research, investigation of drug resistance mechanisms and vaccine development: big data technology can help to identify the characteristics of new strains of viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 and bacteria by comparing their genomes.

• Identifying large data sets to help coronavirus research
• Identifying pathogenic genes in virus strains at a glance

Modelling Infectious Diseases in Dynamic, relocated, refugee populations

In order to assist policy-makers in mitigating outbreaks, MIDIDP  has created realistic models to simulate the spread of infectious diseases in under-vaccinated refugee populations in Europe and neighbouring countries. Dr Hasan Güçlü, researcher of MIDIDP, has created a model that simulates the spread of COVID-19 in populations with variable demographics.

• Read the testimonial of Hasan Güçlü , researcher of the MIDIDP project.

PUBLIC HEALTH, PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

Disability and disease during the 1918 influenza pandemic: implications for preparedness policies.

As the current COVID-19 pandemic shows, people with disabilities are at increased risk for complications and death as they are often neglected in epidemic responses. Dr Jessica Dimka, researcher of DIS2 , is exploring disability as a risk factor in pandemics. Using the 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic as a model, the project seeks to promote more equitable public health plans and interventions. Dimka points out that people with disabilities must be considered in all pandemic strategies: their lives, livelihoods and rights are not expendable.

• Read the testimonial of Jessica Dimka , researcher of the DIS2 project.

MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROJECTS

Protecting human rights and public health in global pandemics.

THEMIS is an interdisciplinary research project that reacts to the increasing occurrence of global pandemics, like the caused by the present COVID-19 disease, and restrictive public health measures taken to respond to these threats. Using a rights-based approach, Dr Patrycja Dąbrowska-Kłosińska, researcher of THEMIS, intends to create a better understanding of how to prepare for, and respond to, global pandemics.

The project seeks to offer a vital reference for policy-making at national, regional and global levels – one that prioritises fair pandemic preparedness to cross-border health threats. The project has offered critical guidance during the current COVID-19 pandemic, which has required a previously unimagined scale of coordinated, public health-control measures as well as consideration of human-rights implications worldwide.

• Read the testimonial of Patrycja Dąbrowska-Kłosińska , researcher of the THEMIS project.

Martí I Franquès COFUND

Since the emergence of COVID-19, several fellows involved in the Martí Franquès Programme (MFP) have been working on solutions to the current crisis. Researchers are developing an epidemiological mathematical model that infers the status of the epidemic, thereby monitoring and estimating the impact of interventions on the spread of COVID-19.

In parallel, another group of researchers is implementing an original virtual screening protocol to reposition approved drugs. This would allow predicting which of them could inhibit the main protease of the virus (M-pro), a key target for antiviral drugs given its essential role in the virus replication.

• Read the testimonial of Benjamin Steinegger , whose research is developing a mathematical framework to monitor and estimate the impact of interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project outcomes

• Modelling the impact of interventions on the spread of COVID-19
• Prediction of novel inhibitors of the main protease of SARS-CoV-2
• See all the results relevant to COVID-19 produced by MFP fellows

The launch of a new industrial PhD programme at EPFL

Several fellows involved in the EPFLinnovators  project are working on solutions to COVID-19 since the start of the crisis. Teams of researchers are developing subunit vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, investigating the potential use of cyclodextrin derivatives to prevent and treat the infections caused by SARS-CoV-2, and analysing the mechanical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells.

• Read the testimonial of Xiaomeng Hu , researcher of the EPFLInnovators project.
• Subunit vaccines against SARS-CoV-2
• Non-toxic cyclodextrin derivative against viruses at micromolar concentration
• Variations in clathrin mediated endocytosis on a mammalian cell membrane

SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND IMPACT

Leading fellows.

Over the last decade, the reliance on online products and services has steadily increased, but since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic it has escalated to an unprecedented level. Dr Matthew Dennis, researcher of the LEaDing Fellows COFUND project at TU Delft (the Netherlands), examines the ethical implications and value trade-offs as societies attempt to transition across the digital divide. His project highlights that an ethical reflection on this digital transition is urgently needed, as digital solutions to problems generated by COVID-19 may create winners and losers – likely disproportionately affecting vulnerable users. By addressing these issues, the pandemic may foster the kind of social and political interconnectedness that was envisioned at the start of the crisis.

• Read the testimonial of Matthew James Dennis , researcher of the LEaDing Fellows project.

MSCA on social media

The MSCA social media are continuously updated with testimonials of MSCA fellows, supervisors, coordinators and projects working to find solutions to challenges posed by COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.

• MSCA on Twitter
• MSCA Facebook page

Related content

Related information, want to give your feedback about this page, thanks for your feedback.

We are happy to see that your experience was positive. Don't forget to share the pages you like with your friends and colleagues.

If you need to ask a question, please contact Europe direct .

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Careers of Women in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2021)

Chapter: 8 major findings and research questions, 8 major findings and research questions, introduction.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in late 2019, created unprecedented global disruption and infused a significant level of uncertainty into the lives of individuals, both personally and professionally, around the world throughout 2020. The significant effect on vulnerable populations, such as essential workers and the elderly, is well documented, as is the devastating effect the COVID-19 pandemic had on the economy, particularly brick-and-mortar retail and hospitality and food services. Concurrently, the deaths of unarmed Black people at the hands of law enforcement officers created a heightened awareness of the persistence of structural injustices in U.S. society.

Against the backdrop of this public health crisis, economic upheaval, and amplified social consciousness, an ad hoc committee was appointed to review the potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in academic science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) during 2020. The committee’s work built on the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report Promising Practices for Addressing the Underrepresentation of Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine: Opening Doors (the Promising Practices report), which presents evidence-based recommendations to address the well-established structural barriers that impede the advancement of women in STEMM. However, the committee recognized that none of the actions identified in the Promising Practices report were conceived within the context of a pandemic, an economic downturn, or the emergence of national protests against structural racism. The representation and vitality of academic women in STEMM had already warranted national attention prior to these events, and the COVID-19

pandemic appeared to represent an additional risk to the fragile progress that women had made in some STEMM disciplines. Furthermore, the future will almost certainly hold additional, unforeseen disruptions, which underscores the importance of the committee’s work.

In times of stress, there is a risk that the divide will deepen between those who already have advantages and those who do not. In academia, senior and tenured academics are more likely to have an established reputation, a stable salary commitment, and power within the academic system. They are more likely, before the COVID-19 pandemic began, to have established professional networks, generated data that can be used to write papers, and achieved financial and job security. While those who have these advantages may benefit from a level of stability relative to others during stressful times, those who were previously systemically disadvantaged are more likely to experience additional strain and instability.

As this report has documented, during 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic had overall negative effects on women in academic STEMM in areas such productivity, boundary setting and boundary control, networking and community building, burnout rates, and mental well-being. The excessive expectations of caregiving that often fall on the shoulders of women cut across career timeline and rank (e.g., graduate student, postdoctoral scholar, non-tenure-track and other contingent faculty, tenure-track faculty), institution type, and scientific discipline. Although there have been opportunities for innovation and some potential shifts in expectations, increased caregiving demands associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, such as remote working, school closures, and childcare and eldercare, had disproportionately negative outcomes for women.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in STEMM during 2020 are understood better through an intentionally intersectional lens. Productivity, career, boundary setting, mental well-being, and health are all influenced by the ways in which social identities are defined and cultivated within social and power structures. Race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, academic career stage, appointment type, institution type, age, and disability status, among many other factors, can amplify or diminish the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic for a given person. For example, non-cisgender women may be forced to return to home environments where their gender identity is not accepted, increasing their stress and isolation, and decreasing their well-being. Women of Color had a higher likelihood of facing a COVID-19–related death in their family compared with their white, non-Hispanic colleagues. The full extent of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic for women of various social identities was not fully understood at the end of 2020.

Considering the relative paucity of women in many STEMM fields prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, women are more likely to experience academic isolation, including limited access to mentors, sponsors, and role models that share gender, racial, or ethnic identities. Combining this reality with the physical isolation stipulated by public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic,

women in STEMM were subject to increasing isolation within their fields, networks, and communities. Explicit attention to the early indicators of how the COVID-19 pandemic affected women in academic STEMM careers during 2020, as well as attention to crisis responses throughout history, may provide opportunities to mitigate some of the long-term effects and potentially develop a more resilient and equitable academic STEMM system.

MAJOR FINDINGS

Given the ongoing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was not possible to fully understand the entirety of the short- or long-term implications of this global disruption on the careers of women in academic STEMM. Having gathered preliminary data and evidence available in 2020, the committee found that significant changes to women’s work-life boundaries and divisions of labor, careers, productivity, advancement, mentoring and networking relationships, and mental health and well-being have been observed. The following findings represent those aspects that the committee agreed have been substantiated by the preliminary data, evidence, and information gathered by the end of 2020. They are presented either as Established Research and Experiences from Previous Events or Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic during 2020 that parallel the topics as presented in the report.

Established Research and Experiences from Previous Events

___________________

1 This finding is primarily based on research on cisgender women and men.

Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic during 2020

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

While this report compiled much of the research, data, and evidence available in 2020 on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, future research is still needed to understand all the potential effects, especially any long-term implications. The research questions represent areas the committee identified for future research, rather than specific recommendations. They are presented in six categories that parallel the chapters of the report: Cross-Cutting Themes; Academic Productivity and Institutional Responses; Work-Life Boundaries and Gendered Divisions of Labor; Collaboration, Networking, and Professional Societies; Academic Leadership and Decision-Making; and Mental Health and Well-being. The committee hopes the report will be used as a basis for continued understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in its entirety and as a reference for mitigating impacts of future disruptions that affect women in academic STEMM. The committee also hopes that these research questions may enable academic STEMM to emerge from the pandemic era a stronger, more equitable place for women. Therefore, the committee identifies two types of research questions in each category; listed first are those questions aimed at understanding the impacts of the disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by those questions exploring the opportunities to help support the full participation of women in the future.

Cross-Cutting Themes

• What are the short- and long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the career trajectories, job stability, and leadership roles of women, particularly of Black women and other Women of Color? How do these effects vary across institutional characteristics, 2 discipline, and career stage?

2 Institutional characteristics include different institutional types (e.g., research university, liberal arts college, community college), locales (e.g., urban, rural), missions (e.g., Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Asian American/Native American/Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities), and levels of resources.

• How did the confluence of structural racism, economic hardships, and environmental disruptions affect Women of Color during the COVID-19 pandemic? Specifically, how did the murder of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black citizens impact Black women academics’ safety, ability to be productive, and mental health?
• How has the inclusion of women in leadership and other roles in the academy influenced the ability of institutions to respond to the confluence of major social crises during the COVID-19 pandemic?
• How can institutions build on the involvement women had across STEMM disciplines during the COVID-19 pandemic to increase the participation of women in STEMM and/or elevate and support women in their current STEMM-related positions?
• How can institutions adapt, leverage, and learn from approaches developed during 2020 to attend to challenges experienced by Women of Color in STEMM in the future?

Academic Productivity and Institutional Responses

• How did the institutional responses (e.g., policies, practices) that were outlined in the Major Findings impact women faculty across institutional characteristics and disciplines?
• What are the short- and long-term effects of faculty evaluation practices and extension policies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic on the productivity and career trajectories of members of the academic STEMM workforce by gender?
• What adaptations did women use during the transition to online and hybrid teaching modes? How did these techniques and adaptations vary as a function of career stage and institutional characteristics?
• What are examples of institutional changes implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that have the potential to reduce systemic barriers to participation and advancement that have historically been faced by academic women in STEMM, specifically Women of Color and other marginalized women in STEMM? How might positive institutional responses be leveraged to create a more resilient and responsive higher education ecosystem?
• How can or should funding arrangements be altered (e.g., changes in funding for research and/or mentorship programs) to support new ways of interaction for women in STEMM during times of disruption, such as the COVID-19 pandemic?

Work-Life Boundaries and Gendered Divisions of Labor

• How do different social identities (e.g., racial; socioeconomic status; culturally, ethnically, sexually, or gender diverse; immigration status; parents of young children and other caregivers; women without partners) influence the management of work-nonwork boundaries? How did this change during the COVID-19 pandemic?
• How have COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions affected progress toward reducing the gender gap in academic STEMM labor-force participation? How does this differ for Women of Color or women with caregiving responsibilities?
• How can institutions account for the unique challenges of women faculty with parenthood and caregiving responsibilities when developing effective and equitable policies, practices, or programs?
• How might insights gained about work-life boundaries during the COVID-19 pandemic inform how institutions develop and implement supportive resources (e.g., reductions in workload, on-site childcare, flexible working options)?

Collaboration, Networking, and Professional Societies

• What were the short- and long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic-prompted switch from in-person conferences to virtual conferences on conference culture and climate, especially for women in STEMM?
• How will the increase in virtual conferences specifically affect women’s advancement and career trajectories? How will it affect women’s collaborations?
• How has the shift away from attending conferences and in-person networking changed longer-term mentoring and sponsoring relationships, particularly in terms of gender dynamics?
• How can institutions maximize the benefits of digitization and the increased use of technology observed during the COVID-19 pandemic to continue supporting women, especially marginalized women, by increasing accessibility, collaborations, mentorship, and learning?
• How can organizations that support, host, or facilitate online and virtual conferences and networking events (1) ensure open and fair access to participants who face different funding and time constraints; (2) foster virtual connections among peers, mentors, and sponsors; and (3) maintain an inclusive environment to scientists of all backgrounds?
• What policies, practices, or programs can be developed to help women in STEMM maintain a sense of support, structure, and stability during and after periods of disruption?

Academic Leadership and Decision-Making

• What specific interventions did colleges and universities initiate or prioritize to ensure that women were included in decision-making processes during responses to the COVID-19 pandemic?
• How effective were colleges and universities that prioritized equity-minded leadership, shared leadership, and crisis leadership styles at mitigating emerging and potential negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in their communities?
• What specific aspects of different leadership models translated to more effective strategies to advance women in STEMM, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic?
• How can examples of intentional inclusion of women in decision-making processes during the COVID-19 pandemic be leveraged to develop the engagement of women as leaders at all levels of academic institutions?
• What are potential “top-down” structural changes in academia that can be implemented to mitigate the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic or other disruptions?
• How can academic leadership, at all levels, more effectively support the mental health needs of women in STEMM?

Mental Health and Well-being

• What is the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and institutional responses on the mental health and well-being of members of the academic STEMM workforce as a function of gender, race, and career stage?
• How are tools and diagnostic tests to measure aspects of wellbeing, including burnout and insomnia, used in academic settings? How does this change during times of increased stress, such as the COVID-19 pandemic?
• How might insights gained about mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic be used to inform preparedness for future disruptions?
• How can programs that focus on changes in biomarkers of stress and mood dysregulation, such as levels of sleep, activity, and texting patterns, be developed and implemented to better engage women in addressing their mental health?
• What are effective interventions to address the health of women academics in STEMM that specifically account for the effects of stress on women? What are effective interventions to mitigate the excessive levels of stress for Women of Color?

This page intentionally left blank.

The spring of 2020 marked a change in how almost everyone conducted their personal and professional lives, both within science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) and beyond. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted global scientific conferences and individual laboratories and required people to find space in their homes from which to work. It blurred the boundaries between work and non-work, infusing ambiguity into everyday activities. While adaptations that allowed people to connect became more common, the evidence available at the end of 2020 suggests that the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic endangered the engagement, experience, and retention of women in academic STEMM, and may roll back some of the achievement gains made by women in the academy to date.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Careers of Women in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine identifies, names, and documents how the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the careers of women in academic STEMM during the initial 9-month period since March 2020 and considers how these disruptions - both positive and negative - might shape future progress for women. This publication builds on the 2020 report Promising Practices for Addressing the Underrepresentation of Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine to develop a comprehensive understanding of the nuanced ways these disruptions have manifested. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Careers of Women in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will inform the academic community as it emerges from the pandemic to mitigate any long-term negative consequences for the continued advancement of women in the academic STEMM workforce and build on the adaptations and opportunities that have emerged.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

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

Get Email Updates

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