research question about impact of covid 19 on business

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

11 Questions to Ask About COVID-19 Research

Debates have raged on social media, around dinner tables, on TV, and in Congress about the science of COVID-19. Is it really worse than the flu? How necessary are lockdowns? Do masks work to prevent infection? What kinds of masks work best? Is the new vaccine safe?

You might see friends, relatives, and coworkers offer competing answers, often brandishing studies or citing individual doctors and scientists to support their positions. With so much disagreement—and with such high stakes—how can we use science to make the best decisions?

Here at Greater Good , we cover research into social and emotional well-being, and we try to help people apply findings to their personal and professional lives. We are well aware that our business is a tricky one.

Summarizing scientific studies and distilling the key insights that people can apply to their lives isn’t just difficult for the obvious reasons, like understanding and then explaining formal science terms or rigorous empirical and analytic methods to non-specialists. It’s also the case that context gets lost when we translate findings into stories, tips, and tools, especially when we push it all through the nuance-squashing machine of the Internet. Many people rarely read past the headlines, which intrinsically aim to be relatable and provoke interest in as many people as possible. Because our articles can never be as comprehensive as the original studies, they almost always omit some crucial caveats, such as limitations acknowledged by the researchers. To get those, you need access to the studies themselves.

And it’s very common for findings and scientists to seem to contradict each other. For example, there were many contradictory findings and recommendations about the use of masks, especially at the beginning of the pandemic—though as we’ll discuss, it’s important to understand that a scientific consensus did emerge.

Given the complexities and ambiguities of the scientific endeavor, is it possible for a non-scientist to strike a balance between wholesale dismissal and uncritical belief? Are there red flags to look for when you read about a study on a site like Greater Good or hear about one on a Fox News program? If you do read an original source study, how should you, as a non-scientist, gauge its credibility?

Here are 11 questions you might ask when you read about the latest scientific findings about the pandemic, based on our own work here at Greater Good.

1. Did the study appear in a peer-reviewed journal?

In peer review, submitted articles are sent to other experts for detailed critical input that often must be addressed in a revision prior to being accepted and published. This remains one of the best ways we have for ascertaining the rigor of the study and rationale for its conclusions. Many scientists describe peer review as a truly humbling crucible. If a study didn’t go through this process, for whatever reason, it should be taken with a much bigger grain of salt. 

“When thinking about the coronavirus studies, it is important to note that things were happening so fast that in the beginning people were releasing non-peer reviewed, observational studies,” says Dr. Leif Hass, a family medicine doctor and hospitalist at Sutter Health’s Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, California. “This is what we typically do as hypothesis-generating but given the crisis, we started acting on them.”

In a confusing, time-pressed, fluid situation like the one COVID-19 presented, people without medical training have often been forced to simply defer to expertise in making individual and collective decisions, turning to culturally vetted institutions like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Is that wise? Read on.

2. Who conducted the study, and where did it appear?

“I try to listen to the opinion of people who are deep in the field being addressed and assess their response to the study at hand,” says Hass. “With the MRNA coronavirus vaccines, I heard Paul Offit from UPenn at a UCSF Grand Rounds talk about it. He literally wrote the book on vaccines. He reviewed what we know and gave the vaccine a big thumbs up. I was sold.”

From a scientific perspective, individual expertise and accomplishment matters—but so does institutional affiliation.

Why? Because institutions provide a framework for individual accountability as well as safety guidelines. At UC Berkeley, for example , research involving human subjects during COVID-19 must submit a Human Subjects Proposal Supplement Form , and follow a standard protocol and rigorous guidelines . Is this process perfect? No. It’s run by humans and humans are imperfect. However, the conclusions are far more reliable than opinions offered by someone’s favorite YouTuber .

Recommendations coming from institutions like the CDC should not be accepted uncritically. At the same time, however, all of us—including individuals sporting a “Ph.D.” or “M.D.” after their names—must be humble in the face of them. The CDC represents a formidable concentration of scientific talent and knowledge that dwarfs the perspective of any one individual. In a crisis like COVID-19, we need to defer to that expertise, at least conditionally.

“If we look at social media, things could look frightening,” says Hass. When hundreds of millions of people are vaccinated, millions of them will be afflicted anyway, in the course of life, by conditions like strokes, anaphylaxis, and Bell’s palsy. “We have to have faith that people collecting the data will let us know if we are seeing those things above the baseline rate.”

3. Who was studied, and where?

Animal experiments tell scientists a lot, but their applicability to our daily human lives will be limited. Similarly, if researchers only studied men, the conclusions might not be relevant to women, and vice versa.

Many psychology studies rely on WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) participants, mainly college students, which creates an in-built bias in the discipline’s conclusions. Historically, biomedical studies also bias toward gathering measures from white male study participants, which again, limits generalizability of findings. Does that mean you should dismiss Western science? Of course not. It’s just the equivalent of a “Caution,” “Yield,” or “Roadwork Ahead” sign on the road to understanding.

This applies to the coronavirus vaccines now being distributed and administered around the world. The vaccines will have side effects; all medicines do. Those side effects will be worse for some people than others, depending on their genetic inheritance, medical status, age, upbringing, current living conditions, and other factors.

For Hass, it amounts to this question: Will those side effects be worse, on balance, than COVID-19, for most people?

“When I hear that four in 100,000 [of people in the vaccine trials] had Bell’s palsy, I know that it would have been a heck of a lot worse if 100,000 people had COVID. Three hundred people would have died and many others been stuck with chronic health problems.”

4. How big was the sample?

In general, the more participants in a study, the more valid its results. That said, a large sample is sometimes impossible or even undesirable for certain kinds of studies. During COVID-19, limited time has constrained the sample sizes.

However, that acknowledged, it’s still the case that some studies have been much larger than others—and the sample sizes of the vaccine trials can still provide us with enough information to make informed decisions. Doctors and nurses on the front lines of COVID-19—who are now the very first people being injected with the vaccine—think in terms of “biological plausibility,” as Hass says.

Did the admittedly rushed FDA approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine make sense, given what we already know? Tens of thousands of doctors who have been grappling with COVID-19 are voting with their arms, in effect volunteering to be a sample for their patients. If they didn’t think the vaccine was safe, you can bet they’d resist it. When the vaccine becomes available to ordinary people, we’ll know a lot more about its effects than we do today, thanks to health care providers paving the way.

5. Did the researchers control for key differences, and do those differences apply to you?

Diversity or gender balance aren’t necessarily virtues in experimental research, though ideally a study sample is as representative of the overall population as possible. However, many studies use intentionally homogenous groups, because this allows the researchers to limit the number of different factors that might affect the result.

While good researchers try to compare apples to apples, and control for as many differences as possible in their analyses, running a study always involves trade-offs between what can be accomplished as a function of study design, and how generalizable the findings can be.

The Science of Happiness

What does it take to live a happier life? Learn research-tested strategies that you can put into practice today. Hosted by award-winning psychologist Dacher Keltner. Co-produced by PRX and UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

You also need to ask if the specific population studied even applies to you. For example, when one study found that cloth masks didn’t work in “high-risk situations,” it was sometimes used as evidence against mask mandates.

However, a look beyond the headlines revealed that the study was of health care workers treating COVID-19 patients, which is a vastly more dangerous situation than, say, going to the grocery store. Doctors who must intubate patients can end up being splattered with saliva. In that circumstance, one cloth mask won’t cut it. They also need an N95, a face shield, two layers of gloves, and two layers of gown. For the rest of us in ordinary life, masks do greatly reduce community spread, if as many people as possible are wearing them.

6. Was there a control group?

One of the first things to look for in methodology is whether the population tested was randomly selected, whether there was a control group, and whether people were randomly assigned to either group without knowing which one they were in. This is especially important if a study aims to suggest that a certain experience or treatment might actually cause a specific outcome, rather than just reporting a correlation between two variables (see next point).

For example, were some people randomly assigned a specific meditation practice while others engaged in a comparable activity or exercise? If the sample is large enough, randomized trials can produce solid conclusions. But, sometimes, a study will not have a control group because it’s ethically impossible. We can’t, for example, let sick people go untreated just to see what would happen. Biomedical research often makes use of standard “treatment as usual” or placebos in control groups. They also follow careful ethical guidelines to protect patients from both maltreatment and being deprived necessary treatment. When you’re reading about studies of masks, social distancing, and treatments during the COVID-19, you can partially gauge the reliability and validity of the study by first checking if it had a control group. If it didn’t, the findings should be taken as preliminary.

7. Did the researchers establish causality, correlation, dependence, or some other kind of relationship?

We often hear “Correlation is not causation” shouted as a kind of battle cry, to try to discredit a study. But correlation—the degree to which two or more measurements seem connected—is important, and can be a step toward eventually finding causation—that is, establishing a change in one variable directly triggers a change in another. Until then, however, there is no way to ascertain the direction of a correlational relationship (does A change B, or does B change A), or to eliminate the possibility that a third, unmeasured factor is behind the pattern of both variables without further analysis.

In the end, the important thing is to accurately identify the relationship. This has been crucial in understanding steps to counter the spread of COVID-19 like shelter-in-place orders. Just showing that greater compliance with shelter-in-place mandates was associated with lower hospitalization rates is not as conclusive as showing that one community that enacted shelter-in-place mandates had lower hospitalization rates than a different community of similar size and population density that elected not to do so.

We are not the first people to face an infection without understanding the relationships between factors that would lead to more of it. During the bubonic plague, cities would order rodents killed to control infection. They were onto something: Fleas that lived on rodents were indeed responsible. But then human cases would skyrocket.

Why? Because the fleas would migrate off the rodent corpses onto humans, which would worsen infection. Rodent control only reduces bubonic plague if it’s done proactively; once the outbreak starts, killing rats can actually make it worse. Similarly, we can’t jump to conclusions during the COVID-19 pandemic when we see correlations.

8. Are journalists and politicians, or even scientists, overstating the result?

Language that suggests a fact is “proven” by one study or which promotes one solution for all people is most likely overstating the case. Sweeping generalizations of any kind often indicate a lack of humility that should be a red flag to readers. A study may very well “suggest” a certain conclusion but it rarely, if ever, “proves” it.

This is why we use a lot of cautious, hedging language in Greater Good , like “might” or “implies.” This applies to COVID-19 as well. In fact, this understanding could save your life.

When President Trump touted the advantages of hydroxychloroquine as a way to prevent and treat COVID-19, he was dramatically overstating the results of one observational study. Later studies with control groups showed that it did not work—and, in fact, it didn’t work as a preventative for President Trump and others in the White House who contracted COVID-19. Most survived that outbreak, but hydroxychloroquine was not one of the treatments that saved their lives. This example demonstrates how misleading and even harmful overstated results can be, in a global pandemic.

9. Is there any conflict of interest suggested by the funding or the researchers’ affiliations?

A 2015 study found that you could drink lots of sugary beverages without fear of getting fat, as long as you exercised. The funder? Coca Cola, which eagerly promoted the results. This doesn’t mean the results are wrong. But it does suggest you should seek a second opinion : Has anyone else studied the effects of sugary drinks on obesity? What did they find?

It’s possible to take this insight too far. Conspiracy theorists have suggested that “Big Pharma” invented COVID-19 for the purpose of selling vaccines. Thus, we should not trust their own trials showing that the vaccine is safe and effective.

But, in addition to the fact that there is no compelling investigative evidence that pharmaceutical companies created the virus, we need to bear in mind that their trials didn’t unfold in a vacuum. Clinical trials were rigorously monitored and independently reviewed by third-party entities like the World Health Organization and government organizations around the world, like the FDA in the United States.

Does that completely eliminate any risk? Absolutely not. It does mean, however, that conflicts of interest are being very closely monitored by many, many expert eyes. This greatly reduces the probability and potential corruptive influence of conflicts of interest.

10. Do the authors reference preceding findings and original sources?

The scientific method is based on iterative progress, and grounded in coordinating discoveries over time. Researchers study what others have done and use prior findings to guide their own study approaches; every study builds on generations of precedent, and every scientist expects their own discoveries to be usurped by more sophisticated future work. In the study you are reading, do the researchers adequately describe and acknowledge earlier findings, or other key contributions from other fields or disciplines that inform aspects of the research, or the way that they interpret their results?

Greater Good’s Guide to Well-Being During Coronavirus

Practices, resources, and articles for individuals, parents, and educators facing COVID-19

This was crucial for the debates that have raged around mask mandates and social distancing. We already knew quite a bit about the efficacy of both in preventing infections, informed by centuries of practical experience and research.

When COVID-19 hit American shores, researchers and doctors did not question the necessity of masks in clinical settings. Here’s what we didn’t know: What kinds of masks would work best for the general public, who should wear them, when should we wear them, were there enough masks to go around, and could we get enough people to adopt best mask practices to make a difference in the specific context of COVID-19 ?

Over time, after a period of confusion and contradictory evidence, those questions have been answered . The very few studies that have suggested masks don’t work in stopping COVID-19 have almost all failed to account for other work on preventing the disease, and had results that simply didn’t hold up. Some were even retracted .

So, when someone shares a coronavirus study with you, it’s important to check the date. The implications of studies published early in the pandemic might be more limited and less conclusive than those published later, because the later studies could lean on and learn from previously published work. Which leads us to the next question you should ask in hearing about coronavirus research…

11. Do researchers, journalists, and politicians acknowledge limitations and entertain alternative explanations?

Is the study focused on only one side of the story or one interpretation of the data? Has it failed to consider or refute alternative explanations? Do they demonstrate awareness of which questions are answered and which aren’t by their methods? Do the journalists and politicians communicating the study know and understand these limitations?

When the Annals of Internal Medicine published a Danish study last month on the efficacy of cloth masks, some suggested that it showed masks “make no difference” against COVID-19.

The study was a good one by the standards spelled out in this article. The researchers and the journal were both credible, the study was randomized and controlled, and the sample size (4,862 people) was fairly large. Even better, the scientists went out of their way to acknowledge the limits of their work: “Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.”

Unfortunately, their scientific integrity was not reflected in the ways the study was used by some journalists, politicians, and people on social media. The study did not show that masks were useless. What it did show—and what it was designed to find out—was how much protection masks offered to the wearer under the conditions at the time in Denmark. In fact, the amount of protection for the wearer was not large, but that’s not the whole picture: We don’t wear masks mainly to protect ourselves, but to protect others from infection. Public-health recommendations have stressed that everyone needs to wear a mask to slow the spread of infection.

“We get vaccinated for the greater good, not just to protect ourselves ”

As the authors write in the paper, we need to look to other research to understand the context for their narrow results. In an editorial accompanying the paper in Annals of Internal Medicine , the editors argue that the results, together with existing data in support of masks, “should motivate widespread mask wearing to protect our communities and thereby ourselves.”

Something similar can be said of the new vaccine. “We get vaccinated for the greater good, not just to protect ourselves,” says Hass. “Being vaccinated prevents other people from getting sick. We get vaccinated for the more vulnerable in our community in addition for ourselves.”

Ultimately, the approach we should take to all new studies is a curious but skeptical one. We should take it all seriously and we should take it all with a grain of salt. You can judge a study against your experience, but you need to remember that your experience creates bias. You should try to cultivate humility, doubt, and patience. You might not always succeed; when you fail, try to admit fault and forgive yourself.

Above all, we need to try to remember that science is a process, and that conclusions always raise more questions for us to answer. That doesn’t mean we never have answers; we do. As the pandemic rages and the scientific process unfolds, we as individuals need to make the best decisions we can, with the information we have.

This article was revised and updated from a piece published by Greater Good in 2015, “ 10 Questions to Ask About Scientific Studies .”

About the Authors

Jeremy Adam Smith

Uc berkeley.

Jeremy Adam Smith edits the GGSC’s online magazine, Greater Good . He is also the author or coeditor of five books, including The Daddy Shift , Are We Born Racist? , and (most recently) The Gratitude Project: How the Science of Thankfulness Can Rewire Our Brains for Resilience, Optimism, and the Greater Good . Before joining the GGSC, Jeremy was a John S. Knight Journalism Fellow at Stanford University.

Emiliana R. Simon-Thomas

Emiliana R. Simon-Thomas, Ph.D. , is the science director of the Greater Good Science Center, where she directs the GGSC’s research fellowship program and serves as a co-instructor of its Science of Happiness and Science of Happiness at Work online courses.

You May Also Enjoy

How Does COVID-19 Affect Trust in Government?

Why Your Sacrifices Matter During the Pandemic

Why Is COVID-19 Killing So Many Black Americans?

How to Form a Pandemic Pod

In a Pandemic, Elbow Touches Might Keep Us Going

How to Keep the Greater Good in Mind During the Coronavirus Outbreak

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research Roundup: How the Pandemic Changed Management

• Mark C. Bolino,
• Jacob M. Whitney,
• Sarah E. Henry

Lessons from 69 articles published in top management and applied psychology journals.

Researchers recently reviewed 69 articles focused on the management implications of the Covid-19 pandemic that were published between March 2020 and July 2023 in top journals in management and applied psychology. The review highlights the numerous ways in which employees, teams, leaders, organizations, and societies were impacted and offers lessons for managing through future pandemics or other events of mass disruption.

The recent pandemic disrupted life as we know it, including for employees and organizations around the world. To understand such changes, we recently reviewed 69 articles focused on the management implications of the Covid-19 pandemic. These papers were published between March 2020 and July 2023 in top journals in management and applied psychology.

• Mark C. Bolino is the David L. Boren Professor and the Michael F. Price Chair in International Business at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business. His research focuses on understanding how an organization can inspire its employees to go the extra mile without compromising their personal well-being.
• JW Jacob M. Whitney is a doctoral candidate in management at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business and an incoming assistant professor at Kennesaw State University. His research interests include leadership, teams, and organizational citizenship behavior.
• SH Sarah E. Henry is a doctoral candidate in management at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business and an incoming assistant professor at the University of South Florida. Her research interests include organizational citizenship behaviors, workplace interpersonal dynamics, and international management.

Partner Center

COVID-19 and the economy: Your questions, our answers

Subscribe to the hutchins roundup and newsletter, david wessel david wessel director - the hutchins center on fiscal and monetary policy , senior fellow - economic studies @davidmwessel.

April 1, 2020

COVID-19 is, first and foremost, a public health crisis, but it has had significant economic effects. With tens of millions of Americans told to stay home, the U.S. is at the beginning of what will surely be one of the deepest recessions in history. We hosted a virtual event on COVID-19 and the economy recently with Janet Yellen , the former Federal Reserve chair who is now at the Hutchins Center at Brookings, and Brookings scholars Adam Looney , Amy Liu , and Louise Sheiner . You can watch the hour-long video here . We fielded several questions from viewers, but didn’t have time to get to everyone. So here are answers to some of the questions we didn’t get a chance to answer.

The following answers are from Janet Yellen.

Q: How well prepared is the typical American household for the coming shock of lost jobs and income, in light of a decade of debt-deleveraging, continuous job growth, and low unemployment, coupled with weak wage growth and rising income inequality?

A: “It’s true that we’ve had a decade of debt deleveraging and strong job growth. On average, debt burdens and financial obligations have fallen to relatively low levels.  That positions the median household well to deal with the coronavirus shock. But households differ, and averages don’t reveal the poor financial position of many households going into this crisis. Federal Reserve statistics show that a large share of Americans couldn’t come up with $400 to deal with an emergency. Many households have little savings and a lot of debt and are very poorly positioned to deal with the impact of job loss and increases in health care expenditures.”

Q: What do you think about proposals to expand International Monetary Fund lending by issuing more Special Drawing Rights?

A: “It’s true that less developed countries are especially challenged by the pandemic, and a large number are turning to the IMF for help. A Special Drawing Rights (SDR) allocation is one way the IMF could respond. The last SDR allocation was in 2009, in response to the global financial crisis. However, in such an allocation, all members receive SDRs based on their IMF quotas, so a large share of the money goes to developed countries like the United States. It’s unclear that this strategy would provide sufficient funds to stressed emerging markets. An alternative is to enhance the IMF’s emergency lending capacity and allow the Fund to allocate it to those most in need. My preference would be for this latter strategy. “

The following answers are from David Wessel.

Q: If the $2 trillion recovery package is smaller than optimal to achieve stated objectives, how should a next recovery package be structured and advanced through Congress?

A: That depends, in part, on what happens with the virus. It’s likely that state and local governments will need more federal aid . Some components–such as the expansion of unemployment insurance–may need to be extended if the recession persists. Both House Democrats and President Trump are talking about using the next bill as the vehicle for the long-promised increase in federal infrastructure investment.

Q: Which sectors of the economy are likely to recover the fastest? Which the slowest?

A: No one can know for sure, and a lot depends on how we move from stay-at-home to go-back-to-work. It seems unlikely that we’ll move instantly back to business as usual. We’ll probably be avoiding large crowds for a while. In the first stage, people will go back to the factory or the office. Then I suspect there’ll be a lot of business for barbershops and beauty salons once they reopen, and for retail that doesn’t involve large numbers of people in a crowded space. Only when people feel safer–and the government relaxes guidance–will restaurants, movie theatres, concerts, and sporting events resume.

Another issue is whether we should expect structural economic changes as a result of this pandemic. Will the disruption to global supply chains lead to a mini-revival in selected sectors in manufacturing? Will the surge in online education, telemedicine, and online conferencing persist? Hard to know. We’ll probably be investing more in public health–at least, I hope so. But we don’t really know what, or how long-lasting, the after-effects of the COVID-19 crisis will be.

Q: Do the environmental benefits seen as a result of this global slowdown (less smog, less turbid water bodies, etc.) hint at the potential positive impacts of a Green New Deal? 

A: Not really. We have to find a better way to curtail pollution and address climate change than turning off the economy and telling everyone to stay home. That said, some of the changes we’ve made—Zoom conferences and meetings instead of travel, more working from home and hence less commuting—do offer some promise to address climate change.

The challenge is to change policies, business practices, and human behavior in ways that both address environmental challenges and raise living standards for the world’s population.

Q: At what point in time do we go from a one- to two-quarter downturn with a rebound to a prolonged, difficult-to-recover-from economic depression?

A: The longer the government tells us all to stay home, the longer and deeper the recession will be. At some point, the virus will recede, or we will learn how to fight it, and we can restart the economy. How quick the recovery will be once that happens is hard to predict. The economy was in good shape going into this crisis, and most of the productive capacity of the country – the factories, office buildings, human capital (except, of course, for those who tragically perish) – will have been preserved. Furthermore, much of what the U.S. government is doing now is meant to ensure a quicker recovery. Keeping businesses on life support and encouraging employers to keep workers on their payrolls will allow economic activity to resume quickly once it’s safe to do so. On the other hand, a long lockdown without enough government help could mean a painfully slow recovery: businesses that have gone under will have to rebuild, and people who lose their jobs during the pandemic will come out of it with little savings, lower credit ratings, and more fear about the future.

Q: Another way of asking the above question is: Will the recovery be shaped like a V, or a U, or an L?

A: I hope it’s a V: a quick bounceback once we’re all allowed to leave our homes. But that depends heavily on the course of the virus, and I can’t predict that. Here is how Janet Yellen answered that question.

Q: Has the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target become irrelevant…forever?

A: At some point, the economy will recover, and the Fed will need some target to steer towards. Inflation has been and continues to be below the 2% target, but we don’t really know what happens next. Inflation could be low for a long time, but it also could rise as we climb out of this abyss and unleash a lot of pent-up demand into an economy in which the capacity to supply goods and services has been hurt. The Fed didn’t anticipate COVID-19, but it has been rethinking its monetary policy framework in anticipation of more frequent bouts of zero interest rates. The results of that review were expected around mid-year, but may be delayed by the crisis.

Q: How do you foresee this crisis affecting income inequality in the U.S.?

A: The forces widening the gaps between winners and losers in the economy–technology and globalization that tend to favor the most educated, the erosion in workers’ bargaining power, the winner-take-all phenomenon that favors the top in every profession, and so on–probably won’t be affected by COVID-19. Right now, it’s clear that some of us (the ones who can work remotely from home like I can are getting our full paychecks) are better off than those who have been laid off. Some of what the government is doing–the $1,200 per adult payments to households, the expansion of unemployment insurance–will partially offset that. Some workers–the ones at Amazon, Instacart, and Whole Foods–are using their newfound clout to demand higher wages. Going forward, a lot turns on the policies we pursue as the economy recovers: Do they exacerbate or restrain the forces of inequality?

Q: How do we pay for all the government spending?

A: Louise Sheiner and I answered that in a recent blog post . Short answer:

• The world has been and still appears to be awash in savings–one big reason global interest rates have been so low, which suggests there’s ample room for the U.S. government to borrow.
• Among those here and abroad with savings, there’s often a flight to the safety of U.S. Treasury debt, as opposed to stocks, corporate bonds, real estate, etc. That makes it easier for the Treasury to borrow without pushing up interest rates.
• The Federal Reserve can and does create money, and it’s doing that now to buy U.S. Treasury bonds.

Related Content

Finn Schüle, Louise Sheiner

March 31, 2020

Eric Milstein, David Wessel

January 2, 2024

Nellie Liang

March 30, 2020

Economic Studies

The Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy

Brookings Institution, Washington DC

9:00 am - 1:15 pm EDT

The Brookings Institution, Washington D.C.

10:00 am - 12:00 pm EDT

Janice C. Eberly, Ben Harris, Stefanie Stantcheva, Jón Steinsson

May 9, 2024

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 16 June 2020

COVID-19 impact on research, lessons learned from COVID-19 research, implications for pediatric research

• Debra L. Weiner 1 , 2 ,
• Vivek Balasubramaniam 3 ,
• Shetal I. Shah 4 &
• Joyce R. Javier 5 , 6

on behalf of the Pediatric Policy Council

Pediatric Research volume  88 ,  pages 148–150 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

147k Accesses

81 Citations

19 Altmetric

Metrics details

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented research worldwide. The impact on research in progress at the time of the pandemic, the importance and challenges of real-time pandemic research, and the importance of a pediatrician-scientist workforce are all highlighted by this epic pandemic. As we navigate through and beyond this pandemic, which will have a long-lasting impact on our world, including research and the biomedical research enterprise, it is important to recognize and address opportunities and strategies for, and challenges of research and strengthening the pediatrician-scientist workforce.

The first cases of what is now recognized as SARS-CoV-2 infection, termed COVID-19, were reported in Wuhan, China in December 2019 as cases of fatal pneumonia. By February 26, 2020, COVID-19 had been reported on all continents except Antarctica. As of May 4, 2020, 3.53 million cases and 248,169 deaths have been reported from 210 countries. 1

Impact of COVID-19 on ongoing research

The impact on research in progress prior to COVID-19 was rapid, dramatic, and no doubt will be long term. The pandemic curtailed most academic, industry, and government basic science and clinical research, or redirected research to COVID-19. Most clinical trials, except those testing life-saving therapies, have been paused, and most continuing trials are now closed to new enrollment. Ongoing clinical trials have been modified to enable home administration of treatment and virtual monitoring to minimize participant risk of COVID-19 infection, and to avoid diverting healthcare resources from pandemic response. In addition to short- and long-term patient impact, these research disruptions threaten the careers of physician-scientists, many of whom have had to shift efforts from research to patient care. To protect research in progress, as well as physician-scientist careers and the research workforce, ongoing support is critical. NIH ( https://grants.nih.gov/policy/natural-disasters/corona-virus.htm ), PCORI ( https://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/applicant-and-awardee-faqs-related-covid-19 ), and other funders acted swiftly to provide guidance on proposal submission and award management, and implement allowances that enable grant personnel to be paid and time lines to be relaxed. Research institutions have also implemented strategies to mitigate the long-term impact of research disruptions. Support throughout and beyond the pandemic to retain currently well-trained research personnel and research support teams, and to accommodate loss of research assets, including laboratory supplies and study participants, will be required to complete disrupted research and ultimately enable new research.

In the long term, it is likely that the pandemic will force reallocation of research dollars at the expense of research areas funded prior to the pandemic. It will be more important than ever for the pediatric research community to engage in discussion and decisions regarding prioritization of funding goals for dedicated pediatric research and meaningful inclusion of children in studies. The recently released 2020 National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) strategic plan that engaged stakeholders, including scientists and patients, to shape the goals of the Institute, will require modification to best chart a path toward restoring normalcy within pediatric science.

COVID-19 research

This global pandemic once again highlights the importance of research, stable research infrastructure, and funding for public health emergency (PHE)/disaster preparedness, response, and resiliency. The stakes in this worldwide pandemic have never been higher as lives are lost, economies falter, and life has radically changed. Ultimate COVID-19 mitigation and crisis resolution is dependent on high-quality research aligned with top priority societal goals that yields trustworthy data and actionable information. While the highest priority goals are treatment and prevention, biomedical research also provides data critical to manage and restore economic and social welfare.

Scientific and technological knowledge and resources have never been greater and have been leveraged globally to perform COVID-19 research at warp speed. The number of studies related to COVID-19 increases daily, the scope and magnitude of engagement is stunning, and the extent of global collaboration unprecedented. On January 5, 2020, just weeks after the first cases of illness were reported, the genetic sequence, which identified the pathogen as a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was released, providing information essential for identifying and developing treatments, vaccines, and diagnostics. As of May 3, 2020 1133 COVID-19 studies, including 148 related to hydroxychloroquine, 13 to remdesivir, 50 to vaccines, and 100 to diagnostic testing, were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, and 980 different studies on the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), made possible, at least in part, by use of data libraries to inform development of antivirals, immunomodulators, antibody-based biologics, and vaccines. On April 7, 2020, the FDA launched the Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP) ( https://www.fda.gov/drugs/coronavirus-covid-19-drugs/coronavirus-treatment-acceleration-program-ctap ). On April 17, 2020, NIH announced a partnership with industry to expedite vaccine development ( https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-launch-public-private-partnership-speed-covid-19-vaccine-treatment-options ). As of May 1, 2020, remdesivir (Gilead), granted FDA emergency use authorization, is the only approved therapeutic for COVID-19. 2

The pandemic has intensified research challenges. In a rush for data already thousands of manuscripts, news reports, and blogs have been published, but to date, there is limited scientifically robust data. Some studies do not meet published clinical trial standards, which now include FDA’s COVID-19-specific standards, 3 , 4 , 5 and/or are published without peer review. Misinformation from studies diverts resources from development and testing of more promising therapeutic candidates and has endangered lives. Ibuprofen, initially reported as unsafe for patients with COVID-19, resulted in a shortage of acetaminophen, endangering individuals for whom ibuprofen is contraindicated. Hydroxychloroquine initially reported as potentially effective for treatment of COVID-19 resulted in shortages for patients with autoimmune diseases. Remdesivir, in rigorous trials, showed decrease in duration of COVID-19, with greater effect given early. 6 Given the limited availability and safety data, the use outside clinical trials is currently approved only for severe disease. Vaccines typically take 10–15 years to develop. As of May 3, 2020, of nearly 100 vaccines in development, 8 are in trial. Several vaccines are projected to have emergency approval within 12–18 months, possibly as early as the end of the year, 7 still an eternity for this pandemic, yet too soon for long-term effectiveness and safety data. Antibody testing, necessary for diagnosis, therapeutics, and vaccine testing, has presented some of the greatest research challenges, including validation, timing, availability and prioritization of testing, interpretation of test results, and appropriate patient and societal actions based on results. 8 Relaxing physical distancing without data regarding test validity, duration, and strength of immunity to different strains of COVID-19 could have catastrophic results. Understanding population differences and disparities, which have been further exposed during this pandemic, is critical for response and long-term pandemic recovery. The “Equitable Data Collection and Disclosure on COVID-19 Act” calls for the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and other HHS (United States Department of Health & Human Services) agencies to publicly release racial and demographic information ( https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Equitable%20Data%20Collection%20and%20Dislosure%20on%20COVID19%20Act_FINAL.pdf )

Trusted sources of up-to-date, easily accessible information must be identified (e.g., WHO https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov , CDC https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/hcp/index.html , and for children AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) https://www.aappublications.org/cc/covid-19 ) and should comment on quality of data and provide strategies and crisis standards to guide clinical practice.

Long-term, lessons learned from research during this pandemic could benefit the research enterprise worldwide beyond the pandemic and during other PHE/disasters with strategies for balancing multiple novel approaches and high-quality, time-efficient, cost-effective research. This challenge, at least in part, can be met by appropriate study design, collaboration, patient registries, automated data collection, artificial intelligence, data sharing, and ongoing consideration of appropriate regulatory approval processes. In addition, research to develop and evaluate innovative strategies and technologies to improve access to care, management of health and disease, and quality, safety, and cost effectiveness of care could revolutionize healthcare and healthcare systems. During PHE/disasters, crisis standards for research should be considered along with ongoing and just-in-time PHE/disaster training for researchers willing to share information that could be leveraged at time of crisis. A dedicated funded core workforce of PHE/disaster researchers and funded infrastructure should be considered, potentially as a consortium of networks, that includes physician-scientists, basic scientists, social scientists, mental health providers, global health experts, epidemiologists, public health experts, engineers, information technology experts, economists and educators to strategize, consult, review, monitor, interpret studies, guide appropriate clinical use of data, and inform decisions regarding effective use of resources for PHE/disaster research.

Differences between adult and pediatric COVID-19, the need for pediatric research

As reported by the CDC, from February 12 to April 2, 2020, of 149,760 cases of confirmed COVID-19 in the United States, 2572 (1.7%) were children aged <18 years, similar to published rates in China. 9 Severe illness has been rare. Of 749 children for whom hospitalization data is available, 147 (20%) required hospitalization (5.7% of total children), and 15 of 147 required ICU care (2.0%, 0.58% of total). Of the 95 children aged <1 year, 59 (62%) were hospitalized, and 5 (5.3%) required ICU admission. Among children there were three deaths. Despite children being relatively spared by COVID-19, spread of disease by children, and consequences for their health and pediatric healthcare are potentially profound with immediate and long-term impact on all of society.

We have long been aware of the importance and value of pediatric research on children, and society. COVID-19 is no exception and highlights the imperative need for a pediatrician-scientist workforce. Understanding differences in epidemiology, susceptibility, manifestations, and treatment of COVID-19 in children can provide insights into this pathogen, pathogen–host interactions, pathophysiology, and host response for the entire population. Pediatric clinical registries of COVID-infected, COVID-exposed children can provide data and specimens for immediate and long-term research. Of the 1133 COVID-19 studies on ClinicalTrials.gov, 202 include children aged ≤17 years. Sixty-one of the 681 interventional trials include children. With less diagnostic testing and less pediatric research, we not only endanger children, but also adults by not identifying infected children and limiting spread by children.

Pediatric considerations and challenges related to treatment and vaccine research for COVID-19 include appropriate dosing, pediatric formulation, and pediatric specific short- and long-term effectiveness and safety. Typically, initial clinical trials exclude children until safety has been established in adults. But with time of the essence, deferring pediatric research risks the health of children, particularly those with special needs. Considerations specific to pregnant women, fetuses, and neonates must also be addressed. Childhood mental health in this demographic, already struggling with a mental health pandemic prior to COVID-19, is now further challenged by social disruption, food and housing insecurity, loss of loved ones, isolation from friends and family, and exposure to an infodemic of pandemic-related information. Interestingly, at present mental health visits along with all visits to pediatric emergency departments across the United States are dramatically decreased. Understanding factors that mitigate and worsen psychiatric symptoms should be a focus of research, and ideally will result in strategies for prevention and management in the long term, including beyond this pandemic. Social well-being of children must also be studied. Experts note that the pandemic is a perfect storm for child maltreatment given that vulnerable families are now socially isolated, facing unemployment, and stressed, and that children are not under the watch of mandated reporters in schools, daycare, and primary care. 10 Many states have observed a decrease in child abuse reports and an increase in severity of emergency department abuse cases. In the short term and long term, it will be important to study the impact of access to care, missed care, and disrupted education during COVID-19 on physical and cognitive development.

Training and supporting pediatrician-scientists, such as through NIH physician-scientist research training and career development programs ( https://researchtraining.nih.gov/infographics/physician-scientist ) at all stages of career, as well as fostering research for fellows, residents, and medical students willing to dedicate their research career to, or at least understand implications of their research for, PHE/disasters is important for having an ongoing, as well as a just-in-time surge pediatric-focused PHE/disaster workforce. In addition to including pediatric experts in collaborations and consortiums with broader population focus, consideration should be given to pediatric-focused multi-institutional, academic, industry, and/or government consortiums with infrastructure and ongoing funding for virtual training programs, research teams, and multidisciplinary oversight.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research and research in response to the pandemic once again highlights the importance of research, challenges of research particularly during PHE/disasters, and opportunities and resources for making research more efficient and cost effective. New paradigms and models for research will hopefully emerge from this pandemic. The importance of building sustained PHE/disaster research infrastructure and a research workforce that includes training and funding for pediatrician-scientists and integrates the pediatrician research workforce into high-quality research across demographics, supports the pediatrician-scientist workforce and pipeline, and benefits society.

Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Covid-19 Case Tracker. Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html (2020).

US Food and Drug Administration. Coronavirus (COVID-19) update: FDA issues emergency use authorization for potential COVID-19 treatment. FDA News Release . https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-issues-emergency-use-authorization-potential-covid-19-treatment (2020).

Evans, S. R. Fundamentals of clinical trial design. J. Exp. Stroke Transl. Med. 3 , 19–27 (2010).

Article   Google Scholar  

Antman, E. M. & Bierer, B. E. Standards for clinical research: keeping pace with the technology of the future. Circulation 133 , 823–825 (2016).

Food and Drug Administration. FDA guidance on conduct of clinical trials of medical products during COVID-19 public health emergency. Guidance for Industry, Investigators and Institutional Review Boards . https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/fda-guidance-conduct-clinical-trials-medical-products-during-covid-19-public-health-emergency (2020).

National Institutes of Health. NIH clinical trials shows remdesivir accelerates recovery from advanced COVID-19. NIH New Releases . https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-clinical-trial-shows-remdesivir-accelerates-recovery-advanced-covid-19#.XrIX75ZmQeQ.email (2020).

Radcliffe, S. Here’s exactly where we are with vaccines and treatments for COVID-19. Health News . https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-exactly-where-were-at-with-vaccines-and-treatments-for-covid-19 (2020).

Abbasi, J. The promise and peril of antibody testing for COVID-19. JAMA . https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6170 (2020).

CDC COVID-19 Response Team. Coronavirus disease 2019 in children—United States, February 12–April 2, 2020. Morb. Mortal Wkly Rep . 69 , 422–426 (2020).

Agarwal, N. Opinion: the coronavirus could cause a child abuse epidemic. The New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/opinion/coronavirus-child-abuse.html (2020).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Emergency Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Debra L. Weiner

Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA

Vivek Balasubramaniam

Department of Pediatrics and Division of Neonatology, Maria Fareri Children’s Hospital at Westchester Medical Center, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA

Shetal I. Shah

Division of General Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Joyce R. Javier

Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to conception and design, data acquisition and interpretation, drafting the manuscript, and providing critical revisions. All authors approve this final version of the manuscript.

Pediatric Policy Council

Scott C. Denne, MD, Chair, Pediatric Policy Council; Mona Patel, MD, Representative to the PPC from the Academic Pediatric Association; Jean L. Raphael, MD, MPH, Representative to the PPC from the Academic Pediatric Association; Jonathan Davis, MD, Representative to the PPC from the American Pediatric Society; DeWayne Pursley, MD, MPH, Representative to the PPC from the American Pediatric Society; Tina Cheng, MD, MPH, Representative to the PPC from the Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs; Michael Artman, MD, Representative to the PPC from the Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs; Shetal Shah, MD, Representative to the PPC from the Society for Pediatric Research; Joyce Javier, MD, MPH, MS, Representative to the PPC from the Society for Pediatric Research.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debra L. Weiner .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Members of the Pediatric Policy Council are listed below Author contributions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Weiner, D.L., Balasubramaniam, V., Shah, S.I. et al. COVID-19 impact on research, lessons learned from COVID-19 research, implications for pediatric research. Pediatr Res 88 , 148–150 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-020-1006-3

Download citation

Received : 07 May 2020

Accepted : 21 May 2020

Published : 16 June 2020

Issue Date : August 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-020-1006-3

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Catalysing global surgery: a meta-research study on factors affecting surgical research collaborations with africa.

• Thomas O. Kirengo
• Hussein Dossajee
• Nchafatso G. Obonyo

Systematic Reviews (2024)

Lessons learnt while designing and conducting a longitudinal study from the first Italian COVID-19 pandemic wave up to 3 years

• Alvisa Palese
• Stefania Chiappinotto
• Carlo Tascini

Health Research Policy and Systems (2023)

Pediatric Research and COVID-19: the changed landscape

• E. J. Molloy
• C. B. Bearer

Pediatric Research (2022)

Cancer gene therapy 2020: highlights from a challenging year

• Georgios Giamas
• Teresa Gagliano

Cancer Gene Therapy (2022)

Quick links

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

New Research: The Real Impacts of COVID-19 on Small Business

• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Eighty-eight percent of U.S. small business owners have exhausted their Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan, says a new report from Babson’s Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Businesses program .

This Small Business Association (SBA) loan was designed specifically to help businesses keep their workforce employed during the pandemic. With no end to the spread of COVID-19 in sight, a growing number of local employment providers are running out of funds.

The good news: “Approximately two-thirds of respondents have pivoted to new revenue sources or adapted their business model in response to the current crisis,” shared Babson Professor Richard Bliss , National Academic Director of Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Businesses . “Many credit this to what they learned in the 10,000 Small Businesses curriculum, which is built on Babson College’s entrepreneurial mindset.”

Such entrepreneurial leadership has allowed businesses of all sizes to refocus efforts on current needs of their customers, most notably mass production of personal protective equipment , and an all-hands-on-deck approach to creating and distributing a COVID-19 vaccine .

But, these successes do not diminish the fact that more than 32% of PPP loan recipients already have laid off employees or cut wages. Another 36% say they will be forced to do the same if Congress does not act quickly, and 30% will exhaust their cash reserved by the end of 2020.

These figures are even worse when you narrow in on the effects of COVID-19 on Black-owned businesses . Forty-three percent of Black small business owners report that their businesses’ cash reserves will be depleted by year’s end, and nearly 40% who received PPP loans have had to lay off employees or cut wages.

“Small businesses provide half of all private sector jobs in the U.S. and an even larger percentage in many underserved communities,” said Bliss. “They also provide needed goods and services to communities not served by large companies.”

Two legislative proposals were submitted in August, but according to Bliss, “nothing has made it through Congress (and) there is little chance of a relief package passing before the November election.”

So, what can be done?

“Obviously, patronize and support local small businesses, (and) anyone can call their elected officials to advocate for their local small business community,” said Bliss.

These findings are the latest in a series of surveys of 9,000+ Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Businesses alumni, conducted by Babson College, Goldman Sachs, and David Binder Associates. One of three national partners of the Goldman Sachs program , as the national academic partner, Babson College is responsible for the design of the curriculum and training site teams to deliver the program.

Posted in Insights

Tagged Research , Entrepreneurship Ecosystems , Faculty

More from Insights »

Related Stories

More babson.

Survey findings of the impact of COVID-19 on researchers

5 August 2021

Findings from a survey carried out between February and March 2021 on the impacts of COVID-19 on the activities of researchers have now been published.

The results (Vitae) reveal that, at the time of the wave two survey, almost half of respondents had returned to pre COVID-19 working hours. However, the results also show that the pandemic was still having a major impact on researchers, affecting their:

• mental health
• future career prospects.

The survey was carried out by the Careers Research and Advisory Centre, who manage the Vitae programme, and funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).

Impact on research

During February and March 2021, the impact on research activities was still high, the survey shows that:

• 61% of researchers reported lockdown or shielding had negatively impacted their time for research
• 58% reported that COVID-19 had made it impossible to do the research they planned
• more than half reported that COVID-19 restrictions impacted other work activities, including teaching and administrative activities which reduced their time for research
• 88% of respondents with child caring responsibilities reported that associated responsibilities had a negative impact on time for research. This was gender balanced
• 56% reported that less commuting and 43% that less work-related travel had positive impacts on their time for research
• 27% agreed COVID-19 had provided unexpected opportunities for their research.

Impact on mental health

Researchers reported poor levels of wellbeing and mental health. The survey shows that:

• 76% of researchers reported that they had probable or possible depression. The survey does not allow us to draw conclusions about the causes of the respondents’ mental distress
• 11% of researchers had experienced bullying and harassment over the last year, with two thirds of these reporting this was higher than before COVID-19 restrictions.

Impact on future careers

The survey shows that:

• 24% predicted a very negative impact of COVID-19 on their career prospects, this rises to 34% of postgraduate researchers and 28% of research staff
• 60% predicted a negative impact or a very negative impact on their career prospects. This rises to 65% for those with child-caring responsibilities and 62% for female researchers.

Unprecedented challenges

Commenting on the survey’s findings, UKRI Chief Executive, Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser, said:

The pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for the research and innovation community with profound impacts on institutions and businesses, and on the people working in them. The community has responded superbly, but at great personal cost to many, who have been working under very difficult circumstances. We would like to thank those who have responded to this survey and talked to us about their experiences. This is invaluable as we continue to work to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic and to address the inequalities in the system, which the pandemic has amplified. One of the key action points highlighted in this survey is for UKRI to drive ahead with our work to improve research culture. We will continue to work collaboratively to promote and support an inclusive, respectful and safe working culture, including through our ongoing implementation of the recently launched People and Culture Strategy.

Further information

You can find out more about work that UKRI is currently doing in areas covered by this survey.

Find out more about guidance for applicants, students and award-holders impacted by the pandemic .

Read about how UKRI is supporting a healthy research and innovation culture .

Find out more about bullying and harassment .

Read the People and Culture Strategy (BEIS) .

Read a news story about UKRI reducing unnecessary bureaucracy .

The survey was only made open to those who agreed to be re-contacted in a first survey run in June 2020 in order to provide a sample that can be tracked across the first two waves of the pandemic. This is so that changes in responses to certain questions could be identified.

As a result, the survey is not fully representative of all UK researchers’ experiences during COVID-19 restrictions, but does provide indicative data and trends.

Top image:  Credit: Everyday better to do everything you love / Getty Images

Share this page

• Share this page on Twitter
• Share this page on LinkedIn
• Share this page on Facebook

This is the website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Let us know if you have feedback or would like to help improve our online products and services .

• Economics & Finance
• Foreign Policy
• Domestic Policy
• Health & Science
• All Publications

Impact of Urban Revitalization on Small Businesses: Third Ward Survey

Table of Contents

Alisha small, lebena varghese, share this publication.

• Download PDF
• Print This Publication

Alisha Small and Lebena Varghese, “Impact of Urban Revitalization on Small Businesses: Third Ward Survey” (Houston: Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, May 8, 2024), https://doi.org/10.25613/JP24-VP07 .

Introduction

This report details findings from “Understanding the Impact of Urban Revitalization on Small Businesses Study,”   a research project conducted by the  Baker Institute McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth in cooperation with the  Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation . The community-engaged study, which began in January 2022, sought the perspectives of small business owners in a historically African American community experiencing economic and demographic change. The goal of the study was to learn directly from  Third Ward business owners and community members how urban redevelopment impacted small businesses in the ward during 1999–2021. 

This research was conducted with the assistance of community research assistants TaCorra Brooks, Vernon Jackson, Natasha Living, and Leah Clark. The study also analyzed community business revenue data. Findings were presented to the Third Ward community on March 25, 2023 .

Survey Methodology

The study began with researchers sampling businesses with 99 or fewer employees located in the 77004 zip code — heart of Third Ward in Houston, Texas.

• An introductory letter was sent to approximately 1,600 businesses in that zip code requesting their voluntary participation in an online questionnaire. 
• The letter provided a web link to a unique participant code allowing participants to complete the confidential survey. 
• The survey asked business owners about their perspectives on operating a business in a community undergoing economic development initiatives. 
• The survey consisted of original and adapted survey questions.

In March 2022, field data collection began. Third Ward community research assistants, TaCorra Brooks, Leah Clark, and the principal researcher, Alisha Small, performed field research within Third Ward. The research team met weekly at the community partner SHAPE Community Center and proceeded to visit businesses across the ward. The researchers visited over 650 business locations and performed data collection through personal visits to business owners — these visits account for over 90% of the data collected for the study.

Summary of Participants

In total, 52 business owners within Third Ward responded to the survey. The businesses employed an average of six employees and the majority of respondents identified as male (54%). 

Race — Nearly 6% chose not to disclose their racial identity, and other respondents identified their racial background as follows (figures are rounded): 67% Black or African American, 12% white, 12% Asian, 2% Middle Eastern or North African, and 2% multiracial or biracial. 

Education — The educational attainment levels of the sample were: 

• High school: 17.7%.
• Associate’s degree: 15.7%. 
• Bachelor’s degree: 31.4%.
• Master’s degree: 31.4%.

Age — Most of the survey respondents (67%) were between the ages of 25–64 and nearly 29% were 65 or older. 

Survey Results

The survey participants were asked questions on a wide range of business-related themes:

• Access to capital.
• Perception of inclusiveness.
• Business owner characteristics.
• Business owner income.
• Perception of business success and satisfaction with urban renewal.
• Financial challenges.
• Business characteristics and operations.
• Utilization of external business resources.

In the next sections we examine, discuss, and illustrate the results of each topic in turn.

Access to Capital

As having access to capital is integral to building, maintaining, and growing businesses, the questionnaire inquired about Third Ward business owners’ views regarding the availability of capital, either from outside sources or from personal or family sources. 

Figure 1 — How much do you rely on personal or family savings for ongoing business capital needs? 

As shown in Figure 1, two-thirds (67%) of respondents primarily used retained business earnings to fund their operations. Furthermore, nearly 30% relied on personal funds to fund the business. Only 5% reported relying on external financing.

Applications for Financing — The survey asked business owners if they had applied for financing in the previous 24 months (2019–21). More than two-thirds (68%) of the respondents did not apply for any financing; about a quarter (24%) did. 

Due to the role that credit scores play in the approval of business financing, the questionnaire also asked about the type of credit score on which business owners relied. When applying for financing:

• Around 53% of respondents depended on their personal credit score. 
• 22% relied on the business’s credit score.
• 14% relied on both personal and business credit scores.

As illustrated in Figure 2, for those who did seek external financing, a loan/line of credit (36%) and a credit card (20%) were the top two types of financing reported. Less than 20% of businesses used other types of financing such as equity investment, merchant cash advance, factoring or leasing. There was nearly an even split between respondents who held outstanding debt — 51% reported they had outstanding debt and 46% did not. 

Figure 2 — Do you agree with the following statements regarding capital either from outside sources or from personal/family sources to start and operate their business?

Ease of Access to Financing — For start-up and operating costs, the majority of the business owners (57%) relied on personal and/or family savings. A similar proportion (55%) agreed that capital investment opportunities were not readily available to them for these purposes.

Although 22% of those surveyed agreed that borrowing funds was easy, close to 40% felt that borrowing funds for initial and operating costs was a difficult process. Most respondents reported it was not easy to acquire a loan or line of credit to start their business, both in general terms and specifically from resources within Third Ward.

Discrimination — Responses to the questions about discrimination were varied. Faced with this statement, “I have experienced discrimination in applying for a loan or line of credit during the time I have owned my business,” more than a third (35%) of the business owners disagreed, while 41% neither agreed nor disagreed. 

However, 24% agreed that they had experienced discrimination in the process of applying for a loan or line of credit. Among those who perceived discrimination, 50% attributed it to their race, 28% to their gender, and 17% to their ethnicity.

Perception of Inclusiveness

As part of the Third Ward Urban Redevelopment Plan of 1999 and the  Complete Communities Initiative of 2017 , the City of Houston invested in revitalization programs to enhance economic development in Third Ward. The questionnaire gathered business owners’ perceptions regarding the extent to which they felt included in shaping the development in the community. The survey responses also illustrate owners’ views of their businesses’ performance in the period 1999–2021, when the revitalization programs were operating.

Business owners were asked if they were made aware of urban revitalization programs through offerings such as a public hearing or discussion, business council, education, or seminar during the redevelopment period. A vast majority, 90%, responded “No.”

As shown in Figure 3, about 50% of those surveyed believed that they were not included in the ongoing urban redevelopment decision-making processes during the period under study. As seen in the figure below, nearly 50% did not think that Third Ward business owners were included in the economic development discussions about fundamental issues impacting the ward, potential development process changes, or development plan choices to be implemented. However, almost one-third (30%) of the owners’ responses were neutral — neither agreeing nor disagreeing that they were included in such discussions.

Figure 3 — Do you agree with the following statements regarding business inclusion in the urban renewal?

Business Owner Characteristics 

“Cross-Generational Know-How” — This is a term used in the research to explain business knowledge or education passed down to business owners from previous family generations or family members. To understand the extent of cross generational business knowledge transfer, the survey inquired about the family history of business ownership. 

Results show that 75% of respondents came from families where their grandparents did not own a business. Although a majority of the respondents (57%) did not have parents who were entrepreneurs, 43% reported that they did. 

Longevity — Additionally, nearly half (45%) of the business owners operated a family-owned business in Third Ward. However, only 15% reported that the business was passed down to them from a previous generation, and almost half (47%) planned to pass their business to the next generation. More than half (57%) of the surveyed Third Ward business owners were first-generation entrepreneurs. 

Over a third (35%) reported that their current business was their first, 20% reported that they had started two businesses in their career, and another 22% reported starting three businesses in their time.

Educational Background of Business Owners — Business was the most common field of study, at 33%. Beyond that, respondents’ survey answers varied widely, with 46% falling into the “other” category — ranging from education, communications, human resources, law, health care, geology, to photography. The data provides further detail of education attainment for the business owners:

• One-third had earned a bachelor’s degree.
• 31% had a master’s degree or higher. 
• 31% had a parent who attained a high school or GED level of education. 
• Just over 20% of the owners’ parents obtained a bachelor’s degree and 17% had a master’s degree or higher.

Residence of Business Owners — Only a quarter of the business owners grew up in the Third Ward 77004 zip code, which covers the largest part of the ward. Among those who lived in Third Ward, almost half (45%) had lived there for more than 10 years. For those business owners who did not live within the 77004 area, the most common other residence zip codes are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 — Business Owner Residence by Zip Code

Business Owner Income

The research evaluated household income of owners in the ward in 2019 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and after the pandemic in 2022, the year of data collection.

In 2019, slightly over a quarter (26.5%) of the business owners surveyed earned $50,000 or less as their annual household income. Another quarter (24.5%) earned between $50,000 and $100,000. Only 10% brought home between $100,000–$250,000 in earnings. In 2019, over 35% of the owners reported that all of their household income was derived from their current business: Compare 2022, when 29% reported all their household income came from their current business.

Perception of Business Success and Satisfaction with the Urban Renewal

Given that various urban renewal and revitalization programs were started in Third Ward between 1999 and 2021, the survey asked business owners to elaborate on their experiences of operating a business during this time (Figure 4). They were also asked about their perceptions of the performance of their business and the extent to which they were satisfied with the redevelopment.

A majority of the respondents perceived their business as growing (72%) or as successful (75%). However, fewer business owners, about 40%, were satisfied with the net income growth of their business or the time it took their business to reach the break-even point. 

Figure 4 — Do you agree with the following statements regarding the success of your business and your satisfaction with your business?

The questionnaire also asked if it was necessary to implement redevelopment in Third Ward, and all respondents (100%) thought it was. Overall, nearly 40% of owners reported being satisfied with the development in the ward (Figure 5). Questions were also asked about local neighborhood revitalization and neighboring business relations, with a clear majority seeing these as necessary (Figure 6).

Figure 5 — How satisfied are you with the rental rates and urban development?

Figure 6 — How necessary are the following items regarding the redevelopment in the ward?  

Financial Challenges

The survey examined financial impediments business owners in Third Ward experienced during the period of urban revitalization and through the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 7). Although a third of the respondents noted that they did not experience any financial difficulties in establishing their businesses, others identified the primary financial barriers as: 

• Rental rates for a business venue.
• Access to investors and loans.

Figure 7 — Are there factors that made it difficult to start your business in the ward?

In addition to the initial financial barriers, owners provided information on specific financial challenges in the previous 24 months (2019–21) and how they mitigated these challenges (Figure 8). One third highlighted the difficulties they faced in covering operational expenses, acquiring inventory or supplies, and managing debt repayment.

• About half (44%) mitigated these challenges by funding their business expenses using personal funds. 
• Almost a third of the business owners took on more debt to resolve their financial barriers.

Figure 8A — What financial challenges did you experience and what actions did you take?

Figure 8B — What actions did you take to mitigate financial challenges?

Other financial challenges noted by owners: 

• Mechanical break-downs.
• Staff issues.
• Slow sales.
• Keeping good product for sale.
• Growing relationships with prospective funders.

Business Characteristics and Operations

Business owners also provided a perspective on the type of businesses operating in Third Ward. The following show the array and share of industries represented by the businesses.

Table 2 — Types of Businesses

The retail industry led the responses at 30%. The next highest industry share — 17 percentage points lower — was professional, scientific, and technical services at only 13%.  This sector includes services such as legal, management consulting, accounting, and engineering.

Business Longevity and Experience — Thirty-seven percent of businesses had been operating in Third Ward for two to five years. Over a quarter (27%) had established roots in the ward for 20 years or longer. Meanwhile 15% of businesses had been in the community between six and ten years, with only 10% of surveyed businesses being newcomers, in operation for less than six months.

Hiring Practices — Close to 60% of the owners had paid employees not including the owner and contract workers, whereas 39% reported they had no such employees. Figure 9 shows owners’ top reasons for not having employees.

Figure 9 — Why have you chosen not to hire payroll employees?

The average number of full-time employees reported by owners was six, while the average number of part-time employees was two. As to contract workers, replies were almost evenly split, with 46% of respondents stated that they hired contract workers and 43% indicating that they did not.

When asked about their future revenue, owners were optimistic: More than three-quarters (77%) expected revenue to increase over the next 12 months — 16% did not expect any change. Regarding new hiring, responses were divided: Although 51% did not expect to see a change in the number of employees they employed over the next year, 48% reported that they did expect to increase their hiring over the same time period.

COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Operations

Business owners reported a 10% decline in profits in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparing business operations in 2020, the first year of the pandemic, with the year before:

• Nearly 47% of respondents indicated that their businesses earned a profit in 2019 compared to only 36% in 2020. 
• In 2019 only 14% of the businesses ended the year at a loss: This percentage more than doubled in 2020 with 31% reporting a loss (Figure 10). 

Figure 10 — At the end of the following years was your business operating at a profit, break-even, or loss?

Utilization of External Business Resources

The survey assessed whether Third Ward business owners accessed services such as mentoring programs for entrepreneurs and networking offered by certain organizations or agencies that primarily serve the small business community. Almost half (48%) of the respondents did not use any of these services (Figure 11). A third (30%) of the respondents received services offered from the Houston office of Small Business Administration. Only about 10% of the business owners were also familiar with the Houston chapter of SCORE (Service Corps of Retired Executives).

Figure 12 shows the services that respondents felt would be useful. Additional resources noted by respondents in the “other” category included technology, training, and business scholarships.

Figure 11 — Have you used services provided by any of the following organizations?

  Figure 12 — What services would be most helpful to your business?

Community Benefits from the Research

One aim of the community-engaged research was to provide a tangible product to be a resource to the community. When asked in the questionnaire if an online business directory would be helpful for their business, 96% responded positively.

Thus, as part of the study, an  online Third Ward community business directory was developed for Third Ward business owners at no cost to them. This free resource will remain within the community for future business support through a community partnership with the Greater Southeast Management District.

In addition, an  online business map showing business dynamics of the community in the period 2000–21 was produced by the Rice University Spatial Studies Lab team. The map also features a historical gallery of “Houston Forward Times” business articles from the personal archives of Georgia Provost. Provost is the author of the featured articles and owner of the 75-year-old Third Ward photography business, Provost & Associates.

Community-Engaged Results

These research results — covering access to capital, business owners, perceptions associated with urban renewal, financial challenges, business characteristics, and business resources — are a product of more than 14 months of community input. The research team developed positive, long-term relationships with Third Ward business owners, community members, and stakeholders who are foundational to the results of this work. The project concentrated on outreach to hundreds of business owners to gain their perspectives. Alongside community research assistants, community members, and community partners, the study focused on leaving tangible economic, educational, and historical benefits to leave within Third Ward after the completion of the research. Without the participation of the Third Ward business community, and the support of Third Ward stakeholders the study could not have been accomplished. The McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation acknowledge and appreciate the community partnerships forged from the research.

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

Related Research

What Do Third Ward Business Owners Think About Economic Development in Their Community?

The Formula Shortage: Economic Impact and Policy Responses

How Tax Rate Notices Can Better Serve Texas Taxpayers