in research area synonym

Search for synonyms and antonyms

areas of research > synonyms

• 47 Synonyms

List search

• ??? - shows 3-letter terms
• a??e - 4-letter terms starting with 'a' and ending with 'e'
• a* - terms starting with 'a'
• *ment - terms ending with 'ment'

If nothing is found, then alternative search will try to find the terms that:

• start with searched query
• sound like it
• similar to it

Support us by sharing "synonyms for areas of research" page!

Share on Facebook | Twitter

• Searched With
• area of research

• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

area research

Definition of area research

Love words.

You must — there are over 200,000 words in our free online dictionary, but you are looking for one that’s only in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary.

Start your free trial today and get unlimited access to America's largest dictionary, with:

• More than 250,000 words that aren't in our free dictionary
• Expanded definitions, etymologies, and usage notes
• Advanced search features

Dictionary Entries Near area research

Cite this entry.

“Area research.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/area%20research. Accessed 1 Jul. 2024.

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Plural and possessive names: a guide, commonly misspelled words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, popular in wordplay, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, flower etymologies for your spring garden, 12 star wars words, 'swash', 'praya', and 12 more beachy words, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, games & quizzes.

Skip to Content

• Design Engineering

Research in design entails the systematic study of the artifact creation process and its integration into various environments — including virtual, physical, social, psychological, economic and political. This focus area aims to enhance the practice of design engineering. It involves deepening our understanding of both the designers themselves and the users of their creations; the methodologies and techniques employed in the design process; and the broader societal impact of engineered solutions and outcomes. 

Strength Areas in Design in Mechanical Engineering

• Design Theory and Methodology: Underlying science of processes that designers use to develop engineering solutions. 
• Computational Design and Optimization: Development and use of technology to visualize, analyze, and make decisions during design processes. 
• Systems Engineering: Multi-disciplinary approaches for the design and operation of complex systems within their broader socio-technical environments. 
• Engineering for Sustainable Development: Development of design methods and processes to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 
• Design for Manufacturing: Methodologies and processes for designing parts, components, and products for efficient, cost-effective, and sustainable manufacturing and product realization.  
• Inclusive & Human-Centered Design: Methodologies and processes that place stakeholders at the heart of the design process to create solutions that understand and enable people of all backgrounds. 
• Bio-Inspired Design: The process of learning from nature to inspire strategies for innovation, including principles of form, function, performance, and aesthetics. 
• Design Education Research: Development and analysis of epistemology, policy, and assessment of engineering education and design skill development, including K-12, higher education, and post-education. 

Associated Faculty

• Share via Facebook
• Share via Twitter
• Share via LinkedIn
• Air Quality Research
• Biomedical Research
• Materials Research
• Mechanics of Materials Research
• Micro/Nanoscale Research
• Robotics and Systems Design Research
• Thermo Fluid Sciences Research
• Research Facilities & Centers

Apply   Visit   Give

Departments

• Ann and H.J. Smead Aerospace Engineering Sciences
• Chemical & Biological Engineering
• Civil, Environmental & Architectural Engineering
• Computer Science
• Electrical, Computer & Energy Engineering
• Paul M. Rady Mechanical Engineering
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomedical Engineering
• Creative Technology & Design
• Engineering Education
• Engineering Management
• Engineering Physics
• Integrated Design Engineering
• Environmental Engineering
• Materials Science & Engineering

Affiliates & Partners

• ATLAS Institute
• BOLD Center
• Colorado Mesa University
• Colorado Space Grant Consortium
• Discovery Learning
• Engineering Honors
• Engineering Leadership
• Entrepreneurship
• Herbst Program for Engineering, Ethics & Society
• Integrated Teaching and Learning
• Global Engineering
• National Center for Women & Information Technology
• Mortenson Center for Global Engineering
• Western Colorado University

Site Search

• About ARPA-E
• Team Directory
• ARPA-E History
• Annual Reports
• Budget Requests
• Apply For Funding
• Authorization
• View Active Programs
• Search Our Programs
• Search Individual Projects
• Interactive Project Map
• Exploratory Topics
• The SCALEUP Program
• OPEN Programs
• ARPA-E Technology-to-Market
• Technology Commercialization
• External Engagement Model
• Investor Updates
• ARPA-E News & Media
• Press Releases
• ARPA-E Disruptors
• Publications
• ARPA-E Events
• Energy Innovation Summit
• Careers at ARPA-E
• Job Opportunities
• Life at ARPA-E
• Pre-Award Guidance
• Post-Award Guidance
• ARPA-E FAQs
• General Questions
• Current Funding Opportunities
• Closed Funding Opportunities

Press Release

ARPA-E Announces $11.5 Million to Support 23 Early-Career Innovators Accelerating Transformative Energy Technologies

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) announced approximately $11.5 million in funding through its new Inspiring Generations of New Innovators to Impact Technologies in Energy 2024 (IGNIITE 2024) program focused on early-career scientists and engineers converting disruptive ideas into impactful energy technologies. Each IGNIITE 2024 selectee will receive approximately $500,000 to advance research projects at universities, national laboratories, and in the private sector that will span the full spectrum of energy applications, including advanced energy storage systems, fusion reactor technology, carbon-negative concrete alternatives, power electronics for grid reliability, critical material recovery, energy-efficient water desalination, plastic depolymerization, and more. The Biden-Harris Administration’s Investing in America agenda is supported by IGNIITE 2024 through its focus on advancing critical research and development that underpins U.S. leadership in energy innovation and global decarbonization.

“We need an infusion of unconventional ideas from the next generation of researchers, entrepreneurs, and technologists to tackle energy challenges of today,” said ARPA-E Director Evelyn N. Wang . “As an engineer who benefited from support early on in my career, I know how instrumental resourcing and expert guidance is to successful innovation. By supporting this cohort of early-career innovators, I am confident that we are one step closer to a sustainable clean energy future.”

The following 23 individuals selected through IGNIITE 2024 are all set to receive approximately $500,000 to support their research efforts:

• Michael Woods, Battelle Energy Alliance (Idaho National Laboratory) (Idaho Falls, ID)
• Adam Uliana, ChemFinity Technologies (Brooklyn, NY)
• Liang Feng, Duke University (Durham, NC)
• Justin Panich, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley, CA)
• Lydia Rachbauer, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley, CA)
• Woongkul Lee, Michigan State University (East Lansing, MI)
• Jinxing Li, Michigan State University (East Lansing, MI)
• Nelson James, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Golden, CO)
• Katrina Knauer, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Golden, CO)
• Paul Meyer, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Golden, CO)
• Andrew Westover, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, TN)
• Guang Yang, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, TN)
• Rain Mariano, Peregrine Hydrogen (Santa Cruz, CA)
• Fudong Han, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, NY)
• Craig Cahillane, Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY)
• Zhongyang Wang, University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa, AL)
• Jessica Boles, University of California, Berkeley (Berkeley, CA)
• Xizheng Wang, University of California, Irvine (Irvine, CA)
• Yangying Zhu, University of California, Santa Barbara (Santa Barbara, CA)
• Jun Wang, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (Lincoln, NE)
• Julie Rorrer, University of Washington (Seattle, WA)
• Sebastian Kube, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Madison, WI)
• Luca Mastropasqua, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Madison, WI)

You can access project descriptions outlining the research these innovators will explore on ARPA-E’s website.

IGNIITE 2024 selectees will be honored on July 9, 2024 at the National Academies in Washington, D.C. The National Academies is crucial to the history of ARPA-E. In 2005, leaders from both parties in Congress asked the National Academies to "identify the most urgent challenges the U.S. faces in maintaining leadership in key areas of science and technology," as well as specific steps policymakers could take to help the U.S. compete, prosper, and stay secure in the 21st Century. The report recommended that Congress establish an Advanced Research Projects Agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) modeled after the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Now, 15 years into ARPA-E’s mission to secure U.S. technological leadership, the individuals set to be honored on July 9 underscore the Agency’s commitment to fostering American innovation by empowering the next generation of innovators to succeed.

You can learn more about IGNIITE 2024 here .

Press and General Inquiries: 202-287-5440 [email protected]

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Third-party and independent candidates for president often fall short of early polling numbers

The 2024 presidential campaign stands out as the first presumptive rematch between major-party candidates since 1956. It’s also the first time an ex-president has run to reclaim the White House in more than a century.

Another uncommon feature is the presence of several high-profile alternative candidates, including Democratic-scion-turned-independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., independent Cornel West and three-time Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

Kennedy, an environmental lawyer and anti-vaccine activist , is currently polling in the mid-single digits nationally. He appears to draw support both from people who might otherwise back President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, complicating both men’s campaign calculations. (Bear in mind that accurately gauging support for third-party candidates can be tricky .)

But U.S. political history tells us that third-party and independent candidates usually finish a lot lower than where they start.

We examined preelection polls in six presidential contests that featured significant third-party or independent candidates, then reviewed those candidates’ actual shares of the popular vote in the general election.

Not only did support for third-party and independent candidates tend to decline over the course of their campaigns, but their vote shares often came in lower than polls suggested they might.

Here’s an election-by-election look at underperformance by third-party and independent candidates.

Given the unusual dynamics of the 2024 presidential election – including the presence of several potentially significant third-party and independent candidates – Pew Research Center examined how such candidates fared in past elections.

We focused on the six elections over the past 60 years in which the major-party share of the nationwide popular vote was less than 98%. In each of those elections, an independent or third-party candidate won at least 2% of the vote.

For each of those candidates, we obtained support-level data via iPoll , an online archive of historical survey data maintained by Cornell University’s Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. For 1980 and subsequent elections, we limited our analysis to surveys of registered voters. No such surveys were available for the 1968 election, so in that case we used surveys of the national adult population.

Over the decades, survey modes shifted from predominantly face-to-face interviews to landline telephone interviews, and then to landline-plus-cellphone interviews. By 2016, online surveys were making their first appearances, but most polls were still conducted via phone. To avoid any distortions caused by such different survey modes , we used only surveys conducted by the same mode within a given year. This meant that we only used face-to-face surveys in 1968, and only phone surveys in all other years we analyzed.

We also looked at the wording of each individual question to make sure each survey was asking essentially the same thing in similar ways. In particular, we wanted to ensure that candidates were referred to by name and identified by party (or as “independent” when appropriate).

Once we had assembled a list of comparable questions, we plotted support for third-party and independent candidates on a timeline. The final point on each chart represents the candidate’s share of the total nationwide popular vote. For 1968 through 2000, we used figures from America Votes , a long-running compilation of election data. For the 2016 election, we compiled official returns from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

With two exceptions, all support figures in this analysis include those who said they would vote for or leaned toward the candidate in question. The exceptions are John Anderson in 1980 (because no surveys with “leaner” questions met our inclusion criteria) and Ross Perot in 1992, during the interim period in which he wasn’t actively campaigning (because surveys did not typically ask “leaner” questions about him during this period).

1968: George Wallace

Fresh off his first term as Alabama’s segregationist governor, George Wallace – running a “law and order”-themed campaign under the American Independent Party banner – saw his support rise in polls over the spring and summer leading up to the 1968 election. In April, around 10% of adults nationally said they supported or leaned toward Wallace. By September, that had doubled to 20%. Wallace appeared within reach of his goal: dividing the field enough to throw the election to the House of Representatives , where he could try to bargain his electoral votes for “concessions” on desegregation, voting rights and other issues.

That fall, Republican Richard Nixon’s campaign began warning conservatives that voting for Wallace would only help Democrat Hubert Humphrey. Meanwhile, Democratic-aligned unions worked to pull their members – whom Wallace had targeted – back into Humphrey’s fold. Wallace’s running mate, retired Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay , also made headlines at his introductory press conference after saying he’d consider using nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

Wallace’s support in the polls began to slide, reaching the mid-teens in the weeks before Election Day. He ended up with 13.5% of the popular vote and 46 electoral votes – not enough to keep Nixon from winning the White House.

1980: John Anderson

Rep. John Anderson of Illinois was trailing badly in the Republican presidential primaries when, in April 1980, he dropped out and said he would run as an independent instead. Anderson’s candidacy generated considerable public interest: Around 20% of registered voters said they would support him, and he continued to poll around that level throughout the spring.

But Anderson’s nascent campaign had to spend much time and energy that spring and summer simply getting his name on state ballots. Anderson faded from view during that summer’s Democratic and Republican conventions. Incumbent President Jimmy Carter, the Democrat, refused to share a debate stage with him in the fall – though Republican nominee Ronald Reagan did debate Anderson one-on-one.

By October, Anderson’s support in polls had dwindled to the 9%-10% range. In the end, he won 6.6% of the national popular vote.

1992: Ross Perot

Money and visibility weren’t issues for Ross Perot, the billionaire businessman from Texas who mounted a stop-and-go independent campaign against Republican President George H.W. Bush and his Democratic challenger, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton.

Perot’s effort, driven initially by volunteers and appearances on Larry King Live , quickly gained momentum. In March, as Perot’s backers began gathering the hundreds of thousands of petition signatures he would need to get on state ballots, Perot was regularly receiving support from 20% or more of registered voters in polls. By May, about a third of registered voters were telling pollsters they’d vote for or were leaning toward Perot. In a few surveys, he led both Bush and Clinton.

Amid sharpening attacks from Republicans and Democrats , though, Perot’s numbers began falling. In mid-July, when his support was below 20% in most polls, Perot abruptly quit the race .

Although Perot was no longer actively campaigning, his name remained on two dozen state ballots, and some never-say-die supporters continued working to gain him ballot access in additional states. Pollsters continued to ask voters about Perot throughout the summer and fall – especially as speculation grew that he might jump back into the race. While Perot’s support declined steadily during this interim period, in late September around 10% of voters still said they preferred him to Bush or Clinton.

Perot reentered the campaign in early October, and within a few weeks his support had climbed back up to around 20%, including leaners. It began to slip again as Election Day neared, falling to around 15%. In the end, Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote – the best showing by a non-major-party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt 80 years earlier .

1996: Ross Perot

Perot wouldn’t come close to that in his second campaign. At the start of the year, when it was still unclear whether he would seek the nomination of the Reform Party (which he had founded the year before), his support among registered voters typically was in the mid-teens.

But Perot’s support declined during the campaign, eventually settling at around 5%-7%, including leaners. His poll numbers did pick up a bit in the run-up to Election Day, when he received 8.4% of the popular vote. Among the minor candidates Perot beat out for third place: consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who took 0.7% representing the Green Party.

2000: Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan

Nader had a considerably higher profile four years later, when he was again the Green Party’s nominee. Polls taken during that close, contentious campaign regularly found that around 5% of registered voters said they supported or leaned toward Nader.

That was enough to concern Democrats that Nader threatened Vice President Al Gore’s chances of defeating Republican Texas Gov. George W. Bush. (Whether he in fact did so is still hotly debated among political scientists , journalists and other observers .)

In the end, Nader won only 2.7% of the national popular vote. But in several closely divided states – including Florida and New Hampshire, both of which Bush carried – Nader’s share was enough to potentially swing the outcome.

Another third-party candidate in 2000 received a fair amount of public and media attention: Pat Buchanan, the conservative commentator who had captured the nomination of Perot’s Reform Party. Buchanan polled as high as 4% in the spring, but by fall was mostly in the 1%-2% range. He ended up with less than 0.5% of the popular vote, but did well enough in five states to theoretically (or perhaps not so theoretically ) affect the outcome.

2016: Gary Johnson and Jill Stein

Widespread dissatisfaction with Republican Trump and his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, may have caused more voters than usual to look beyond the major parties. Two candidates in particular received considerable attention: former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson – the Libertarian Party nominee – and physician and activist Jill Stein of the Green Party. (Both Johnson and Stein had also run in 2012, though with less impact.)

Johnson polled fairly strongly into the fall, with 8%-12% of registered voters routinely saying that they would vote for him or were leaning toward him. But Johnson’s poll numbers began trending downward, and by Election Day his support level was hovering around 5%-6%. Johnson ended up receiving 3.3% of the vote – the 52-year-old Libertarian Party’s best showing in a presidential election to date.

For her part, Stein often received support from 5%-7% of registered voters in polls taken during the spring and summer of 2016. But her support also eroded as the campaign went on, and she eventually received just over 1% of the popular vote – still the party’s best result since Nader in 2000.

• Election 2024
• Political Parties
• U.S. Elections & Voters
• Voters & Voting

Drew DeSilver is a senior writer at Pew Research Center .

Americans’ Views of Government’s Role: Persistent Divisions and Areas of Agreement

6 facts about presidential and vice presidential debates, satisfaction with democracy has declined in recent years in high-income nations, biden, trump are least-liked pair of major party presidential candidates in at least 3 decades, cultural issues and the 2024 election, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

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

© 2024 Pew Research Center