Science must protect thinking time in a world of instant communication

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.
Advertisement
You have full access to this article via your institution.

Digital devices are proliferating but don’t always have the positive effect on productivity researchers might hope.Credit: Getty
Video calls. Instant messaging. Voice calls. E-mails. Social media. Smartphones. Tablets. Laptops. Desktops. More digital devices equals less time to concentrate and to think. The negative effects of this on researchers are tackled by computer scientist Cal Newport in his latest book, Slow Productivity¹.
The book’s title challenges the idea, common to many workplaces, that productivity must always increase. A study has shown that science is becoming less disruptive, even though there are now more papers being published and grants awarded than ever before². Newport, who studies technology in the workplace at Georgetown University in Washington DC, says that researchers and other knowledge workers need to slow down and spend more time thinking, to focus on maintaining and improving quality in their work.
Newport does the research community a service by shining a spotlight on an overburdened workforce. Institutions should already be accessing the expertise that exists within their walls in the search for answers, but are not doing so. Newer communications technologies have enormous benefits, including speeding up research, as was necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic. But they are also squeezing out thinking time. Newport’s book reminds us that there are researchers who will know how to help.
Thinking time — the time needed to concentrate without interruptions has always been central to scholarly work. It is essential to designing experiments, compiling data, assessing results, reviewing literature and, of course, writing. Yet, thinking time is often undervalued; it is rarely, if ever, quantified in employment practices.

Is science really getting less disruptive — and does it matter if it is?

Is science really getting less disruptive — and does it matter if it is?
One way to think about the practice of juggling research with e-mail and instant messaging is to visualize someone working next to a physical letterbox. Imagine opening and reading every letter as soon as it arrives, and starting to compose a reply, even as more letters drop through the box — all the while trying to do your main job. Researchers say that their to-do lists tend to lengthen, in part because colleagues can contact them instantly, often for good reasons. Researchers also often have to choose what to prioritize, which can cause them to feel overwhelmed.
Newport gives suggestions on reclaiming thinking time, include limiting the number of items on to-do lists and project teams setting aside time to complete tasks that require all members, thus avoiding individual members sending e-mails to each other. For institutions, Newport recommends a transparent workload management system — a way for managers to see everything that a colleague is expected to do — and then to adjust the workload if there are more tasks than there is available time.
Undoubtedly good advice, this might be easier to implement in industrial settings than in academic ones. In many academic research laboratories, researchers report to a single principal investigator, with little management structure. This is partly because it is hard to justify to academic funders the budget for paying for management and administration roles.

Is science’s dominant funding model broken?

Is science’s dominant funding model broken?
But Felicity Mellor, a science-communication researcher at Imperial College London, is sceptical about giving managers a role in thinking time. In many cases, researchers are already feeling the weight of their institution’s monitoring and evaluation systems. Mellor argues that including yet another box in an evaluation form might not go down well. She also thinks that institutions will not accept this. “Can you imagine the response if a scientist filled out a time sheet where it says ‘eight hours spent thinking’?” Ultimately, she says, creating a more supportive research culture needs a much more fundamental change. That suggests an even more radical rethink of the current funding model for academic research, as we wrote last month (see Nature 630, 793; 2024), along with changes to other aspects of academic science.
Newport’s thesis raises a much more fundamental question: what is the impact of lost concentration time on science — not just on the structure and process of science, but also on the content and quality of research?
In 2014, Mellor co-led a research project, funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council, called The Silences of Science, published as a book two years later³. Researchers discussed this question, and others in a series of workshops, but the work did not continue after the grant expired. Such explorations need to be revived, but they also need to incorporate the impact of artificial-intelligence technologies. These tools are being implemented at pace around the world to automate many routine administrative tasks. Researchers need to evaluate whether such tools can free up more thinking time for researchers; or whether they could have the opposite effect.
Communications technologies are sure to evolve further and to continue distracting researchers from their work. More studies investigating the effect of these technologies on science are needed urgently, as are studies on how thinking time can be protected in a world of instant communication. This knowledge will help researchers and institutional leaders to make better decisions about the technologies’ deployment — and, hopefully, allow researchers to carve out that all-important space and time to think.
Nature 631, 709 (2024)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02381-x
Newport, C. Slow Productivity: The Lost Art of Accomplishment Without Burnout (Portfolio, 2024).
Google Scholar
Park. M et al. Nature 613, 138–144 (2023).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Mellor, F. & Webster, S. The Silences of Science: Gaps and Pauses in the Communication of Science (Routledge, 2016).
Google Scholar
Download references
Reprints and permissions
Is science’s dominant funding model broken?
Is science really getting less disruptive — and does it matter if it is?
Bring PhD assessment into the twenty-first century
A DARPA-like agency could boost EU innovation — but cannot come at the expense of existing schemes
NASA still has no plan to bring precious Mars rocks to Earth
News 07 JAN 25
Apply the legal ‘true malice’ principle to protect research-misconduct sleuths
Correspondence 30 DEC 24
Can novelty scores on papers shift the power dynamics in scientific publishing?
Nature Index 20 DEC 24
Give ‘science for peace’ a chance
Editorial 18 DEC 24
How Elon Musk’s partnership with Trump could shape science in the US — and beyond
News 13 DEC 24
Why Asia is leading the field in green materials
Nature Index 11 DEC 24
‘One of the last taboos’: breaking the stigma of substance-use disorders in academia
Career Feature 06 JAN 25
Is political interference causing faculty brain drain in the southern United States?
Career News 20 DEC 24
Inside an Argentinian nuclear reactor, science and politics collide
Spotlight 19 DEC 24
Qualified postdoctoral candidates are invited to join the laboratory of Dr. Vassilis Koliatsos at the Division of Neuropathology, Johns Hopkins Uni…
Baltimore, Maryland
Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine Department of Pathology/Division of Neuropathology
International Research Training Group (IRTG) PhD Positions in Molecular Biomedicine and Translational Oncology at University of Cologne, Germany.
Cologne, Nordrhein-Westfalen (DE)
University of Cologne – Pathology
A Postdoctoral Research Associate position is available for 2 years in human 3D organoid-based disease modelling in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (…
Cambridge, Cambridgeshire
University of Cambridge, Department of Clinical Neurosciences
At all ranks who focus on research in Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, and Machine Learning in Health Care and Medical Sciences.
Beijing, China
The Chinese Institutes for Medical Research (CIMR), Beijing
Join a global pharmaceutical company as a Postdoctoral researcher and advance research in cancer vaccines. Apply with your proposals today.
Innsbruck, Austria
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH
You have full access to this article via your institution.