File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: An Informal Internet Survey on the Current State of Consciousness Science

TitleAn Informal Internet Survey on the Current State of Consciousness Science
Authors
KeywordsConsciousness
Consciousness research
Consciousness science
Meta-science
Survey
Issue Date2018
PublisherFrontiers Research Foundation. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.frontiersin.org/psychology
Citation
Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, v. 9, p. article no. 2134 How to Cite?
AbstractThe scientific study of consciousness emerged as an organized field of research only a few decades ago. As empirical results have begun to enhance our understanding of consciousness, it is important to find out whether other factors, such as funding for consciousness research and status of consciousness scientists, provide a suitable environment for the field to grow and develop sustainably. We conducted an online survey on people's views regarding various aspects of the scientific study of consciousness as a field of research. 249 participants completed the survey, among which 80% were in academia, and around 40% were experts in consciousness research. Topics covered include the progress made by the field, funding for consciousness research, job opportunities for consciousness researchers, and the scientific rigor of the work done by researchers in the field. The majority of respondents (78%) indicated that scientific research on consciousness has been making progress. However, most participants perceived obtaining funding and getting a job in the field of consciousness research as more difficult than in other subfields of neuroscience. Overall, work done in consciousness research was perceived to be less rigorous than other neuroscience subfields, but this perceived lack of rigor was not related to the perceived difficulty in finding jobs and obtaining funding. Lastly, we found that, overall, the global workspace theory was perceived to be the most promising (around 28%), while most non-expert researchers (around 22% of non-experts) found the integrated information theory (IIT) most promising. We believe the survey results provide an interesting picture of current opinions from scientists and researchers about the progresses made and the challenges faced by consciousness research as an independent field. They will inspire collective reflection on the future directions regarding funding and job opportunities for the field. © 2018 Michel, Fleming, Lau, Lee, Martinez-Conde, Passingham, Peters, Rahnev, Sergent and Liu.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/276279
ISSN
2017 Impact Factor: 2.089
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.244
PubMed Central ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMichel, M-
dc.contributor.authorFleming, SM-
dc.contributor.authorLau, H-
dc.contributor.authorLee, ALF-
dc.contributor.authorMartinez-Conde, S-
dc.contributor.authorPassingham, RE-
dc.contributor.authorPeters, MAK-
dc.contributor.authorRahnev, D-
dc.contributor.authorSergent, C-
dc.contributor.authorLiu, K-
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-10T02:59:41Z-
dc.date.available2019-09-10T02:59:41Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers in Psychology, 2018, v. 9, p. article no. 2134-
dc.identifier.issn1664-1078-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/276279-
dc.description.abstractThe scientific study of consciousness emerged as an organized field of research only a few decades ago. As empirical results have begun to enhance our understanding of consciousness, it is important to find out whether other factors, such as funding for consciousness research and status of consciousness scientists, provide a suitable environment for the field to grow and develop sustainably. We conducted an online survey on people's views regarding various aspects of the scientific study of consciousness as a field of research. 249 participants completed the survey, among which 80% were in academia, and around 40% were experts in consciousness research. Topics covered include the progress made by the field, funding for consciousness research, job opportunities for consciousness researchers, and the scientific rigor of the work done by researchers in the field. The majority of respondents (78%) indicated that scientific research on consciousness has been making progress. However, most participants perceived obtaining funding and getting a job in the field of consciousness research as more difficult than in other subfields of neuroscience. Overall, work done in consciousness research was perceived to be less rigorous than other neuroscience subfields, but this perceived lack of rigor was not related to the perceived difficulty in finding jobs and obtaining funding. Lastly, we found that, overall, the global workspace theory was perceived to be the most promising (around 28%), while most non-expert researchers (around 22% of non-experts) found the integrated information theory (IIT) most promising. We believe the survey results provide an interesting picture of current opinions from scientists and researchers about the progresses made and the challenges faced by consciousness research as an independent field. They will inspire collective reflection on the future directions regarding funding and job opportunities for the field. © 2018 Michel, Fleming, Lau, Lee, Martinez-Conde, Passingham, Peters, Rahnev, Sergent and Liu.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherFrontiers Research Foundation. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.frontiersin.org/psychology-
dc.relation.ispartofFrontiers in Psychology-
dc.rightsThis Document is Protected by copyright and was first published by Frontiers. All rights reserved. It is reproduced with permission.-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectConsciousness-
dc.subjectConsciousness research-
dc.subjectConsciousness science-
dc.subjectMeta-science-
dc.subjectSurvey-
dc.titleAn Informal Internet Survey on the Current State of Consciousness Science-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailLau, H: oldchild@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityLau, H=rp02270-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02134-
dc.identifier.pmid30455661-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC6230957-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85055969458-
dc.identifier.hkuros304566-
dc.identifier.volume9-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 2134-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 2134-
dc.publisher.placeSwitzerland-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats