What the Heck Is ‘Research’ Anyway? NSF Shenanigans, DEIA Drama, and Why This All Matters

When people hear “science,” they might imagine a lone genius in a white lab coat swirling test tubes like a wizard. (Sorry, that’s not exactly how it works most of the time.) Real science—especially the kind my lab does—looks more like a group of grad students, half-caffeinated, analyzing messy interview transcripts on Zoom and building tools to help marginalized communities get heard.

In this post, I’m doing two things:

1. Explaining what research actually is—especially the quirky, human-centered stuff we do in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI).
2. Exposing why gutting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) from research is basically setting the future on fire. Oh, and there’s also been a delightful fiasco with the National Science Foundation (NSF) freeze you might’ve heard about. Good times.

Buckle up for a behind-the-scenes tour—complete with snark, existential dread, and hopefully some clarity on why real-world science matters more than ever.

*Note: This is a currently evolving event. I've already updated this blog 3 times in the timespan it took me to write the article. I'm sure things will keep changing, but the core points of this article emphasize the negative impact this chaos creates.

** Additional Note: This article is full of sarcasm and snark. Dark humor is how I'm taking care of my mental health.

Understanding the Types of Research in Science

The Three Flavors: Basic, Applied, and Translational

Basic Research (‘What the Heck Is Going On?’)
This is your classic “maybe it’ll lead somewhere, maybe not” category. Think of it as science’s version of a wild road trip: you’re exploring new territory without a set destination. You might be smashing particles together (hoping you don’t open an interdimensional portal) or asking how memory works—pure curiosity, no immediate practical outcome guaranteed.

• Snarky Example: Studying whether goldfish can learn sign language. It might not cure cancer, but hey, we might discover something cool about cognition.

Applied Research (‘Let’s Actually Fix Something’)
Where science meets the real world. Applied research takes those whacky discoveries and tries to solve a tangible problem—like making a better smartphone app so you don’t throw your phone across the room at 3 a.m.

• Snarky Example: Using habit-formation theory to build an anti-procrastination app that actually works for more than two weeks (ha!).

Translational Research (‘In Your Hands, Right Now’)
Bridging that gap between theoretical “aha!” moments and the actual tools you can use. If basic research is the conceptual blueprint, and applied is building the prototype, translational is mass-producing it for the world.

• Snarky Example: Testing an accessibility app with real folks who have mobility or visual impairments—and then shipping it so they can, you know, actually use it.

Quant? Qual? Mixed?—Choose Your Own Adventure

Quantitative: The Numbers Game
Surveys, statistics, and enough spreadsheets to make Excel cry. Big data sets, big analyses, big headaches—but crucial for pattern-spotting.

• Example: Measuring how many people use an accessibility feature in your new app. “Look, 72% of them say it works, so maybe we’re onto something.”

Qualitative: Storytime with Real Humans
Interviews, observations, focus groups—basically, talking to people (including the ones big data tends to ignore). You dig deeper, find nuances, and realize humans are weird and complicated, which is precisely why we need this approach.

• Example: Sitting down with Deaf concertgoers to understand what they actually need from a “live show” experience—so we don’t do a half-baked solution that helps no one.

Mixed-Methods: When You Like Tacos and Burgers
Use both quant and qual. Yes, it’s more work. But you end up with a richer picture—plus, you can triangulate your data so you don’t rely solely on a single approach.

• Example: Surveying hundreds of disabled fans for broad trends, then conducting in-depth interviews for personal stories. Double the data, double the trouble, but better final results.

Inside a Qualitative Research Lab

Behind the Scenes: My 9-Ring Circus of Grad Students

Now, let’s zoom in on my world—a lab where science is a team sport and qualitative Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) research reigns supreme.

1. Supporting Grad Students: I work with 9 brilliant (and occasionally chaotic) graduate students. Each of them is tackling questions like:

• I manage 9 brilliant, occasionally sleep-deprived graduate students. Their research questions range from “How do fandom communities include or exclude newcomers?” to “How can AI help creativity without making us hate our jobs?” to “How can we help neurodiverse teams more successfully work together?” It’s basically academic juggling: I’m the ringmaster, they’re juggling flaming torches, and occasionally everyone wonders if we set the stage on fire.

2. The Research Process: Unlike labs full of petri dishes or particle accelerators, our lab leans heavily on qualitative methods:

• Interviews & Observations: We chat with people, watch them interact with tech, and try not to be creepy about it (no, really, we strive to eliminate the creepiness factor).
• Building Tech for Communities: Because it’s not enough just to whine about problems, we also attempt to solve them.
• Studying Community-Created Media: Yes, we do watch a lot of TikTok videos and call it “research.”
• Analysis: Where we decode the madness—“Aha! That’s why everyone’s uninstalling the app!”

3. Collaboration is Key: It’s not just me and my grad students. Undergrads, postdocs, sometimes even high school interns—plus community members—are all part of the mayhem. We’re not doing science to people—we’re doing it with them.

4. Outcomes: Here’s what emerges from our sweaty, snarky, late-night-lab efforts:

• Improved Tech: Tools for disabled users, mental health platforms, apps that might actually do some good.
• Community Empowerment: Because the best solutions happen when you actually listen to the folks you’re designing for. Shocker, I know.
• Policy Influence: Our findings sometimes nudge policymakers to remember that “DEIA” isn’t just a buzzword.
• Cultural Impact: Understanding how digital communities create their own media helps shape how we design future platforms.

Why NSF Matters and the Impact of Funding Freezes

NSF 101: Why This Acronym Keeps Me Up at Night

What’s the NSF?
The National Science Foundation hands out grant money to fund everything from new vaccines to better climate models to the weird corner of HCI where my lab lives. If your research gets an NSF nod, it’s like winning a golden ticket—except that Charlie might lose it at any moment due to political chaos.

The Freeze Fiasco
Imagine you’re halfway through writing a big grant proposal. Suddenly, the government says, “We’re freezing all discretionary grants because—reasons. Also, we’re not super fond of that DEIA stuff, so kindly erase references to diversity or accessibility.” Insert collective meltdown here.

Quick Timeline:

• Jan 28th: A judge issues a temporary block on the freeze, giving us all false hope.
• Jan 29th: After a bunch of states sue and federal judge blocks the freeze, the freeze is kinda rescinded, but the new memo says, “P.S. We still want you to consider other executive orders, so maybe skip that DEIA wording in your proposals. Good luck!”

Meanwhile, PIs across the country are emailing each other in panic: “Can we still say ‘inclusive’? Is that allowed, or does that get our funding canceled?” Even better, some are asking, “Which is worse: breaking this new executive order, or breaking the accessibility laws we already have?” We’re not having a great time, folks.

Chaos on the Ground

But what does all this freeze-and-unfreeze drama look like for the people actually doing the research?

The atmosphere in academic research labs right now feels eerily familiar—like the early days of COVID when no one knew what was happening, policies changed daily, and leadership either went silent or sent out conflicting messages that only deepened the confusion. One moment, we’re being reassured that ongoing grants are safe. The next, entire review panels are put on hold indefinitely. Principal Investigators (PIs) are scrambling to decipher what the new restrictions actually mean, terrified that their life’s work will suddenly be deemed unfit for funding. Graduate students and postdocs—already precariously employed—are (quietly) panicking about their futures. Will their funding be cut? Will their research even be allowed to continue? No one has answers.

The uncertainty is suffocating, and the stress is mounting as researchers try to navigate a system that feels more unstable by the day. At the same time, the broader academic community is watching with mounting dread, recognizing that this may not be just a temporary bureaucratic hiccup—it could be a deliberate restructuring of which research is valued, who gets to do it, and whose voices will be silenced.

Implications for Academic Research

What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (Hint: Everything)

• Funding Delays
  Ever tried to pay a research assistant with “IOUs”? They don’t like that. Delayed panels and ambiguous timelines mean we can’t hire, can’t plan, and can’t keep momentum. Great for morale!
• Research Interruptions
  Even if they unfreeze the money tomorrow, the damage is done: proposals get shelved, projects lose steam, and the “shiny new thing” might become irrelevant by the time the funds arrive.
• Erasing DEIA
  Here’s the big one. By striking DEIA language from proposals, we’re basically ignoring the experiences of anyone who isn’t the “default user.” That leads to trash solutions that don’t serve real people—and also sets us back decades in addressing systemic inequities.
• Career Uncertainty
  Grad students, who already survive on ramen and espresso shots, might start looking outside academia. If the field can’t guarantee stable funding, who wants to invest in a PhD? This is how you create a shortage of future researchers.
• Broader Impact
  If the NSF shifts to favor “ideologically aligned” research, we can kiss a lot of critical, community-focused science goodbye. You can guess who loses first: marginalized groups who were already underrepresented.

How People Are Pushing Back Against the Funding Freeze and DEIA Erasure

Lawyers, Universities, and Angry Scientists: The Resistance

• Legal Battles: States like New York and California immediately called “BS” and sued. Their argument? You can’t just shut down federal grants because you don’t like the words ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion.’ Judges have been flip-flopping on this every other day, leaving us all with whiplash.
• University Advocacy: For those hoping universities would collectively flip tables and shout “HELL NO!”—prepare to be underwhelmed. So far, many research institutions have responded with painstakingly measured memos that mostly say: “We see you, we’re monitoring, and we really hope this resolves itself so we don’t have to do anything drastic.”
  
  Take, for example, the statement from UC President Michael V. Drake. It’s essentially a politely worded “we remain committed to our values, but we’re not quite sure what’s happening yet, so stay tuned.” No pitchforks, no table-flipping, just a lot of “monitoring the situation” while reaffirming that diversity is important—somewhere in the footnotes.
  
  Meanwhile, proposals that mention DEIA are still in limbo, and the rest of us are left wondering if universities will ever lean in harder against the funding freeze. In fairness, institutional caution is partly about not wanting to poke a bear that controls billions in federal research money. But from a researcher’s perspective—especially those whose work focuses on marginalized communities—lukewarm reassurance doesn’t exactly light our path forward. We’d love to see bolder action than, “We promise to keep you posted.”
• Keeping Track: Organizations like The Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) are basically group-texting universities: “Hey, new White House memo dropped, better check if your project’s still allowed.” It’s fun, in a ‘my career might implode any second’ sort of way.

Why Science Matters for Everyone

In Case You Missed It: Science Is About Humans

Science isn’t just for some guy in a lab coat. It’s for anyone who wants medical advancements, better technology, or policies that don’t screw over whole communities. When you defund research or censor DEIA, you’re basically ensuring we don’t fix actual problems—like inaccessible healthcare, or bias in AI, or [insert 2025 nightmare here].

If you think science is too “technical,” guess what? It’s shaped by real people making real choices. If those choices ignore entire demographics, society loses out on innovation. The more we keep pushing DEIA out, the narrower our perspective becomes, the narrower the research becomes, and the more everyone suffers.

A Quick Recap

1. Research is more than swirling test tubes—especially in HCI and qualitative studies, it’s about people’s stories and building solutions with them.
2. Gutting DEIA from research is a surefire way to ignore large chunks of the population and produce narrow, short-sighted outcomes.
3. NSF Freeze Drama: Bureaucratic whiplash that could permanently reshape which research projects get funded—and whose voices are heard.
4. Pushback is happening, but it’s cautious. Legal challenges and lukewarm university statements abound, leaving researchers in limbo.
5. Why It Matters: Because science shapes everyday life, and ignoring entire communities is not just unethical—it’s a recipe for bad solutions and bigger problems down the road.

Thanks for reading, and remember: The fight for inclusive, community-based research continues, whether or not the current political climate decides to make it easy.

If you enjoyed this post or at least found it useful, I’d love for you to share it on social media and invite others to join the conversation. Don’t forget to subscribe to my blog for more reflections, stories, and critical takes delivered straight to your inbox. Let’s build a community where joy and connection thrive!