The MRS Delphi Group’s view is that the short answer is yes, but not for the reasons you might think. This isn’t about decoding a new generation of consumers. Instead, it is about asking what their presence as workers tells us about the future of our industry. Because behind the noise, something quieter but more consequential is happening: Gen Z researchers are arriving into a sector that is frequently under pressure. AI is accelerating automation, budgets are under scrutiny, and the pace of cultural change is unrelenting. We face questions about the value of what we do and who (or what) does it.

This means that when we ask, “What does Gen Z want from work?”, we’re not indulging a generational trend. We are asking: What kind of industry are we building? Who gets to shape it? And are we ready to evolve?

To address this the latest report by the MRS Delphi Group is focusing on this thorny topic – and we are asking for your support to complete the survey that was recently sent out to members.

Why now?

Research is consistently ranked among the industries most likely to be impacted by generative AI. That doesn’t just mean shifting skill-sets; there is much commentary on how it could mean fewer roles. In that context, some might ask whether we even need to recruit so many young people.

It is a reasonable question. But if any industry reduces Gen Z’s role to a pipeline issue, something to be managed as headcounts tighten, we miss a more important opportunity. Because whatever your view on their work habits, their values or their vocabulary, Gen Z is inevitably signalling the shape of things to come.

They are arriving in the workplace with different assumptions about power, pace, meaning and identity. It seems to be less about disengaging but more about rejecting scripts that no longer make sense. And if we’re serious about future-proofing the industry, we can’t afford to ignore what they’re trying to tell us.

This is not about Gen Z but about all of us

What our initial takes on these topics are pointing to, is that there is not a call for a kombucha tap or nap pods. Instead, our hypothesis is that there is a desire for alignment: meaningful work, clear purpose, flexibility, and the ability to grow. These are not niche or naïve, but increasingly mainstream expectations. Many older workers want the same things but perhaps have all too often learned to expect less.

In that sense, Gen Z’s demands aren’t disruptive but diagnostic. They are surfacing tensions already felt across the workforce, making visible what is all too often broken. But it is not simply highlighting where things are not working well. Gen Z frequently also bring tools such as cultural fluency, digital dexterity, asynchronous collaboration, all of which can help us reimagine how research gets done.

But this will only make an impact if we stop treating generational difference as a problem and start treating it as a chance to redesign how we work, together.

A workplace where age still matters but doesn’t define

There is a real danger that the ‘Gen Z problem’ narrative becomes self-fulfilling, creating division rather than curiosity. As many have pointed out, the workplace is one of the few remaining spaces where different generations encounter each other meaningfully. But instead of using that proximity to foster understanding, we too often default to stereotype.

And this initiates a wider conversation. The real opportunity isn’t in managing Gen Z as a standalone challenge but re-imagining what a sustainable, fulfilling research career looks like across the lifespan. Yes, we need clearer, more compelling entry points for younger talent. But this also raises the importance of thinking ahead: how do we support mid-career pivots, second-career entrants, and colleagues who will be working into later life?

In an industry that faces automation, dangers of burnout and shifting values, age isn’t just a box to tick, rather a lens on experience, expectations and what people need to thrive. For research to stay creative and credible, we need to avoid the trap of designing workplaces around generational stereotypes and instead give real consideration on how we design them around real, evolving lives.

Beyond the first rung

Another challenge is that if we want Gen Z to stay, we have to offer more than entry-level roles and vague promises of progression. We need to be able to answer: Why us? Why now? Why you?

This moment of technological upheaval, cultural transformation and economic constraint could just as easily become a moment of renewal. But only if we’re willing to confront our assumptions about how the workplace should operate. And only if we treat the arrival of new talent not as a culture clash, but as a chance to evolve our collective vision.

What’s at stake

If we fail to engage with Gen Z researchers meaningfully, not just by on-boarding them, but by co-designing the industry with them, we risk irrelevance. Not because they’ll leave (although they might), but because we miss the chance to evolve. If we don’t create space for new definitions of value, purpose and collaboration, we’ll keep shedding talent to strategy, technology and activism.

This report will likely not be a call for a Gen Z workplace strategy. Instead, it we think there is a need to stop building workplace strategies around generations and start building between them. The future of research will not be built by one age group alone. But it will be shaped by how well we listen to each other now.

Watch out for a questionnaire inviting you to help with this research into the Gen Z workforce. 

The report is due to be published in the autumn. Your support in responding to the survey would be a hugely valuable contribution to the report, which we have every expectation will spark debate about ways forward for our industry.

Colin Strong is chair of MRS Delphi Group and head of behavioural science at Ipsos and Christina Tarbotton is research director at Boxclever. They are joint authors for the forthcoming Delphi report on this topic due autumn 2025.