institute of educational research and studies photos

• AI Generator

15,249 INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH Stock Photos & High-Res Pictures

Browse 15,249 institute of education and research photos and images available, or start a new search to explore more photos and images..

• Building Photos
• Informations about Land & Buildings
• Mandatory Disclosure Format
• Information about Teaching Staffs
• Information about Non Teaching Staffs
• Selection Board
• Governing Body
• Recognition by WBBPE
• Receipt by NCTE
• Recognition by NCTE
• Application to NCTE
• Audit Report 2010-'12
• Student list (2016-2018)
• Student list (2017-2019)
• IT Resources
• Photos of IT Resources
• Building Plan
• FDR Details
• Attendance Details

Phone :- 24601746 (Institute), 9830450452 (Principal)

Address 1:- 14/d, swin hoe st. kolakta - 700019, address 2:- 6/1, swin hoe st. kolkata - 700019.

• AI Generator

15,197 Institute Of Education And Research Stock Photos and High-res Pictures

Browse 15,197 institute of education and research photos and images available, or start a new search to explore more photos and images..

Introduction: Why Inquiring Images in Higher Education?

• First Online: 15 August 2020

Cite this chapter

• Nataša Lacković 2  

327 Accesses

Chapter 1 introduces the book by providing selected and versatile examples and arguments as to why images are important in human life, as significant representational, persuasive, and interpretative artefacts and signs. The chapter focuses on human communication as mediated by images and senses that include, but go beyond, language. As communication is central in education, the chapter argues that it is important to acknowledge that and create a link between higher education teaching-learning and the contemporary world of media hypervisuality and visual technological advances. Publications that adopt visual, multimodal, or semiotic approaches are marginal in the top journals in higher education studies, if compared to a considerably higher volume of research that tackles visually salient technology and social media in the same journals.

We are searching for an ideal image of our own world: we go in quest of a planet, a civilization superior to our own but developed on the basis of a prototype of our primeval past. (S. Lem, Solaris , translated by J. Kilmartin and S. Cox. C 6 ‘The Little Apocrypha’, p. 72, 1970)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/missions/archive/pioneer.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gfDffpkQI0 ; http://postmodernpioneerplaque.com/?page_id=4504

Disclaimer (by Boris Kozlov, provided on postmodernpioneerplaque.com ): “Please don’t get offended by this video! I do not intend to make fun of any individual nor any particular group of people.”

Visually impaired and blind people would be highly attuned to other modes that inform their understanding of the environment and meanings in it, such as sound, touch, smell, air, space-time, and different sensation of light. Edusemiotic relationality principles (e.g., as stated in the Glossary) and multimodal perspective to learning would include a variety of communicative modes, such as sound and touch, not just graphics. This could take different focal perspectives, such as inquiry dance, inquiry haptics, and so on. It could also be referred to as a “multimodal inquiry” approach.

Semiotics may still have the reputation of being a linguistic and immaterial discipline as a consequence of de Saussure’s semiotics associated with the linguistic turn and logocentric and glottocentric approaches. However, the field of semiotics has several sub-fields, and the developments made in semiotics went beyond the linguistic with the work of Peirce in the nineteenth century, further developed and evident in ecosemiotics, zoosemiotics, biosemiotics and recently edusemiotics and the semiotic theory of learning, which have all made connections with the world’s matter, non-human signification, and diverse signs beyond language, incorporating various communication modes.

CP = Peirce, C. S. ( 1931–1935 , 1958). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (digital version) . Cambridge, MA: Belknap. (In-text references are to CP, followed by paragraph number); EP = Peirce, C. S. ( 1893–1913 ). The essential Peirce (Vol. 2). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. (In-text references are to EP, followed by page number); MS = Peirce, C.S. ( 1967 , 1971). Manuscripts in the Houghton Library of Harvard University, as identified by Richard Robin, “Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce,” Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press (1967), and in “The Peirce Papers: A supplementary catalogue,” Transactions of the C. S. Peirce Society , Volume 7 (1971): 37–57. In-text references are to MS, followed, when available, by page number.

Stereotypical image associations contrary to participant’s conscious beliefs, studied in Chap. 7 , confirm this.

For information and reflection about the photograph, see: https://factcheck.afp.com/no-not-photo-argentine-revolutionary-che-guevara

Phrases such as: a holistic picture, a general picture, a new picture, an accurate picture, a coherent picture and similar uses, referring to a mental idea of a “picture.”

The model of Edusemiotic Relationality is included in the Glossary and introduced at the end of the book to embed the image-concept relational character of inquiry graphics developed in the book in a relational theory of education, for example by considering the perspectives of relational sociology that foregrounds social relations and a relational approach to body and emotions (Burkitt, 2008 , 2014 ), material artifacts and digital technology, material engagement theory and edusemiotics.

Adelman, R. A. (2012). Tangled complicities: Extracting knowledge from images of Abu Ghraib. In Knowledge and pain (pp. 353–379). New York: Brill/Rodopi.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Amouzadeh, M., & Tavangar, M. (2004). Decoding pictorial metaphor: Ideologies in Persian commercial advertising. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7 (2), 147–174.

Article   Google Scholar  

Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28 (3), 801–831.

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Google Scholar  

Barad, K. (2011). Erasers and erasures: Pinch’s unfortunate ‘uncertainty principle’. Social Studies of Science, 41 (3), 443–454.

Bartram, R. (2004). Visuality, dromology and time compression: Paul Virilio’s new ocularcentrism. Time & Society, 13 (2–3), 285–300.

Bernstein, B. (2006). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. In Education and society (pp. 53–73). London: Routledge.

Bone, J. (2009). Writing research: Narrative, bricolage and everyday spirituality. New Zealand Research in Early Childhood Education, 12 , 143.

Bruner, J. S. (2009). Actual minds, possible worlds . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burkitt, I. (2008). Social selves: Theories of self and society . London: Sage.

Burkitt, I. (2014). Emotions and social relations . London: Sage.

Cobley, P. (2016). Cultural implications of biosemiotics . Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Dearden, R. F., Hirst, P., & Peters, R. S. (Eds.). (1972). Education and the development of reason . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Debord, G. (1994). The society of the spectacle (Donald Nicholson Smith, Trans.). Brooklyn/New York: Zone Books.

Devereux, L. (2010). From Congo: Newspaper photographs, public images and personal memories. Visual Studies, 25 (2), 124–134.

Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1960). Knowing and the known (No. 111). Boston: Beacon Press.

Earl, C. (2018). Spaces of political pedagogy: Occupy! And other radical experiments in adult learning . London: Routledge.

Elleström, L. (2014). Material and mental representation: Peirce adapted to the study of media and arts. The American Journal of Semiotics, 30 (1/2), 83–138. https://doi.org/10.5840/ajs2014301/24 .

Fenwick, T. (2010). Re-thinking the “thing” sociomaterial approaches to understanding and researching learning in work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22 (1/2), 104–116.

Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2013). Performative ontologies. Sociomaterial approaches to researching adult education and lifelong learning. European journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 4 (1), 49–63.

Freire, P. (2007). Daring to Dream: Toward a Pedagogy of the Unfinished . Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

Fulkova, M., & Tipton, T. (2008). A (con)text for new discourse as semiotic praxis. The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 27 (1), 27–42.

Greer, C., & Jewkes, Y. (2005). Towards “them”, the people that are not like “us”. Extremes of otherness: Media images of social exclusion. Social Justice, 32 (1(99)), 20–31.

Jandrić, P. (2017). Learning in the age of digital reason . New York: Springer.

Kavanagh, D. (2004). Ocularcentrism and its others: A framework for metatheoretical analysis. Organization Studies, 25 (3), 445–464.

Kellner, D. (1999). Virilio, war and technology: Some critical reflections. Theory, Culture & Society, 16 (5–6), 103–125.

Lackovic, N. (2010a). Creating and reading images: Towards a communication framework for higher education learning. In Seminar. Net: Media, technology & life-long learning (pp. 121–135).

Lackovic, N. (2010b). Beyond the surface: Image affordances in language textbooks that affect National Identity Formation (NIF). In M. Raesch (Ed.), Mapping minds (pp. 53–65, 13 p.) Inter-disciplinary Press.

Lackovic, N. (2016). MultiMAP: Exploring multimodal artefact pedagogy in digital higher education. Proceedings , 148–162.

Lackovic, N. (2019). Graduate employability (GE) paradigm shift: Towards greater socio-emotional and eco-technological relationalities of graduates’ futures. In M. Peters, P. Jandrić, & A. Means (Eds.), Education and technological unemployment (pp. 193–212). Singapore: Springer.

Lackovic, N. (2020). Thinking with digital images in the post-truth era: A method in critical media literacy. In Postdigtial science and education . Springer.

Lacković, N., & Olteanu, A. (forthcoming). Learning in times of visual technologies: A relational approach to educational theory and practice that integrates external and internal images. Educational Philosophy and Theory .

Leonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday, 15 (6).

Martinelli, D. (2016). Arts and humanities in progress: A manifesto of numanities . Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Olteanu, A. (2017). Reading history: Education, semiotics, and edusemiotics. In Edusemiotics – A handbook (pp. 193–205). Singapore: Springer.

Olteanu, A. (2019). Multiculturalism as multimodal communication . Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Olteanu, A., & Campbell, C. (2018). A short introduction to edusemiotics. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 14 (2), 245–260.

[CP =] Peirce, C. S. (1931–1935, 1958). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce . Cambridge, MA: Belknap. [In-text references are to CP, followed by paragraph number].

[EP =] Peirce, C. S. (1893–1913). The essential Peirce (Vol. 2). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. [In-text references are to EP2, followed by page].

[MS =] Peirce, C. S. (1967, 1971). Manuscripts in the Houghton Library of Harvard University, as identified by Richard Robin, “Annotated catalogue of the papers of Charles S. Peirce” . Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press (1967), and in The Peirce Papers: A supplementary catalogue. Transactions of the C. S. Peirce Society , 7 (1971), 37–57. [In-text references are to MS number, followed, when available, by page number].

Peters, M. A., Besley, T., Jandrić, P., & Bajic, M. (2016, January). Educational research and visual cultures: The case of video publishing. In American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting .

Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., & Means, A. (2019). Education and technological unemployment . Singapore: Springer.

Quay, J. (2017). Education and reasoning: Advancing a Peircean semiotic. In I. Simietsky (Ed.), Semiotics – A handbook (pp. 79–91). Berlin, Germany: Springer Nature.

Semetsky, I., & Stables, A. (Eds.). (2014). Pedagogy and edusemiotics: Theoretical challenges/practical opportunities (Vol. 62). Springer.

Sless, D. (1981). Learning and visual communication . Halsted Press.

Stables, A., Nöth, W., Olteanu, A., Pesce, S., & Pikkarainen, E. (2018). Semiotic theory of learning: New perspectives in the philosophy of education . Routledge.

Stables, A., & Semetsky, I. (2014). Edusemiotics: Semiotic philosophy as educational foundation . Routledge.

Strand, T. (2013). Peirce’s rhetorical turn: Conceptualizing education as semiosis. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45 (7), 789–803.

Tateo, L. (2018). Affective semiosis and affective logic. New Ideas in Psychology, 48 , 1–11.

Thomas, E. F., McGarty, C., & Mavor, K. I. (2009). Transforming “apathy into movement”: The role of prosocial emotions in motivating action for social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13 (4), 310–333.

Tight, M. (2012). Higher education research 2000–2010: Changing journal publication patterns. Higher Education Research & Development, 31 (5), 723–740.

Tight, M. (2013). Discipline and methodology in higher education research. Higher Education Research and Development, 32 (1), 136–151.

Williamson, J. (1978). Decoding advertisements: Ideology and meaning in advertising . New York: Marion Boyars.

Winters, K. L. (2010). Quilts of authorship: A literature review of multimodal assemblage in the field of literacy education. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education/Revue canadienne des jeunes chercheures et chercheurs en éducation, 3 (1), 1–12.

Worth, S., & Gross, L. (1974). Symbolic strategies. Journal of Communication, 24 , 27–39.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Nataša Lacković

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nataša Lacković .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Lacković, N. (2020). Introduction: Why Inquiring Images in Higher Education?. In: Inquiry Graphics in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39387-8_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39387-8_1

Published : 15 August 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-39386-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-39387-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

University of the Punjab

• Staff A - Z

• Language en ur
• Quick Links
• Our History Our Pride
• Administration
• Picture Gallery
• Chancellor's Message
• Vice Chancellor's Message
• Departments
• Independent Centre
• All Programs
• Scholarships
• HEC Approved Supervisors
• Student Information
• Annual System
• Campus Life
• Apply Online
• Available Jobs
• Online Databases
• Publications
• Doctoral Programme Coordination Committee
• Video conferencing
• Research websites and free resources
• Conferences
• Apply Online (On-Campus Programs)
• Regulations
• Language Proficiency
• Merit Calculator
• Online Form Submission (Private / Regular & Late College (Affiliated Colleges)
• Date Sheets
• Examination News
• Download Roll No. Slip
• Statistical Analysis / Gazettes

Institute of Education & Research

Vision, Mission Statement and Goals

Teaching faculty.

Publications/ Research / Books

Seminar/ conferences.

5th International Conference on Research in Education (ICORE - 2017)

Click here for Call for Abstracts - Golden Jubilee Post Graduate Students Conference on Rethinking Education for Pakistan in 21st Century

1. Library 2. Computer Lab 3. Video Conferences Lab

Subdepartment

Welcome to RISE

• Learn about our Services
• Submit your evaluation inquiry today
• Meet our Team

The Research Institute for Studies in Education (RISE), a unit of the School of Education , was formed in 1974 to conduct comprehensive, integrated research and evaluation studies that enhance PK-20 education locally, nationally, and globally. RISE operates as a self-supporting, nonprofit organization housed within Iowa State University , a public, research-intensive, land-grant institution. RISE promotes the integration of evaluation, research, and policy through partnerships with schools, colleges and universities, federal and state education agencies, and private agencies and foundations. RISE team members apply research and evaluation expertise to deliver a broad spectrum of services related to research, analytic inquiry, and technical consulting.

RISE team members have extensive experience in a variety of research and evaluation focus areas, including projects related to climate and diversity; curriculum development; health and well-being; personal and social responsibility; social, emotional, and behavioral initiatives; STEM; student learning and development; teacher education; and technology applications. RISE has experience working with grants from NSF, NIH, USDA, Department of Education, Department of Labor, and others. Through collaborative efforts with clients, RISE supports institutional research activities, conducts evaluations of academic programs, and contributes data for institutional improvement, policy development, accreditation, and program review.

UEW-IERIS to Rollout Professional Development Courses for Teachers

UEW Hosts Workshop on Global Best Practices in Teaching STEM

IERIS and SHAPE Attitude Ghana Observe 2022 World Environment Day

Prof. Mitchual Shares His Vision for Research at UEW

IERIS-UEW Empowers Teachers with CPD in Lower Manya Krobo

Prof. Adzahlie-Mensah Succeeds Prof. Nsoh as Director of IERIS

IERIS-UEW Holds CPD Workshop for Teachers in Kwaebibirem Municipality

The Institute for Educational Research and Innovation Studies (IERIS) was established in the year 2013 to play leading roles in educational research and innovations in the University of Education, Winneba. Its mandate is to conduct research into the practice of basic education, education management and leadership, and educational policies at the institutional and national levels.

Professor Vincent Adzahile Mensah Director, IERIS

The University

• Brief History
• Central Administration
• The University Logo
• Office of the Registrar
• Faculties /Schools
• Institutes /Directorates /Centres
• A-Z Academic Departments
• Academic Calendar
• Academic Programmes
• School of Graduate Studies
• Announcements
• Radio Windy Bay
• Press Releases

Quick Links

• University Contacts
• Staff Directory
• UEW Students Page

© 2019 University of Education, Winneba

[email protected]

[email protected]

P. O. Box 25, Winneba, Ghana

The Best Teacher Education University in Africa

Follow UEW on

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:

What the data says about abortion in the U.S.

Pew Research Center has conducted many surveys about abortion over the years, providing a lens into Americans’ views on whether the procedure should be legal, among a host of other questions.

In a  Center survey  conducted nearly a year after the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision that  ended the constitutional right to abortion , 62% of U.S. adults said the practice should be legal in all or most cases, while 36% said it should be illegal in all or most cases. Another survey conducted a few months before the decision showed that relatively few Americans take an absolutist view on the issue .

Find answers to common questions about abortion in America, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, which have tracked these patterns for several decades:

How many abortions are there in the U.S. each year?

How has the number of abortions in the u.s. changed over time, what is the abortion rate among women in the u.s. how has it changed over time, what are the most common types of abortion, how many abortion providers are there in the u.s., and how has that number changed, what percentage of abortions are for women who live in a different state from the abortion provider, what are the demographics of women who have had abortions, when during pregnancy do most abortions occur, how often are there medical complications from abortion.

This compilation of data on abortion in the United States draws mainly from two sources: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, both of which have regularly compiled national abortion data for approximately half a century, and which collect their data in different ways.

The CDC data that is highlighted in this post comes from the agency’s “abortion surveillance” reports, which have been published annually since 1974 (and which have included data from 1969). Its figures from 1973 through 1996 include data from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and New York City – 52 “reporting areas” in all. Since 1997, the CDC’s totals have lacked data from some states (most notably California) for the years that those states did not report data to the agency. The four reporting areas that did not submit data to the CDC in 2021 – California, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey – accounted for approximately 25% of all legal induced abortions in the U.S. in 2020, according to Guttmacher’s data. Most states, though,  do  have data in the reports, and the figures for the vast majority of them came from each state’s central health agency, while for some states, the figures came from hospitals and other medical facilities.

Discussion of CDC abortion data involving women’s state of residence, marital status, race, ethnicity, age, abortion history and the number of previous live births excludes the low share of abortions where that information was not supplied. Read the methodology for the CDC’s latest abortion surveillance report , which includes data from 2021, for more details. Previous reports can be found at  stacks.cdc.gov  by entering “abortion surveillance” into the search box.

For the numbers of deaths caused by induced abortions in 1963 and 1965, this analysis looks at reports by the then-U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, a precursor to the Department of Health and Human Services. In computing those figures, we excluded abortions listed in the report under the categories “spontaneous or unspecified” or as “other.” (“Spontaneous abortion” is another way of referring to miscarriages.)

Guttmacher data in this post comes from national surveys of abortion providers that Guttmacher has conducted 19 times since 1973. Guttmacher compiles its figures after contacting every known provider of abortions – clinics, hospitals and physicians’ offices – in the country. It uses questionnaires and health department data, and it provides estimates for abortion providers that don’t respond to its inquiries. (In 2020, the last year for which it has released data on the number of abortions in the U.S., it used estimates for 12% of abortions.) For most of the 2000s, Guttmacher has conducted these national surveys every three years, each time getting abortion data for the prior two years. For each interim year, Guttmacher has calculated estimates based on trends from its own figures and from other data.

The latest full summary of Guttmacher data came in the institute’s report titled “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2020.” It includes figures for 2020 and 2019 and estimates for 2018. The report includes a methods section.

In addition, this post uses data from StatPearls, an online health care resource, on complications from abortion.

An exact answer is hard to come by. The CDC and the Guttmacher Institute have each tried to measure this for around half a century, but they use different methods and publish different figures.

The last year for which the CDC reported a yearly national total for abortions is 2021. It found there were 625,978 abortions in the District of Columbia and the 46 states with available data that year, up from 597,355 in those states and D.C. in 2020. The corresponding figure for 2019 was 607,720.

The last year for which Guttmacher reported a yearly national total was 2020. It said there were 930,160 abortions that year in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, compared with 916,460 in 2019.

• How the CDC gets its data: It compiles figures that are voluntarily reported by states’ central health agencies, including separate figures for New York City and the District of Columbia. Its latest totals do not include figures from California, Maryland, New Hampshire or New Jersey, which did not report data to the CDC. ( Read the methodology from the latest CDC report .)
• How Guttmacher gets its data: It compiles its figures after contacting every known abortion provider – clinics, hospitals and physicians’ offices – in the country. It uses questionnaires and health department data, then provides estimates for abortion providers that don’t respond. Guttmacher’s figures are higher than the CDC’s in part because they include data (and in some instances, estimates) from all 50 states. ( Read the institute’s latest full report and methodology .)

While the Guttmacher Institute supports abortion rights, its empirical data on abortions in the U.S. has been widely cited by  groups  and  publications  across the political spectrum, including by a  number of those  that  disagree with its positions .

These estimates from Guttmacher and the CDC are results of multiyear efforts to collect data on abortion across the U.S. Last year, Guttmacher also began publishing less precise estimates every few months , based on a much smaller sample of providers.

The figures reported by these organizations include only legal induced abortions conducted by clinics, hospitals or physicians’ offices, or those that make use of abortion pills dispensed from certified facilities such as clinics or physicians’ offices. They do not account for the use of abortion pills that were obtained  outside of clinical settings .

(Back to top)

The annual number of U.S. abortions rose for years after Roe v. Wade legalized the procedure in 1973, reaching its highest levels around the late 1980s and early 1990s, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. Since then, abortions have generally decreased at what a CDC analysis called  “a slow yet steady pace.”

Guttmacher says the number of abortions occurring in the U.S. in 2020 was 40% lower than it was in 1991. According to the CDC, the number was 36% lower in 2021 than in 1991, looking just at the District of Columbia and the 46 states that reported both of those years.

(The corresponding line graph shows the long-term trend in the number of legal abortions reported by both organizations. To allow for consistent comparisons over time, the CDC figures in the chart have been adjusted to ensure that the same states are counted from one year to the next. Using that approach, the CDC figure for 2021 is 622,108 legal abortions.)

There have been occasional breaks in this long-term pattern of decline – during the middle of the first decade of the 2000s, and then again in the late 2010s. The CDC reported modest 1% and 2% increases in abortions in 2018 and 2019, and then, after a 2% decrease in 2020, a 5% increase in 2021. Guttmacher reported an 8% increase over the three-year period from 2017 to 2020.

As noted above, these figures do not include abortions that use pills obtained outside of clinical settings.

Guttmacher says that in 2020 there were 14.4 abortions in the U.S. per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. Its data shows that the rate of abortions among women has generally been declining in the U.S. since 1981, when it reported there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in that age range.

The CDC says that in 2021, there were 11.6 abortions in the U.S. per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. (That figure excludes data from California, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey.) Like Guttmacher’s data, the CDC’s figures also suggest a general decline in the abortion rate over time. In 1980, when the CDC reported on all 50 states and D.C., it said there were 25 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.

That said, both Guttmacher and the CDC say there were slight increases in the rate of abortions during the late 2010s and early 2020s. Guttmacher says the abortion rate per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 rose from 13.5 in 2017 to 14.4 in 2020. The CDC says it rose from 11.2 per 1,000 in 2017 to 11.4 in 2019, before falling back to 11.1 in 2020 and then rising again to 11.6 in 2021. (The CDC’s figures for those years exclude data from California, D.C., Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey.)

The CDC broadly divides abortions into two categories: surgical abortions and medication abortions, which involve pills. Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved abortion pills in 2000, their use has increased over time as a share of abortions nationally, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher.

The majority of abortions in the U.S. now involve pills, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. The CDC says 56% of U.S. abortions in 2021 involved pills, up from 53% in 2020 and 44% in 2019. Its figures for 2021 include the District of Columbia and 44 states that provided this data; its figures for 2020 include D.C. and 44 states (though not all of the same states as in 2021), and its figures for 2019 include D.C. and 45 states.

Guttmacher, which measures this every three years, says 53% of U.S. abortions involved pills in 2020, up from 39% in 2017.

Two pills commonly used together for medication abortions are mifepristone, which, taken first, blocks hormones that support a pregnancy, and misoprostol, which then causes the uterus to empty. According to the FDA, medication abortions are safe  until 10 weeks into pregnancy.

Surgical abortions conducted  during the first trimester  of pregnancy typically use a suction process, while the relatively few surgical abortions that occur  during the second trimester  of a pregnancy typically use a process called dilation and evacuation, according to the UCLA School of Medicine.

In 2020, there were 1,603 facilities in the U.S. that provided abortions,  according to Guttmacher . This included 807 clinics, 530 hospitals and 266 physicians’ offices.

While clinics make up half of the facilities that provide abortions, they are the sites where the vast majority (96%) of abortions are administered, either through procedures or the distribution of pills, according to Guttmacher’s 2020 data. (This includes 54% of abortions that are administered at specialized abortion clinics and 43% at nonspecialized clinics.) Hospitals made up 33% of the facilities that provided abortions in 2020 but accounted for only 3% of abortions that year, while just 1% of abortions were conducted by physicians’ offices.

Looking just at clinics – that is, the total number of specialized abortion clinics and nonspecialized clinics in the U.S. – Guttmacher found the total virtually unchanged between 2017 (808 clinics) and 2020 (807 clinics). However, there were regional differences. In the Midwest, the number of clinics that provide abortions increased by 11% during those years, and in the West by 6%. The number of clinics  decreased  during those years by 9% in the Northeast and 3% in the South.

The total number of abortion providers has declined dramatically since the 1980s. In 1982, according to Guttmacher, there were 2,908 facilities providing abortions in the U.S., including 789 clinics, 1,405 hospitals and 714 physicians’ offices.

The CDC does not track the number of abortion providers.

In the District of Columbia and the 46 states that provided abortion and residency information to the CDC in 2021, 10.9% of all abortions were performed on women known to live outside the state where the abortion occurred – slightly higher than the percentage in 2020 (9.7%). That year, D.C. and 46 states (though not the same ones as in 2021) reported abortion and residency data. (The total number of abortions used in these calculations included figures for women with both known and unknown residential status.)

The share of reported abortions performed on women outside their state of residence was much higher before the 1973 Roe decision that stopped states from banning abortion. In 1972, 41% of all abortions in D.C. and the 20 states that provided this information to the CDC that year were performed on women outside their state of residence. In 1973, the corresponding figure was 21% in the District of Columbia and the 41 states that provided this information, and in 1974 it was 11% in D.C. and the 43 states that provided data.

In the District of Columbia and the 46 states that reported age data to  the CDC in 2021, the majority of women who had abortions (57%) were in their 20s, while about three-in-ten (31%) were in their 30s. Teens ages 13 to 19 accounted for 8% of those who had abortions, while women ages 40 to 44 accounted for about 4%.

The vast majority of women who had abortions in 2021 were unmarried (87%), while married women accounted for 13%, according to  the CDC , which had data on this from 37 states.

In the District of Columbia, New York City (but not the rest of New York) and the 31 states that reported racial and ethnic data on abortion to  the CDC , 42% of all women who had abortions in 2021 were non-Hispanic Black, while 30% were non-Hispanic White, 22% were Hispanic and 6% were of other races.

Looking at abortion rates among those ages 15 to 44, there were 28.6 abortions per 1,000 non-Hispanic Black women in 2021; 12.3 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women; 6.4 abortions per 1,000 non-Hispanic White women; and 9.2 abortions per 1,000 women of other races, the  CDC reported  from those same 31 states, D.C. and New York City.

For 57% of U.S. women who had induced abortions in 2021, it was the first time they had ever had one,  according to the CDC.  For nearly a quarter (24%), it was their second abortion. For 11% of women who had an abortion that year, it was their third, and for 8% it was their fourth or more. These CDC figures include data from 41 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

Nearly four-in-ten women who had abortions in 2021 (39%) had no previous live births at the time they had an abortion,  according to the CDC . Almost a quarter (24%) of women who had abortions in 2021 had one previous live birth, 20% had two previous live births, 10% had three, and 7% had four or more previous live births. These CDC figures include data from 41 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2021, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation,  according to the CDC . An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and about 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. These CDC figures include data from 40 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

About 2% of all abortions in the U.S. involve some type of complication for the woman , according to an article in StatPearls, an online health care resource. “Most complications are considered minor such as pain, bleeding, infection and post-anesthesia complications,” according to the article.

The CDC calculates  case-fatality rates for women from induced abortions – that is, how many women die from abortion-related complications, for every 100,000 legal abortions that occur in the U.S .  The rate was lowest during the most recent period examined by the agency (2013 to 2020), when there were 0.45 deaths to women per 100,000 legal induced abortions. The case-fatality rate reported by the CDC was highest during the first period examined by the agency (1973 to 1977), when it was 2.09 deaths to women per 100,000 legal induced abortions. During the five-year periods in between, the figure ranged from 0.52 (from 1993 to 1997) to 0.78 (from 1978 to 1982).

The CDC calculates death rates by five-year and seven-year periods because of year-to-year fluctuation in the numbers and due to the relatively low number of women who die from legal induced abortions.

In 2020, the last year for which the CDC has information , six women in the U.S. died due to complications from induced abortions. Four women died in this way in 2019, two in 2018, and three in 2017. (These deaths all followed legal abortions.) Since 1990, the annual number of deaths among women due to legal induced abortion has ranged from two to 12.

The annual number of reported deaths from induced abortions (legal and illegal) tended to be higher in the 1980s, when it ranged from nine to 16, and from 1972 to 1979, when it ranged from 13 to 63. One driver of the decline was the drop in deaths from illegal abortions. There were 39 deaths from illegal abortions in 1972, the last full year before Roe v. Wade. The total fell to 19 in 1973 and to single digits or zero every year after that. (The number of deaths from legal abortions has also declined since then, though with some slight variation over time.)

The number of deaths from induced abortions was considerably higher in the 1960s than afterward. For instance, there were 119 deaths from induced abortions in  1963  and 99 in  1965 , according to reports by the then-U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, a precursor to the Department of Health and Human Services. The CDC is a division of Health and Human Services.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published May 27, 2022, and first updated June 24, 2022.

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many countries, especially in Europe

Nearly a year after roe’s demise, americans’ views of abortion access increasingly vary by where they live, by more than two-to-one, americans say medication abortion should be legal in their state, most latinos say democrats care about them and work hard for their vote, far fewer say so of gop, positive views of supreme court decline sharply following abortion ruling, 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

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• 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 .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

The Stem Cellar

The official blog of cirm, california's stem cell agency, cirm approves $2.5 million to establish a patient support program .

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) funds innovative cell and gene therapy research and educational programs to advance regenerative medicine in the Golden State. Just as important is CIRM’s commitment to ensuring that Californians from diverse backgrounds have access to groundbreaking clinical trials for a variety of diseases and condition resulting from the research.  

That’s why CIRM has approved awarding $2.5 million to EVERSANA —a leading provider of global commercial services to the life sciences industry—to establish a Patient Support Program (PSP) to assist patients enrolled in CIRM-funded clinical trials. 

Addressing Barriers to Clinical Trials  

For many patients battling diseases and chronic health conditions, getting access to a clinical trial can be lifesaving, but it can also be very challenging. Clinical trial patients often face financial challenges, long-distance travels, and require family commitments that can make it difficult to maintain participation.  

Through this award, CIRM and EVERSANA will address informational, financial and logistical bottlenecks experienced by clinical trial patients and their family members. The Patient Support Program will be particularly important for providing equal access to California clinical trial participants.  

Evidence shows that support programs positively impact clinical trial accrual rates, patient diversity, trial adherence, humanistic outcomes, reduced healthcare utilization costs, and quality of life. 

Encouraging Trial Participation in Underserved Communities  

Services offered by the PSP will include maintaining a Patient Support Center to refer patients to clinical trials, verifying participation and financial support eligibility, as well as administering Patient Assistance Fund (PAF) reimbursements to cover travel expenses, meals, accommodations, childcare, and other out of pocket expenses. 

Funds for the PSP are set aside under Proposition 14, the voter-approved initiative that renewed CIRM’s funding in 2020.  

Under Prop 14, royalty revenues that CIRM grantees earn from licensing, inventions or technologies are to be spent “offsetting the costs of providing treatments and cures arising from institute-funded research to California patients who have insufficient means to purchase such treatment or cure, including the reimbursement of patient-qualified costs for research participants.” 

Currently, CIRM has been appropriated $15.6 million from the Patient Assistance Fund to support patients. 

“CIRM is committed to supporting patients through the clinical trial process to continue advancing transformative regenerative medicine therapies to the benefit of all Californians,” said Jonathan Thomas, PhD, JD, CIRM’s Interim President and CEO. “The Patient Support Program is just one initiative designed to get us a step closer to that vision.” 

EVERSANA is expected to initiate work on the approved project plan within 120 days of the final contract. 

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar