The following research aims have been synthesised from or can be directly attributed to bibliographic sources.
Research priorities in Mesolithic studies in the West Midlands include investigation of the Upper Palaeolithic to Early Mesolithic transition, the nature of social, economic and cultural changes during the Mesolithic, and the transition from hunting and gathering to farming during the Late Mesolithic.
Colonisation processes (see Tolan-Smith 2003a) and changing modes of occupation demand particular attention, especially the change suggested from Early Mesolithic seasonal residence systems that were part of long distance migratory cycles in open grassland landscapes, to Late Mesolithic ‘tethered mobility’ settlement patterns within relatively fixed local territories in woodland landscapes. These have very different implications for the scale and spatial organisation of social groups and community dispersal and aggregation (Smith 1992, Spikens 2000). This will require a good deal more detailed investigation of occupation sites (especially of Early Mesolithic and Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic date) and the recovery of detailed evidence for changes in environmental conditions, resource availability and diet (Myers 2007, 28, 34; cf Prehistoric Society 1999, 4-5).
There is considerable potential in the west midlands for investigating local adaptations by Mesolithic communities to particular environmental conditions and landscape settings. Key research aims must be to identify and investigate occupation sites, to characterise different kinds of settlements and activities, and relate these to wider residence patterns, social groups and systems of resource exploitation.
This will require landscape studies organised at an appropriate analytical scale (see Darvill 2003) to integrate the evidence for social practices from well-preserved occupation sites with the evidence from surface lithic scatters (Myers 2007, 32-5).
The presence of possible structures and activity areas at Mesolithic sites in the region suggests that there is considerable research potential for analyses of social practices within occupation areas and perhaps settlement organisation (cf Grøn 2001; Smith 1992, 29-34; Whitelaw 1994).
Other important research themes in this context include the perception and meaning of landscape (see: Moore 2003; Zvelebil 2003), environmental manipulation by Mesolithic communities (eg deliberate burning to facilitate hunting in open clearings; Moore 2003), and diet and population mobility (eg based on stable isotope studies of human skeletal material; (Richards and Schulting 2003).
A fundamental aspect of Mesolithic research in the west midlands should be systematic study of the principal archaeological resource, lithic artefacts, especially in relation to technologies, tool function and behaviour. Analysis of existing lithic artefact collections in museums and full publication of excavated site data would considerably enhance the research potential of this material (Myers 2007, 35). A number of key research aims in lithic studies in the region can be identified (ibid; cf Lithic Studies Society 2004):
Refinement of lithic artefact chronologies, especially in relation to Early Mesolithic variants, possible intermediate industries containing basally trimmed microliths and early to mid 4th millennium BC types.
Chronological evaluation of technological and typological changes in comparison to changes in the locations and sizes of sites (which elsewhere in Britain appears to be closely related; Myers 2007, 34).
Identification of ‘assemblage-types’ (and thus consistent technical and behavioural categories in site use) in Early and Late Mesolithic assemblages through quantitative and comparative analysis of artefact assemblages.
Definition of raw material types and artefact reduction sequences to study stone tool manufacturing technologies, and investigation of intra-site discard patterns and tool use (cf Lithic Studies Society 2004, 4-5).
A clear research priority in regional terms should be to determine the overall spatial pattern of Mesolithic activity in the west midlands, especially in relation to the interpretative framework proposed by Tolan-Smith (2003b) and recent discussions of territoriality, regionality and the possible presence of distinct ethnic or cultural groups in the European Mesolithic (cf Bergsvik 2003; Jacobi 1976; Reynier 1998; Saville 2003; Smith 1992).
Central research aims, in this context, should be to determine whether the midlands was a sparsely inhabited region during the whole or part of the Mesolithic (Tolan-Smith 2003b), and to identify typologically distinctive assemblages and artefact types in the region (such as ‘midlands basally-trimmed microliths’) that may represent distinct cultural identities, social groups or demographic relationships (Myers 2007, 32, 34).
Was the region sparsely inhabited during the whole or part of the Mesolithic (Tolan-Smith 2003b)?
A major methodological issue in this context is the reliability of existing HER databases for constructing distribution maps of Mesolithic find spots, and how these may (or may not) reflect the original density and intensity of occupation at different times during this period (ibid; cf Lithic Studies Society 2004, 3; Smith 1992, 27-43).
Myers (2007) observes that many field and curatorial archaeologists are unfamiliar with current themes in Mesolithic archaeology and Early Holocene environmental studies, and may need specific guidance for dealing with Mesolithic sites, especially in regard to the potential of lithic artefact analysis and site recognition and data recover methods (e.g. English Heritage 2000, Lithic Studies Society 2004, Pollard 1998). 
A fundamental requirement for future research on the Mesolithic of the west midlands is improvement of local authority HER databases so that they include all known finds and sites (Myers 2007, 34-5). These provide the primary sources of archaeological data used in the development control process yet in some cases appear not to have taken account of available gazetteers of known evidence (ibid). It would assist research if these databases categorised artefactual material in more detail, at the very least in broad chronological terms. 
The preparation of precise specifications for projects that are likely to encounter Mesolithic sites or artefacts is essential, especially with regard to appropriate surface collection and excavation methods for recovering Mesolithic evidence (ibid). 
It is important that strategies are put in place for recognising and/or prospecting for Mesolithic material during excavations of later sites, including urban locations (high quality evidence, for example, has been recovered from urban sites in London; ibid). 
Systematic surface collection of Mesolithic artefact assemblages is needed throughout the west midlands, especially in areas which have attracted little previous work and/or where little is known about Mesolithic activity (e.g. river valleys). Surveys of different soil-types and topographic locations to identify preferred occupation or activity sites would be of considerable value, especially for predictive modelling of site locations. 
There is considerable potential for more widespread and intensive use of systematic test-pitting methods as a means of prospecting for and evaluating Mesolithic sites. However, a critical requirement of such surveys is the need to use narrow intervals between both surface collection and test-pitting transacts in order to locate small lithic artefact concentrations of 10m diameter or less (Myers 2007, 33-4; see Hey and Lacey 2001, for a discussion on sampling procedures on prehistoric sites). 
Scatters of Mesolithic artefacts defined by surface collection and test-pitting should be excavated as a standard procedure to recover artefacts in the topsoil and to explore possible features beneath (which may be relatively insubstantial and thus easily destroyed by machining) (English Heritage 2000). 
Careful and detailed recording of the character, content and spatial distribution of lithic assemblages is essential. The development of excavation methods appropriate for investigating and analysing artefact-prolific scatters produced by numerous repeat visits to the same location, would be especially valuable (Myers 2007, 34-5). 
Well-preserved Mesolithic sites with stratified artefact assemblages, structural remains and/or high quality environmental and dating evidence are of primary research importance in regional, national and international terms. 
Systematic evaluation of cave sites in the region to identify stratified Mesolithic deposits, recover artefact assemblages and human remains, and collect radiocarbon dating samples, may be particularly rewarding (ibid). 
The recovery of human remains would be exceptionally important for dating purposes, dietary and demographic studies, and for investigating mortuary and ritual practices (cf Conneller 2006). 
Bergsvik, K A 2003 Mesolithic ethnicity – too hard to handle? In L Larsen, H Kindgren, K Knutsson, D Loeffler and A Akelund (eds) Mesolithic on the Move, Oxford, 290-301.
Conneller , C 2006 Death in C Conneller and C Warren (eds) Mesolithic Britain and Ireland: new approaches, Stroud, 139 – 64
Darvill, T 2003 Analytical scale, populations and the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the far northwest of Europe, in L Bevan and J Moore (eds) Peopling the Mesolithic in a Northern Environment, BAR International Series 1157, Oxford, 95-102.
English Heritage 2000 Managing Lithic Scatters: archaeological guidance for planning authorities and developers, London.
Grøn, O 2001 Mesolithic dwelling places in south Scandinavia: their definition and social interpretation, Antiquity 77, 685-708.
Hey, G and Lacey, M 2001 Evaluation of Archaeological Decision-making Processes and Sampling Strategies, Oxford
Jacobi, R 1976 Britain inside and outside Mesolithic Europe, Proc Prehist Soc 42, 67-84
Lithic Studies Society 2004 Research Frameworks for Holocene Lithics in Britain, Lithic Studies Society
Moore, J 2003 Enculturation through fire: beyond hazelnuts and into the forest, in L Larsen, H Kindgren, K Knutsson, D Loeffler and A Akelund (eds) Mesolithic on the Move, Oxford, 139-44
Myers, A M 2007 The Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archaeology of the West Midlands region, in P Garwood (ed) The Undiscovered Country: the earlier prehistory of the West Midlands, Oxford, 23-38
Pollard, J 1998 Prehistoric settlement and non-settlement in two southern Cambridgeshire river valleys: the lithic dimension and interpretative dilemmas, Lithics 19, 61-71
Prehistoric Society 1999 Research Frameworks for the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Britain and Ireland, Salisbury
Reynier M J 1998 Early Mesolithic settlement in England and Wales: some preliminary observations, in N Ashton, F Healy and P Pettitt (eds) Understanding the Neolithic of North-west Europe, Glasgow, 516-32
Richards, M P and Schulting, R J 2003 Characterising subsistence in Mesolithic Britain using stable isotope analysis, in L Bevan and J Moore (eds) Peopling the Mesolithic in a Northern Environment, BAR International Series 1157, Oxford, 119-28
Saville, A 2003 Indications of regionalization in Mesolithic Scotland, in L Larsen, H Kindgren, K Knutsson, D Loeffler and A Akelund (eds) Mesolithic on the Move, Oxford, 340-50
Smith, C 1992 Late Stone Age Hunters of the British Isles, London
Spikens, P 2000 Ethno-facts or ethno-fiction? Searching for the structure of settlement patterns, in R Young (ed) Mesolithic Lifeways: current
Tolan-Smith, C 2003a Colonisation – event or process, in L Larsen, H Kindgren, K Knutsson, D Loeffler and A Akelund (eds) Mesolithic on the Move, Oxford, 52-6
Tolan-Smith, C 2003b Social interaction and settlement patterns in hunter-gatherer societies – application of the ‘amity-emnity’ model, in L Bevan and J Moore (eds) Peopling the Mesolithic in a Northern Environment, BAR International Series 1157, Oxford, 113-18.
Whitelaw, T 1994 Order without architecture: functional, social and symbolic dimensions of hunter-gatherer settlement organization, in M Parker Pearson and C Richards (eds) Architecture and Order: approaches to social space, London, 217-43 Zvelebil, M 2003 Enculturation of Mesolithic landscapes, in L Larsen, H Kindgren, K Knutsson, D Loeffler and A Akelund (eds) Mesolithic on the Move, Oxford, 65-73