So from an Empire Sprawl point of view habitats are really inefficient for research?
They are indeed less efficient in terms of sprawl compared to a planet (or ring-world). In my testing, I only required 5 districts on a ring-world to get out the same amount of research as 8 districts on a habitat (upgraded version).
However.... there are several big bonuses that I think makes them great for research:
1) You don't need to wait for your pops to grow to 5 pops before placing your first research lab (as on planets), since you can build a research district immediately. You could even build them all in advance if you wished.
2) As a result of the above, there is no staggered research growth; that is on habitats research can grow as your pops do, rather than on planets where you need to wait for your population to increase by 5 before unlocking another building slot so that you can place another research lab.
3) Each research district gives 3 jobs; with a fully upgraded Habitat (+2 districts), I could squeeze the equivalent of 9 basic research labs worth of research (18 jobs) and a Research Institute, with about 25/26 pops (with another 4 habitat building slots to use however I wish). For a planet I needed to unlock 10 slots to achieve the same research output. This required 50 pops as a minimum (since I needed that many to open up the building slots), but leaves you with quite a bit of unemployment as a result, in addition to costing more resources in order to pay for the population upkeep.
4) Research districts only require 1/3 of the energy per researcher job.
5) Higher stability (in stratified economies) due to the fact you only need specialist and leader jobs.
Here is a comparison I switched together:
Of course if your have lots of exotic gases to spare, you can get much better output with a smaller population on a planet, but otherwise habitats seem pretty efficient for research.