scholarly journals How is leadership cultivated between principal investigators and research team members? Evidence from funded research projects in the UK

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omar Abou Hamdan ◽  
Viviana Meschitti ◽  
Muhammad Burhan
Keyword(s):  
Research Team ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Funded Research ◽  
Principal Investigators ◽  
The Uk

scholarly journals DARE to be different? A novel approach for analysing diversity in collaborative research projects

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 300-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frédérique Bone ◽  
Michael M Hopkins ◽  
Ismael Ràfols ◽  
Jordi Molas-Gallart ◽  
Puay Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Five Dimensions ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Working Together ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Further Development

Abstract Growth in collaborative research raises difficulties for those tasked with research evaluation, particularly in situations where outcomes are slow to emerge. This article presents the ‘Diversity Approach to Research Evaluation’ (DARE) as a novel way to assess how researchers engaged in knowledge creation and application work together as teams. DARE provides two important insights: first, it reveals the differences in background and experience between individual team members that can make research collaboration both valuable and challenging; second, DARE provides early insights into how team members are working together. DARE achieves these insights by analysing team diversity and cohesiveness in five dimensions, building on Boschma’s multi-dimensional concept of proximity. The method we propose combines narratives, maps, and indicators to facilitate the study of research collaboration. The article introduces the DARE method and pilots an initial operationalization through the study of two grant-funded biomedical research projects led by researchers in the UK. Suggestions for further development of the approach are discussed.

scholarly journals Arbitration is needed to resolve scientific authorship disputes

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zen Faulkes
Keyword(s):  
Research Team ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Large Power ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Power Differentials ◽  
Scientific Authorship

Authorship of publications is the main way scientists received credit for their academic research. But as scientific research projects have become larger and more collaborative, the number of contributors has increased, and so has the potential for disputes over authorship. There is rarely detailed accounting of effort to justify authorship inclusion or placement. Instead, authorship is often negotiated by research team members, which is complicated by there often being large power differentials between team members. Existing recommendations are to try to get authors to work out disputes between themselves, which is unlikely to occur. There is an urgent need for an independent body that can offer binding arbitration for scientific collaborators and journals, like practices in other collaborative disciplines.

scholarly journals The life of P.I. Transitions to Independence in Academia

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie E. Acton ◽  
Andrew Bell ◽  
Christopher P. Toseland ◽  
Alison Twelvetrees
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Support Networks ◽  
Career Stage ◽  
Principal Investigators ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
The Uk

The data in this report summarises the responses gathered from 365 principal investigators of academic laboratories, who started their independent positions in the UK within the last 6 years up to 2018. We find that too many new investigators express frustration and poor optimism for the future. These data also reveal, that many of these individuals lack the support required to make a successful transition to independence and that simple measures could be put in place by both funders and universities in order to better support these early career researchers. We use these data to make both recommendations of good practice and for changes to policies that would make significant improvements to those currently finding independence challenging. We find that some new investigators face significant obstacles when building momentum and hiring a research team. In particular, access to PhD students. We also find some important areas such as starting salaries where significant gender differences persist, which cannot be explained by seniority. Our data also underlines the importance of support networks, within and outside the department, and the positive influence of good mentorship through this difficult career stage.

scholarly journals Arbitration is needed to resolve scientific authorship disputes

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zen Faulkes
Keyword(s):  
Research Team ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Large Power ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Power Differentials ◽  
Scientific Authorship

Authorship of publications is the main way scientists received credit for their academic research. But as scientific research projects have become larger and more collaborative, the number of contributors has increased, and so has the potential for disputes over authorship. There is rarely detailed accounting of effort to justify authorship inclusion or placement. Instead, authorship is often negotiated by research team members, which is complicated by there often being large power differentials between team members. Existing recommendations are to try to get authors to work out disputes between themselves, which is unlikely to occur. There is an urgent need for an independent body that can offer binding arbitration for scientific collaborators and journals, like practices in other collaborative disciplines.

scholarly journals Avenues of Opportunity: Journeys of Activities Through Third Sector Organisations

2021 ◽  
pp. 323-340
Author(s):  
Angela Turner-Wilson ◽  
Stuart Dearborn ◽  
Catherine Bullen
Keyword(s):  
Research Team ◽  
Third Sector ◽  
Religious Communities ◽  
Boundary Crossing ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Self And Other ◽  
Third Sector Organisations ◽  
Professional Practitioners ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Uk

AbstractThis chapter discusses a social anthropological research study that considers the place of third sector organisations (TSOs) in society, particularly for those who have been in contact with the criminal justice services. The work is based on insights from journeys through Norway, and to a lesser extent the UK, captured as narratives by a TSO caseworker in partnership with other research team members. The insights were drawn from interactions with those along the journey such as ex-prisoners, volunteers, charity workers, members of religious communities and so forth. What these revealed were the many and sometimes hidden universes that exist in and outside TSOs. This chapter offers deep and sometimes different perspectives, asking the reader to consider the range of opportunities TSOs can offer and sets these against concepts of self and other, place, boundary crossing and organisational learning. The work speaks to those seeking to reintegrate into society after prison, their families, significant others, professional practitioners, students and academics, and although primarily based around Norway, the content resonates internationally.

Fieldnotes

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Lowndes ◽  
Palle Storm ◽  
Marta Szebehely
Keyword(s):  
Research Team ◽  
Ethnographic Research ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Ethnographic Methodology

This chapter discusses the taking, writing up, and analyzing of fieldnotes as part of the rapid ethnographic methodology. It describes the preparatory process the team members went through to learn how to conduct observations, and the guiding documents/principles used by the research team throughout the site visits. We explain how observations were carried out and how fieldnotes were captured in our project, comparing this process to that of traditional ethnographic research. It compares the process of writing up and analyzing fieldnotes in traditional ethnography with the process used in the team-based rapid ethnography, drawing on our individual experiences in conducting both types. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the team-based approach.

scholarly journals Digitalization Tools for Energy-Efficient Renovations

Proceedings ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
Mohamed Elagiry ◽  
Antoine Dugue ◽  
Andrea Costa ◽  
Regis Decorme
Keyword(s):  
Built Environment ◽  
Energy Efficient ◽  
Digital Transformation ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Workshop Report ◽  
Funded Research ◽  
Innovative Solutions ◽  
Virtual Conference

Digital transformation in the built environment is a fact that will shape the industry, increasing its efficiency and improving its quality. However, there are many challenges still facing the industry to complete this transformation. Under this theme, during the Sustainable Places 2020 virtual conference on 28th October 2020, nine EU-funded research projects gathered in a workshop to showcase their projects and demonstrate some of the innovative solutions developed within their projects. This post-workshop report gives brief information about the participant projects. It outlines the main topics covered in the presentations and, moreover, highlights the main innovative tools presented in this workshop. The representatives agreed that strengthening the synergy among different their projects would be a benefit for all.

scholarly journals MCR: Open-Source Software to Automate Compilation of Health Study Report-Back

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 6104
Author(s):  
Erin Polka ◽  
Ellen Childs ◽  
Alexa Friedman ◽  
Kathryn S. Tomsho ◽  
Birgit Claus Henn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Health Study ◽  
Equitable Access ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
The Impact

Sharing individualized results with health study participants, a practice we and others refer to as “report-back,” ensures participant access to exposure and health information and may promote health equity. However, the practice of report-back and the content shared is often limited by the time-intensive process of personalizing reports. Software tools that automate creation of individualized reports have been built for specific studies, but are largely not open-source or broadly modifiable. We created an open-source and generalizable tool, called the Macro for the Compilation of Report-backs (MCR), to automate compilation of health study reports. We piloted MCR in two environmental exposure studies in Massachusetts, USA, and interviewed research team members (n = 7) about the impact of MCR on the report-back process. Researchers using MCR created more detailed reports than during manual report-back, including more individualized numerical, text, and graphical results. Using MCR, researchers saved time producing draft and final reports. Researchers also reported feeling more creative in the design process and more confident in report-back quality control. While MCR does not expedite the entire report-back process, we hope that this open-source tool reduces the barriers to personalizing health study reports, promotes more equitable access to individualized data, and advances self-determination among participants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document