Search results

Since 2015, China has made efforts to reform its intellectual property rights (IPR) system to better protect and stimulate innovation. These reforms are a result of the demand for more stringent intellectual property (IP) protection from China’s domestic, innovative industries and a measure to ease the pressure exerted by its foreign trading partners, particularly against the background of the US-China trade dispute that started at the beginning of 2018. This paper summarizes these reforms and their implications.

This paper combines a variety of sources, including academic articles, government websites, news reports, industry surveys and expert opinions, to offer insights in China’s IPR system and its recent reforms.

This paper summarizes and discusses (1) the state’s law amendments, including the 2015 amendment of the “Law on Promoting the Transformation of Scientific and Technological Achievements”, the second amendment of the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law” with regard to trade secret protection, the fourth amendment of the “Patent Law”, and the legislations and regulations addressing the criticisms of the US administration over China’s so-called “forced” technology transfer policies; (2) the establishment of the specialized IP courts and tribunals since 2014; (3) the restructuring of the State IP Office; and (4) the issuing of an “Outline for Building an IPR Powerhouse (2021–2035)”.

This paper highlights China’s efforts to make its IPR system stronger and more just. It also discusses international observers’ reactions and pinpoints specific areas for further improvement.

The chapter describes the emergence of the profession in Czechia. The major driver for universities and research and technology organisations (RTOs) was the country’s accession to the European Union (EU) in 2004. The country has a rich system of national research, development, and innovation (R&D&I) funding and EU Framework Programmes are witnessing a slowly growing interest and success of Czech researchers.¹ Yet, the major force in changing the research management and administration (RMA) culture and addressing the need of professionalising the environment of research administration, management, intellectual property rights, and technology transfer (TT) was European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). The Czech government repeatedly, through four EU programming periods, stressed the need for investments to reshape the research infrastructure, environment, and conditions on a scale not experienced by the universities or the RTOs ever before. The availability of EU funds and increasing emphasis on international cooperation enabled Czechia to witness slow, yet steady growth of demand to deliver better service in the field of RMA. This is illustrated through several EU-funded projects focussed on RMA skills development and the recent establishment of the Czech Association of Research Managers and Administrators (CZARMA) in 2022 (Masaryk University, 2022a).

This case study will illustrate how the Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association (SARIMA) set in motion a professionalisation journey through close collaboration with its members while leveraging strategic partnerships and funding opportunities. The case study will highlight the impetus that inspired the journey, and the outputs aimed at accelerating the professionalisation of research management and administration (RMA) beyond Southern Africa.

The purpose of this paper is to structure existing research on knowledge management (KM) in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to offer a comprehensive overview of research strands and topics in KM in SMEs to determine their evolution over time.

The paper, which is considered a follow-up literature review, is based on a systematic literature review that covers 180 scientific papers that were published since the review paper by Durst and Edvardsson in 2012 that covered 36 papers.

The findings of this review and those of the aforementioned review are brought together in the form of an overview that structures research on KM in SMEs based on themes that, in turn, allow the derivation of promising research directions and research questions aimed at structuring future research on KM in SMEs.

By combining the findings of this review with the findings from the review published in this journal in 2012, this paper offers, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the most comprehensive literature review on KM in SMEs produced to date.

The chapter aims to provide an overview of organisational structures in Research Management and Administration (RMA); in doing so, the chapter moves from explaining main sources of knowledge – broadly on HE Management (HEM) and specifically on RMA – to assessing institutionalisation and maturity level of the profession.

Understanding these forms of knowledge will help readers design research support services and develop a competency/career development plan.

Additionally, the chapter aims to call for individuals and institutions to engage with the varied forms of knowledge associated with different phases of a research project life cycle (RPLC). The goal is to raise individual awareness while helping countries improve their RMA maturity.

Historically, academia, typically universities have had two major groups of professionals. One is those who are responsible for teaching and research, including university professors, associate professors, researchers, research assistants, etc. The other is the administrative staff who are responsible for administrative tasks. Both groups have existed since the inception of a university.

As societal expectations of universities have evolved, so has the need for professionals with advanced skills, who are often referred to as Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs) or University Research Administrators (URAs). In Japan, the profession is called URA because it was modelled after the American system in the beginning of its formation. In India, on the other hand, it is often referred to as RMA because of its reference to the United Kingdom. In this chapter, we will use the term RMA as a consistent term. In Asia, the trend of increasing need for this profession has been increasing over the past decade, starting around the 2010s.

This section provides an overview of the history and background that resulted in the current situation surrounding RMAs, as well as a future prospect in the six Asian countries featured in this book: China, India, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam.

With the government’s increased investment in sci-tech and the requirement of scientific research management, RMAs have gradually flourished in China after the 1980s. However, there is no professional qualification specifically for RMA in China and RMA professionals are from various departments. With the arrival of the 21st century, the rapid development of sci-tech has led to the strengthening of the position and role of RMA in research activities. The profession of RMA has made great progress, and a professional contingent of RMA has gradually been formed. This chapter will review the history and development of RMAs in China. Specifically, it includes the evolutionary history of China’s sci-tech policy, how RMAs developed as a profession, current state of RMAs, the size and nature of the RMA profession (taking the academic community CASSSP as an example), and future trends of RMAs in China.

The emergence of Research Management and Administration (RMA) is a result of the pressure on academics to secure research funding from external sources, the increasing competition for these funds, as well as the rising requirements of research funders in terms of reporting and compliance with regulations. This is relevant in the case of the current Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (HEU) funded by the European Union (EU) which requires important level of professionalisation of the research support staff on behalf of the applicant institutions. Data management, open science, research ethics and integrity, achieving impact beyond academia and the valorisation of project results can be regarded as non-research specific criteria which have to be met by applicant organisations to secure the highly competitive funding. Meeting these non-specific criteria is not always possible in countries whose performance is lagging behind compared to the Western European competitors in EU-funded programmes, such as Hungary.

Our findings reveal two things. First, research support in Hungary is in its early stage of maturity, similary to many countries in Central and Eastern Europe. In several cases, Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs) do not possess the knowledge necessary to meet the non-research specific criteria even if the knowledge is present at the institution or with other colleagues. Second, due to the continuously increasing participation in EU-funded framework programmes (FPs), the state of research support in Hungary is constantly evolving. There is also willingness to learn and improve capacities, which needs strategic planning, studying others’ examples and their adaptability. Such processes can support the capacity building and professionalisation of research offices not only in Hungary, but in countries of the Central and Eastern European region with a similar maturity level of RMA.

The aim of this chapter is to describe a four-type model of organisational structures and to discuss two cases, Embrapa and the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, as well as additional cases at SAM-Research and the centre for shared medical support services established at the University of Bologna.

These cases should help readers understand the importance of designing distinctive, tailored-made support services while keeping these structures flexible for further adaptation under unforeseen changes.

The chapter concludes by stressing the role of institutions to steadily invest in the design of these tailored support structures and in personalised training for their support staff.