Search results

The objective of this chapter is to present the creation of the scientific research project management office at the Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo (FMRP-USP), Brazil. The case is about the adoption of Research Management and Administration (RMA) practices in the largest university in Brazil and presents data for the period of 10 years and relevant increase in the number of projects and budget volume managed (USD 2–21 mi) even with a small team (2–5 people). This is a successful case of a participant of The São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) program and a relevant reference to encourage other Brazilian universities to implement the RMA structure. The implementation of RMA practices is not only possible but can be a game changer in a context with scarce resources and the proper policies can make a difference to the RMA professionalisation in the country.

This chapter brings an overview of the history of research management in Brazil. Additionally, the main funding agencies for scientific research projects in Brazil are presented and the difficulties faced by researchers with the constant budget cuts for Research, Development and Innovation (RD&I) in the country were also addressed.

Since research management and administration are not yet fully recognised as a profession in Brazil, BRAMA has been working to become a consolidated association, seeking increased recognition by research management professionals through their training, benchmarking, and advocacy for the profession.

The RD&I scenario reinforces the importance of professional management to support researchers and shows the importance of BRAMA and the urgent need for actions to provide training and value to this professional category.

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.

Much of the research on intimate partner violence focuses on adults, and little of it emanates from the Global-South. The study reported upon in this chapter is aimed at addressing these gaps. Adopting a Southern Feminist Framework, it discusses findings from interviews with Brasilian and Australian advocates working on prevention of youth IPV. Participants from both countries noted disturbing instances of digital coercive control among the youth with whom they work, as well as underlying factors such as gender-based discrimination that simultaneously contribute to the prevalence of such behaviors, as well as their normalization among young people. However, they also emphasized the positive role that technology can play in distributing educational programming that reaches young people where they are and circumvents conservative agendas that in some cases keep education about gender discrimination and healthy relationships out of schools.

This chapter explores how conveners can use stakeholder analysis to bring together and align relevant and affected actors in cocreation partnerships. Next, it considers how conveners can deal with the limits to the inclusion of all relevant and affected actors. Reflections on the relation between inclusion and exclusion of actors are followed by a discussion of how conveners can empower weak, vulnerable, and inexperienced participants. Empowered actors must be motivated to participate in complex and demanding cocreation processes. The key motivator is to be found in the efforts of conveners and facilitators to clarify, strengthen, and create resource interdependence between the participants. The last section looks at the emergence of different kinds of conflicts and the role of conveners and facilitators in mediating conflicts that threaten to jeopardize the cocreation process.