Search results

Reports a survey which investigated the funding of library research in six federal government owned universities in Nigeria, and the impact of research funding on the publication output of librarians. Findings indicate that research is either self‐funded, or funded by the respondents’ employers, and an insignificant number have been funded by international agencies. Grants are given for postgraduate degree and personal research. About half the respondents see the research grants they receive to be either fairly adequate or adequate: but the majority expressed dissatisfaction with their research allowances. All agreed that enhanced research grants and allowances would lead to a greater research output. Most publications produced by the respondents resulted from self‐funded research, followed by research sponsored by grants from employers, and lastly from researches funded by foundations, agencies and associations.

The main purpose of the study was to identify the key elements that characterize successful grant proposals and the relative importance of issues that constitute difficulties and concerns in preparing the proposals. The study aimed, in particular, to explore grantsmanship perceptions based on the experiences of researchers in Thailand who had, or had not yet, successfully been awarded domestic and/or international research funding.

Anonymous online questionnaires were distributed to researchers in biomedical and public health fields in Thai academic institutes. The online survey asked the anonymous participants to complete a questionnaire comprising both multiple-choice and open-ended questions.

About 19% of 300 respondents had received both domestic and international research grants, and 60% of domestic research grants. The top 5 issues in grant applications were: (1) choosing a topic that matched the grant opportunity, (2) feasibility of research design and methods, (3) suitable research design and methodology, (4) model and theoretical justification, and (5) ethical considerations. Significant differences in perceptions among researchers were found for the feasibility of research design and methods and proposing a reasonable and justifiable budget.

The information derived from this analysis reflected the perceptions of the researchers and may or may not correlate with those of grant agency reviewers. The results of this study may be insightful and instructive for other researchers and form the basis for training and mentoring researchers in informed and effective grantsmanship, particularly novice researchers with limited or no experience in grant proposal writing. This study particularly reflected grantsmanship perceptions among researchers in Thailand. It may also serve to exemplify lessons learned for researchers in other low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) exposed to similar settings and situations applying for research grants.

The groundwork of a good research project always begins with a thorough literature search. When the scientist wants to replicate work, perhaps to compare results of conducting the same experiment on different materials, he or she turns to the library for journal articles on the subject. Librarians excel at producing lengthy subject searches through online search services. They can even produce the desired materials themselves, making good use of networking such as OCLC and RUN, and interlibrary loan, in addition to careful collection development in the library at hand.

The purpose of this article is to investigate collaboration in project management research. Although the literature shows an increase in collaboration between scientists and social scientists for various reasons, it is unclear how and why such collaboration takes place in project management research. The literature does show that co-authorship of articles published in project management journals is on the rise due to increased collaboration between researchers in developed countries and emerging economies as well as developing countries. However, no detailed study has been conducted to investigate how such collaboration occurs in practice in project management research. This article addresses this gap.

We use a multi-method approach (action research as a meta-methodology and surveys) using qualitative data to reflect on a successful collaborative externally funded research project. At the end of the study, a survey was used to investigate how collaboration occurred among the 26 researchers involved, who were spread over nine countries to collect data on a sponsored research project led by the authors who were the principal investigators. We also compare our findings from the original project with findings from a second survey of a purposeful sample of ten project management researchers who have conducted or are conducting collaborative research in order to validate our findings.

Through this study, we were able to compare the reasons for increased collaboration in scientific research reported in the literature with what we learnt from our own experience in collaborating on a large-scale project across geographical boundaries and cultures around the world. We were also able to get some insights on enablers and barriers to collaboration from peers who have collaborated on project management research from the second survey. We found that, although some of the reasons explained in the literature were confirmed in our study (e.g. the reputation of lead researchers), some other reasons (e.g. the prestige of institutions) were not that important. The conclusions section of this article provides a more detailed comparison. We also found that using a project management approach would deliver better outcomes. The literature on scientific collaboration was divided on the value of a project management approach and preferred a combination of firmness and flexibility. We found that using action research as a meta-methodology to reflect on our research gave us further insights into why we did what we did at certain critical points in our research that moved us forward.

Our study used two surveys with a limited number of researchers to compare what was found in the literature on reasons for collaboration in scientific research and how research outcomes were measured using citation rates. Conducting interviews or focused groups could have provided more nuanced findings. However, our findings did show that collaboration is beneficial to both experienced and early career researchers and helps them to publish in higher-ranked journals resulting in better visibility for the research. This is an interesting observation and merits further investigation. Theoretical implications: Findings from this research contribute to the broad literature on collaborative research in science and social science with a focus on practice-based fields such as project management where collaboration between academics and practitioners is becoming important.

The study provides some insights into the reasons for processes used and benefits from collaboration in project management research. Our findings have also been validated with our peers. Thus, this study will be useful for setting up and managing collaborative research in project management.

Effective collaboration in research can provide social value through mentoring of early career researchers.

This is the first detailed study of collaborative research in project management. It also proposes an action research model that can be used to retrospectively analyse long-term research projects to reflect upon and improve.

The current stringent economic climate requires library managers to be more systematic in cost analyses. Allocating costs to cost centers, determining costs per unit of service, and correlating costs to specific categories of users, helps ensure accurate analyses of costs, productivity, and efficiency. Along with cost analysis, assessment of service is a key component in the complete analysis, for cost and efficiency must be related to quality and effectiveness. In addition to discussing the general process of determining costs for specific library services, this article focuses on the cost center model in more detail, with a case study of the cost of a library's support for grant‐sponsored research.

This chapter outlines libraries’ (and librarians’) changing identities in the new world of research mandates from funders, institutions, and publishers. As libraries respond to the demands of these mandates on their users at the individual, departmental, and institutional levels, they need to revise their approaches to relationship building and user engagement, as well as maintain flexibility in the face of changing roles and skill requirements. This chapter will (1) outline the changing scholarly ecosystem; (2) summarize major terms and concepts to understand the process of producing research outputs; (3) discuss the perspectives of the major players in the research enterprise; (4) present some of the challenges that research mandates and the changing research environment have brought to libraries; and finally (5) review ways in which libraries have successfully addressed them. The focus here is on the academic research setting, although many of the strategies outlined can be equally applicable in both non-academic research and non-research funding contexts.

Morgan State University (Morgan) is a leading undergraduate institution for black science and engineering doctoral degree recipients. Morgan also is a leader in the production of black engineering degree recipients in the United States. This chapter provides a historic overview of the major programs with a tie to the impact on the institutional metrics, a discussion of the process for developing researchers in science and engineering, and alumni perspectives. The undergraduate research development models used in engineering at Morgan are compared and contrasted with the life sciences and physical sciences. The programs focus on developing communities of engineering practice and communities of science, thereby enhancing students’ self-efficacy and resilience, shaping disciplinary identity, and creating learning communities. These approaches are critical for the success of minority students and are supported by the social science literature. Best practices have been adopted at varying levels by the School of Engineering, the School of Computer Mathematics and Natural Science and the Behavioral Science departments that have netted these Ph.D. outcomes including multiyear mentored research, research training courses, and participation in professional meetings. Multiple approaches to student development, when matched with the disciplinary culture, are shown to result in national impact.

This study aims to focus on the following research question: Which institutional characteristics are associated with sustainability reporting by UK higher education institutions?

To answer the aforementioned research question, this study uses logistic regression.

The results show that 17 per cent of the UK higher education institutions report on their sustainability (July 2014). In line with legitimacy and stakeholder theory, logistic regressions provide evidence that the larger the size of the institution, the higher the probability of reporting. By contrast, high public funding decreases this probability.

The findings show characteristics of higher education institutions that support or hamper sustainability reporting. Overall, the findings imply a lack of institutionalisation of sustainability reporting among higher education institutions.

Although a lot of research has been done on corporate sustainability reporting, only a small number of studies have addressed the issues of sustainability reporting of higher education institutions. This study covers all sustainability reports disclosed among the 160 UK higher education institutions. It is the first study that investigates characteristics of higher education institutions that disclose a sustainability report.

This study aims to examine the scholarly impact of funded and non-funded research published in ten core library and information science (LIS) journals published in 2016.

In total, ten high-impact LIS journals were selected using Google Scholar metrics. The source title of each selected journal was searched in the Scopus database to retrieve the articles published in 2016. The detailed information of all the retrieved articles for every journal was exported in a CSV Excel file, and after collecting all the journal articles’ information, all CSV Excel files were merged into a single MS Excel file for data analysis.

The study analyzed 1,064 publications and found that 14% of them were funded research articles. Funded articles received higher average citation counts (24.56) compared to non-funded articles (20.49). Funded open-access articles had a higher scholarly impact than funded closed-access articles. The research area with the most funded articles was “Bibliometrics,” which also received the highest number of citations (1,676) with an average citation count of 24.64. The National Natural Science Foundation of China funded the most papers (30), while the USA funded the highest number of research publications (36) in the field of LIS.

This study highlights the importance of securing funding, open access publishing, discipline-specific differences, diverse funding sources and aiming for higher citations. Researchers, practitioners and policymakers can use these findings to enhance research impact in LIS.

This study explores the impact of funding on research LIS and provides valuable insights into the intricate relationship between funding and research impact.