Search results

This chapter describes the research ecosystem’s development in Qatar from 2006 until the present day, a brief history of this development, and future development plans. The information provided is a snapshot of the entire research administration enterprise in the country and estimates the current number of employed research management and administration (RMAs). It also presents the challenges and the pivotal role of the RMAs can play in achieving the country’s strategic objective, which could increase the number and the professionalisation of RMAs in Qatar. Some recommendations highlighted here include specialising RMAs in the field of the human subject and animal research protection, research compliance, intellectual property, and commercialisation.

This chapter focuses on how the idea of ‘an ordinary day in the life’ can serve as an entry point for understanding media use. I discuss how everyday media use can be conceptualized as mundane and meaningful, and as most easily noticed when changing. Building on day-in-the-life interview segments from qualitative studies, I discuss methodological merits and challenges of this approach. The analysis follows media users an ordinary day from morning to night, as they wake up with the smartphone, navigate across social domains, and seek connection and companionship. I argue that seemingly mundane media use practices are made meaningful through the connection they entail, and particularly discuss the conflicted position of smartphone checking in everyday life. The chapter empirically substantiates the arguments made in Chapter 1 about the centrality of smartphones in digital everyday lives.

This final chapter, presented by the book’s three Editors, provides a reflection and discussion of the key findings presented throughout the book. First, it delves into the book’s vision and the process of creation. The findings in the book affirm the continuous growth of the field, highlight the diverse nature of the RMA landscape, and reveal the substantial variation in the status of the profession and the availability of data among regions and countries. To understand the unique features of the RMA profession from multitude of angles and in each country’s context, the Editors emphasize the importance of inviting authors to share their perspectives in their own voices and styles, which became central to the book’s mission. Second, this chapter presents discussions on pivotal findings in four areas: (1) growth of the RMA profession in specific countries and regions, (2) crucial contribution of professional associations to advancing RMA, (3) essential soft skills for RMAs and promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and (4) advancing RMA through increasing training and capacity-building initiatives. This chapter also alludes to potential policy implications and concludes with the Editors’ hope that the book serves as a catalyst for further exploration of the RMA field and RMA professions.

In North America, the profession known as ‘research management’ elsewhere across the globe, is often known as ‘research administration’ and encompasses the activities and work associated with developing, administering, accounting for and complying with sponsor requirements, guidelines, procedures, and laws relating to externally funded projects. In the United States and Canada, the expansion of respective federal government agencies and programmes was the major factor for the need and growth of the research administration profession. Initially, administrative and business staff often administered research funding, however over the decades, a fully-fledged profession has evolved with distinct specialisations. Both the United States and Canada now have maturing professions and professional societies to organise and advance research administration. This chapter outlines the chronological origins, growth, and professionalisation of research administration in North America, with a focus on the United States and Canada. Mexico has not yet evolved a formalised research administration infrastructure.

The purpose of this paper is to study the introduction of 3D-printing of concrete in the construction sector.

A survey was conducted to collect professional view on ongoing innovations in the construction sector, including 3D-printing. Participants were selected among the members of Norwegian networks for project and construction management research.

The survey highlighted effective leadership, collaboration with partners and industry-academia collaboration as primary enablers of innovation. Few of the respondents to the survey have used 3D-printing technologies.

It is difficult to obtain representative samples in this type of research, including this study. The study can be seen as a snapshot of attitudes in the sector.

3D-printing appear as a potentially interesting technology, especially for unstandardized construction components. Further work is needed to materialise the expectation for technological development in the construction sector.

Most research on 3D-printing has focused on demonstrating technical potential. This study adds a practitioners’ perspective, with a large dose of pragmatism.

This chapter looks at how Goal 17 on partnerships can be a lever of change. It discusses the partnership approach to achieving the SDGs and unravels the key functions of networks and partnerships, such as knowledge sharing, coordination, and collaborative governance. It carefully explains why we need to shift the focus of the global debate from collaborative governance to the cocreation of public value outcomes. It then provides a schematic account of the different steps in the process of cocreating outcomes, which include initiation, design, implementation, and evaluation. Finally, the chapter identifies the key merits of cocreation and looks its dark side straight in the eye.

Scalar terms, such as “local” and “global,” “big” and “small” are fundamental in how academics and practitioners make sense of and respond to grand challenges. Yet, scale is so taken-for-granted that we rarely question or critically reflect on the concept and how it is used. The aim of this paper is to identify scale as an important concept in research on grand challenges and to point out why taking scale for granted can be problematic. In particular, I suggest that to date most research on grand challenges sees scale as a fundamental ontological feature of the world. Yet, scalar categories and hierarchies are not as self-evident and given as they may seem. Moreover, taking scale as an ontological fixed category limits our ability to make sense of, theorize and respond to grand challenges. As an alternative, I suggest seeing scale as an epistemological frame that participants employ in their everyday practices to make sense of, navigate and develop solutions to grand challenges. The chapter concludes with a research agenda for studying scale as socially constructed in practice.

Reality breakdowns generate reflexivity and awareness of the constructed nature of social reality. These pivotal moments can motivate institutional inhabitants to either modify their social worlds or reaffirm the status quo. Thus, reality breakdowns are the initial points at which actors can conceive of new possibilities for institutional arrangements and initiate change processes to realize them. Studying reality breakdowns enables scholars to understand not just how institutional change occurs, but also why it does or does not do so. In this paper, we investigate how institutional inhabitants responded to a reality breakdown that occurred during our ethnography of collegial governance in a large North American university that was undergoing a strategic change initiative. Our findings suggest that there is a consequential process following reality breakdowns whereby institutional inhabitants construct the severity of these events. In our context, institutional inhabitants first attempted to restore order to their social world by reaffirming the status quo; when their efforts failed, they began to formulate alternative possibilities. Simultaneously, they engaged in a distributed sensemaking process whereby they diminished and reoriented necessary changes, ultimately inhibiting the formulation of these new possibilities. Our findings confirm reality breakdowns and institutional awareness as potential drivers of institutional change and complicate our understanding of antecedent microprocesses that may forestall the initiation of change efforts.