Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which academic staff members in tertiary institutions in Nigeria access research grants, and to bring to light the factors that hinder their effort to accessing research grants.

An online questionnaire was designed using the SurveyMonkey software to collect the qualitative data from academic staff in tertiary institutions in Nigeria.

The study revealed that only a few number of academic staff members in the tertiary institutions in Nigeria have received research grants. The study also revealed that a large number of research works carried out by academic staff are funded by themselves from the meager salary they receive. It also emerged that Tertiary Education Trust Fund is the highest funding body that academic staff have received research grants from. Different research funding agencies/organizations both local and international that support studies in Nigeria were also mentioned to create awareness for others to utilize. Politics in the selection of research proposals, inadequate publicity/advertisement for research grants applications and lack of knowledge about funding agencies/organizations were identified as the most mentioned hindrances to accessing research grants in Nigeria.

A limitation of this study is the low response rate obtained, considering the number of tertiary institutions in Nigeria which does not permit generalization. The low response rate suggests that responding to an online questionnaire is not high on the agenda of academic staff members in tertiary institutions in Nigeria, and this is a major challenge for researchers undertaking evidence-based research considering the number of institutions.

The findings will provide academic staff with important data and insight into the various local and international research funding agencies/organizations that support research in Nigeria.

Academic staff members receiving research grants will enable them find a solution to societal problems through evidence-based research. The findings of this study will inform other academic staff of the various research funding agencies/organizations that support research in Nigeria. This will create awareness for them to access such grants.

The work is an original research work conducted by the researchers. The findings will add to the body of knowledge on the area of research funding in Nigeria.

This study aims to discuss science governance in Europe and the network of associated nonprofit institutions. The authors posit that this network, which comprises both (partial) learning organizations and non-learning organizations, has been observed to postpone taking up “responsibility” as an issue in science governance and funding decisions.

This paper discusses the challenge of learning and policy implementation within the European science governance system. By exploring how learning on responsible innovation (RI) in this governance system can be provoked, it addresses the question how Senge’s insights in organizational learning can clarify discourses on and practices of RI and responsibility in research. This study explores the potential of a new organizational form, that of Social Labs, to support learning on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in standing governance organizations.

This study concludes that Social Labs are a suitable format for enacting the five disciplines as identified by Senge, and a Social Lab may turn into a learning organization, be it a temporary one. Responsibility in research and innovation is conducive for learning in the setting of a Social Lab, and Social Labs act as intermediary organizations, which not merely pass on information among actors but also actively give substantive shape to what they convey from a practice-informed, normative orientation.

This empirical work on RRI-oriented Social Labs therefore suggests that Social Lab–oriented temporary, intermediary learning organizations present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies in a networked, nonhierarchical governance setting.

Based on this research funding and governance organizations in research, policy-makers in other domains may take up and create such intermediary organizations to aid learning in (science) governance.

This research suggests that RRI-oriented Social Labs present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies, thus integrate learning on and by responsible practices in various governance settings.

European science governance is characterized by a network of partial Learning Organization (LOs) and Non-Learning Organization (nLOs) who postpone decision-making on topics around “responsibility” and “solving societal challenges” or delegate authority to reviewers and individual actors, filtering possibilities for collaborative transformation toward RRI. social lab (SLs) are spaces that can address social problems or social challenges in an open, action-oriented and creative manner. As such, they may function as temporary, intermediary LOs bringing together diverse actors from a specific context to work on and learn about issues of science and society where standing organizations avoid doing so. Taken together, SLs may offer temporary organizational structures and spaces to move beyond top-down exercise of power or lack of real change to more open, deliberative and creative forms of sociopolitical coordination between multiple actors cutting across realms of state, practitioners of research and innovation and civil society. By taking the role of temporary LOs, they may support existing research and innovation organizations and research governance to become more flexible and adaptive.

In this contribution to EDI's professional insights, the authors develop practical and evidence-based recommendations that are developed for bias mitigation, discretion elimination and process optimization in panel evaluations and decisions in research funding. An analysis is made of how the expectation of “selling science” adds layers of complexity to the evaluation and decision process. The insights are relevant for optimization of similar processes, including publication, recruitment and selection, tenure and promotion.

The recommendations are informed by experiences and evidence from commissioned projects with European research funding organizations. The authors distinguish between three aspects of the evaluation process: written applications, enacted performance and group dynamics. Vignettes are provided to set the stage for the analysis of how bias and (lack of) fit to an ideal image makes it easier for some than for others to be funded.

In research funding decisions, (over)selling science is expected but creates shifting standards for evaluation, resulting in a narrow band of acceptable behavior for applicants. In the authors' recommendations, research funding organizations, evaluators and panel chairs will find practical ideas and levers for process optimization, standardization and customization, in terms of awareness, accountability, biased language, criteria, structure and time.

Showing how “selling science” in research funding adds to the cumulative disadvantage of bias, the authors offer design specifications for interventions to mitigate the negative effects of bias on evaluations and decisions, improve selection habits, eliminate discretion and create a more inclusive process.

This chapter provides some concluding reflections on the different experiences of structural change encountered by the TARGET partners. The various TARGET partners had different roles in the structural change processes: seven organisations designed, implemented and monitored gender equality plans (GEPs) for the first time, two organisations provided tailored support to implementing institutions and one organisation evaluated GEP implementation. This edited volume provides an account of these diverse experiences of engaging with and catalysing structural change in very different research organisations operating in extremely different contexts both within the EU and beyond. The volume thus contributes to the growing body of literature generated from structural change projects by offering a specific focus on the TARGET approach. The TARGET process of structural change – undertaken through the development and implementation of tailored, evidence-based GEPs – was found to be strengthened through formal top management commitment and by taking a reflexive approach that was powered by communities of practice and supported by financial resources, gender expertise as well as gender and organisational change competences. Engaged institutions thus managed to overcome unfavourable conditions and implement tailor-made, context-specific interventions, some of them in areas at the cutting edge of topics and issues linked to gender equality in research and innovation such as tackling sexual harassment, sustainability and integrating the gender dimension into research content and curricula.

This chapter provides the background and relevant policy context information necessary to understand the approach to development and implementation of tailored gender equality plans provided by the TARGET project. It describes the development of European gender equality polices in research and innovation (R&I) since the 1980s and experiences with early structural change projects. TARGET refers to these experiences and aims at providing an innovative approach to overcome challenges towards gender equality, especially for research organisations located in countries that have been classified as rather inactive when it comes to gender equality policies in R&I. The chapter closes with an outline of the structure of the book and its individual chapters.

Research-funding organisations (RFOs) and research-performing organisations (RPOs) are in a privileged position to significantly reshape the research and innovation landscape – not only by implementing gender equality plans (GEPs) as institutions but also in terms of the relationship and potential impact of these plans on the institutional context in which they are embedded. This paper reflects on the content and methodology of the GEP implementation at two RFOs and one non-university RPOs. Grounded in the knowledge base of each organisation, the analysis provides insights and expert feedback in order to understand to what extent and under which conditions GEPs are a systematic and comprehensive policy in promoting structural change that has a high potential impact on research policy definition and funding. Reviewing the internal assessment phase, the preliminary steps in the design process as well as the implementation and monitoring phase, the analysis detects both the strengths and challenges or resistance connected to external and internal factors as well as the specific strategies that small organisations employ to promote and sustain organisational and cultural change.

Starting in the late 1950s with the creation of the National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA), followed by the formation of other professional organisations both in the USA and Europe, there was a growing sense that research management was indeed a profession. One goal was the creation of professional standards that would lead to a standard training curriculum and, ultimately, a professional credential, and there have been many attempts at developing research administration certification. Now, in the US, accreditation through the Research Administrators Certification Council (RACC) exam has become ubiquitous, whereas in other parts of the world, certification by portfolio is more common. This chapter will compare and contrast the salient features of certification, certificates, and degree programs in research administration and review their development and growth over the past 30 years. The chapter will discuss their relative merits and how they work to advance the profession of research administration.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether accounting researchers in Australia more proactively pursued government‐sponsored Australian Research Council (ARC) research funding in the post‐Enron period than researchers in other commerce‐related disciplines.

The study measures disciplinary research activity using successful Australian Research Council Linkage and Discovery grants for the period 2000 to 2008. The study identifies the number of grants received, the total dollar amount funded, the number of participating institutions, individual researchers and (where applicable) partnering organisations. Using these criteria, the study compares the success of accounting with that of banking and finance, economics and business and management.

The study highlights accounting's failure to attain comparable levels of research funding relative to other commerce‐related disciplines (both in terms of grants and dollars), even given the public profile of accounting events post‐Enron. The study reveals a significantly higher “elite institution effect” exists in accounting and lower levels of academic and commercial partnerships when compared to other disciplines. The study examines potential reasons for the lack of ARC funding won by accounting researchers.

The persistently low level of representation of accounting researchers among ARC grant winners during this period appears counterintuitive to the traditional “professional model” that links university‐based disciplinary members with practitioners. Why accounting, as a high‐profile profession diverges from this model should be of concern to researchers, universities and the accounting profession.

The study's use of comparative ARC data extends and contextualises earlier studies that have sought to examine the state of accounting research in Australia.

For those who plan research funds and assess the research performance from the funds, it is necessary to overcome the limitations of the conventional classification of evaluated papers published by the research funds. Besides, they need to promote the objective, fair clustering of papers, and analysis of research performance. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to find the optimum clustering algorithm using the MATLAB tools by comparing the performances of and the hybrid particle swarm optimization algorithms using the particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm and the conventional K-means clustering method.

The clustering analysis experiment for each of the three fields of study – health and medicine, physics, and chemistry – used the following three algorithms: “K-means+Simulated annealing (SA)+Adjustment of parameters+PSO” (KASA-PSO clustering), “K-means+SA+PSO” clustering, “K-means+PSO” clustering.

The clustering analyses of all the three fields showed that KASA-PSO is the best method for the minimization of fitness value. Furthermore, this study administered the surveys intended for the “performance measurement of decision-making process” with 13 members of the research fund organization to compare the group clustering by the clustering analysis method of KASA-PSO algorithm and the group clustering by research funds. The results statistically demonstrated that the group clustering by the clustering analysis method of KASA-PSO algorithm was better than the group clustering by research funds.

This study examined the impact of bibliometric indicators on research impact of papers. The results showed that research period, the number of authors, and the number of participating researchers had positive effects on the impact factor (IF) of the papers; the IF that indicates the qualitative level of papers had a positive effect on the primary times cited; and the primary times cited had a positive effect on the secondary times cited. Furthermore, this study clearly showed the decision quality perceived by those who are working for the research fund organization.

There are still too few studies that assess the research project evaluation mechanisms and its effectiveness perceived by the research fund managers. To fill the research void like this, this study aims to propose PSO and successfully proves validity of the proposed approach.