•The democratic governance of emerging science and innovation is a major challenge.•We describe a framework for responsible innovation that addresses social and ethical concerns.•The framework has ...four dimensions: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness.•We describe the application of this framework to one geoengineering research project.•We conclude that such a framework can underpin a practical and systematic approach to governance.
The governance of emerging science and innovation is a major challenge for contemporary democracies. In this paper we present a framework for understanding and supporting efforts aimed at ‘responsible innovation’. The framework was developed in part through work with one of the first major research projects in the controversial area of geoengineering, funded by the UK Research Councils. We describe this case study, and how this became a location to articulate and explore four integrated dimensions of responsible innovation: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness. Although the framework for responsible innovation was designed for use by the UK Research Councils and the scientific communities they support, we argue that it has more general application and relevance.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Background
Evidencing well‐planned and implemented patient and public involvement (PPI) in a research project is increasingly required in funding bids and dissemination activities. There is a tacit ...expectation that involving people with experience of the condition under study will improve the integrity and quality of the research. This expectation remains largely unproblematized and unchallenged.
Objective
To critically evaluate the implementation of PPI activity, including co‐research in a programme of research exploring ways to enhance the independence of people with dementia.
Design
Using critical cases, we make visible and explicate theoretical and moral challenges of PPI.
Results
Case 1 explores the challenges of undertaking multiple PPI roles in the same study making explicit different responsibilities of being a co‐applicant, PPI advisory member and a co‐researcher. Case 2 explores tensions which arose when working with carer co‐researchers during data collection; here the co‐researcher's wish to offer support and advice to research participants, a moral imperative, was in conflict with assumptions about the role of the objective interviewer. Case 3 defines and examines co‐research data coding and interpretation activities undertaken with people with dementia, reporting the theoretical outputs of the activity and questioning whether this was co‐researcher analysis or PPI validation.
Conclusion
Patient and public involvement activity can empower individual PPI volunteers and improve relevance and quality of research but it is a complex activity which is socially constructed in flexible ways with variable outcomes. It cannot be assumed to be simple or universal panacea for increasing the relevance and accessibility of research to the public.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VSZLJ
Purpose - Inconsistent research output makes critical literature reviews crucial tools for assessing and developing the knowledge base within a research field. Literature reviews in the field of ...supply chain management (SCM) are often considerably less stringently presented than other empirical research. Replicability of the research and traceability of the arguments and conclusions call for more transparent and systematic procedures. The purpose of this paper is to elaborate on the importance of literature reviews in SCM.Design methodology approach - Literature reviews are defined as primarily qualitative synthesis. Content analysis is introduced and applied for reviewing 22 literature reviews of seven sub-fields of SCM, published in English-speaking peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2009. A descriptive evaluation of the literature body is followed by a content analysis on the basis of a specific pattern of analytic categories derived from a typical research process.Findings - Each paper was assessed for the aim of research, the method of data gathering, the method of data analysis, and quality measures. While some papers provide information on all of these categories, many fail to provide all the information. This questions the quality of the literature review process and the findings presented in respective papers.Research limitations implications - While 22 literature reviews are taken into account in this paper as the basis of the empirical analysis, this allows for assessing the range of procedures applied in previous literature reviews and for pointing to their strengths and shortcomings.Originality value - The findings and subsequent methodological discussions aim at providing practical guidance for SCM researchers on how to use content analysis for conducting literature reviews.
The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, second edition, presents a comprehensive retrospective and prospective review of the field of qualitative research. Original, accessible chapters written ...by interdisciplinary leaders in the field make this a critical reference work. Filled with robust examples from real-world research; ample discussion of the historical, theoretical, and methodological foundations of the field; and coverage of key issues including data collection, interpretation, representation, assessment, and teaching, this handbook aims to be a valuable text for students, professors, and researchers. This newly revised and expanded edition features up-to-date examples and topics, including seven new chapters on duoethnography, team research, writing ethnographically, creative approaches to writing, writing for performance, writing for the public, and teaching qualitative research.
Background
The 2012 McKeon Review highlighted the role of clinician researchers in patient based research and the need to foster this capacity. While anecdotal evidence suggests that clinician ...researchers are under threat and underfunded, Australian data on barriers and enablers of clinician‐led research are scant.
Aims
To describe (i) characteristics of clinician researchers; (ii) for research‐active clinicians: areas of research, barriers/enablers of research and factors associated with funding success; and (iii) for research‐inactive clinicians: enablers of future research.
Methods
An online survey distributed through the Bio21 Cluster to clinicians (doctors, nurses, allied health professionals) in 15 Victorian hospitals between November 2011 and January 2012.
Results
Seven hundred and seventy of 1027 (75%) of respondents were research‐active and were more likely to be male, medical doctors, aged 45–54 years, to work full‐time and have a higher degree (all P < 0.01). Of clinicians with a higher degree, 28% were research‐inactive. Clinicians identified protected research time (50%), designated research space (42%), clinical trial coordinators (35%), institutional funding (34%) and mentoring (33%) as critical enablers of research. Research‐inactive clinicians identified protected research time as the key enabler of future research.
Conclusions
To realise recommendations in the McKeon Review, hospitals and research bodies will need to protect research time and provide space and funding. Engaging research‐inactive clinicians will build research capacity.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Practitioners and policymakers rely on meta-analyses to inform decision making around the allocation of resources to individuals and organizations. It is therefore paramount to consider the validity ...of these results. A well-documented threat to the validity of research synthesis results is the presence of publication bias, a phenomenon where studies with large and/or statistically significant effects, relative to studies with small or null effects, are more likely to be published. We investigated this phenomenon empirically by reviewing meta-analyses published in top-tier journals between 1986 and 2013 that quantified the difference between effect sizes from published and unpublished research. We reviewed 383 meta-analyses of which 81 had sufficient information to calculate an effect size. Results indicated that published studies yielded larger effect sizes than those from unpublished studies (d; = 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.10, 0.25). Moderator analyses revealed that the difference was larger in meta-analyses that included a wide range of unpublished literature. We conclude that intervention researchers require continued support to publish null findings and that meta-analyses should include unpublished studies to mitigate the potential bias from publication status.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
We developed a set of four community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnership tools aimed at supporting community–academic research partnerships in strengthening their research processes, with ...the ultimate goal of improving research outcomes. The aim of this article is to describe the tools we developed to accomplish this goal: (1) the River of Life Exercise; (2) a Partnership Visioning Exercise; (3) a personalized Partnership Data Report of data from academic and community research partners; and (4) a Promising Practices Guide with aggregated survey data analyses on promising CBPR practices associated with CBPR and health outcomes from two national samples of CBPR projects that completed a series of two online surveys. Relying on Paulo Freire’s philosophy of praxis, or the cycles of collective reflection and action, we developed a set of tools designed to support research teams in holding discussions aimed at strengthening research partnership capacity, aligning research partnership efforts to achieve grant aims, and recalling and operationalizing larger social justice goals. This article describes the theoretical framework and process for tool development and provides preliminary data from small teams representing 25 partnerships who attended face-to-face workshops and provided their perceptions of tool accessibility and intended future use.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VSZLJ
PDF
