COALESCE Team Science eLearning Modules: Team Science Research Process in Clinical Medical Science (Module 4)

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonnie Spring ◽  
Arlen C. Moller ◽  
Holly Falk-Krzesinski
Author(s):  
Betsy Rolland ◽  
Elizabeth S. Burnside ◽  
Corrine I. Voils ◽  
Manish N. Shah ◽  
Allan R. Brasier

Abstract The pervasive problem of irreproducibility of preclinical research represents a substantial threat to the translation of CTSA-generated health interventions. Key stakeholders in the research process have proposed solutions to this challenge to encourage research practices that improve reproducibility. However, these proposals have had minimal impact, because they either 1. take place too late in the research process, 2. focus exclusively on the products of research instead of the processes of research, and/or 3. fail to take into account the driving incentives in the research enterprise. Because so much clinical and translational science is team-based, CTSA hubs have a unique opportunity to leverage Science of Team Science research to implement and support innovative, evidence-based, team-focused, reproducibility-enhancing activities at a project’s start, and across its evolution. Here, we describe the impact of irreproducibility on clinical and translational science, review its origins, and then describe stakeholders’ efforts to impact reproducibility, and why those efforts may not have the desired effect. Based on team-science best practices and principles of scientific integrity, we then propose ways for Translational Teams to build reproducible behaviors. We end with suggestions for how CTSAs can leverage team-based best practices and identify observable behaviors that indicate a culture of reproducible research.


The concept of context is a cornerstone of a large part of social science research, particularly in organization and management studies, yet it has received little theoretical and methodological attention in lieu of its relevance. This book offers a definition of context as a theoretical construct, a discussion of the methodological implications of this, and a framework for how to reflect upon and operationalize the role of context in the different stages of a research process, from formulating research questions to analyzing and writing about results. The chapters presented here integrate lessons derived from various research experiences across the complex and dynamic field of health care. Contributors share their experiences with theorizing about and empirically studying significant organizational phenomena such as implementation of policy, organizational change, integration of care, patient involvement, human-technology interactions in practice, and the interplay between work environment and care outcomes in eldercare. These contributions exemplify how a nuanced approach to context might unfold in different fields, through different designs, methods, and analytical lenses. Relevant to researchers and practitioners, within both healthcare, organization and management studies, and the social sciences more broadly, this book leaves the reader with a practical framework from which to carry out contextual research and analysis and a gain deeper understanding of the significance of context in organizational life.


KWALON ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-51
Author(s):  
Jing Hiah

Abstract Navigating the research and researchers’ field: Reflections on positionality in (assumed) insider research To challenge rigid ideas about objectivity in social science research, qualitative researchers question their own subjectivity in the research process. In such endeavors, the focus is mainly on the positionality of the researcher vis-à-vis their respondents in the research field. In this contribution, I argue that the positionality of the researcher in academia, what I refer to as the researchers’ field, is equally important as it influences the way research findings are received and evaluated. Through reflections on positionality in my insider research concerning labour relations and exploitation in Chinese migrant businesses in the Netherlands and Romania, I explore how my positionality as an insider negatively influenced my credibility and approachability in the researchers’ field. I conclude that it is necessary to pay more attention to researchers’ positionality in academia as it may shed light on and make it possible to discuss the written and unwritten standards of researchers’ credibility and approachability as an academic in the researchers’ field. Accordingly, this could provide insights into the causes of inequalities in academia and contribute to the current challenge for more diversity in academia.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 95-105
Author(s):  
Thees F Spreckelsen ◽  
Mariska Van Der Horst

Significance testing is widely used in social science research. It has long been criticised on statistical grounds and problems in the research practice. This paper is an applied researchers’ response to Gorard's (2016) ‘Damaging real lives through obstinacy: re-emphasising why significance testing is wrong’ in Sociological Research Online 21(1). He participates in this debate concluding from the issues raised that the use and teaching of significance testing should cease immediately. In that, he goes beyond a mere ban of significance testing, but claims that researchers still doing this are being unethical. We argue that his attack on applied scientists is unlikely to improve social science research and we believe he does not sufficiently prove his claims. In particular we are concerned that with a narrow focus on statistical significance, Gorard misses alternative, if not more important, explanations for the often-lamented problems in social science research. Instead, we argue that it is important to take into account the full research process, not just the step of data analysis, to get a better idea of the best evidence regarding a hypothesis.


1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 69-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Rappert

Recent times have seen a significant reorientation in public funding for academic research across many countries. Public bodies in the UK have been at the forefront of such activities, typically justified in terms of a need to meet the challenges of international competitiveness and improve quality of life. One set of mechanisms advanced for further achieving these goals is the incorporation of users’ needs into various aspects of the research process. This paper examines some of the consequences of greater user involvement in the UK Economic and Social Research Council by drawing on both empirical evidence and more speculative argumentation. In doing so it poses some of the dilemmas for conceptualizing proper user involvement.


Leonardo ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 447-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Leach

The author, an anthropologist, discusses his role as an observer attached to a collaborative arts/science research fellowship program. He examines the role of collaboration in research and in the Fellowships and explores new ways of conducting collaboration so that the research process itself becomes part of a project's output.


2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katelin E. Albert

In 2009, Canadian social science research funding underwent a transition. Social science health-research was shifted from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), an agency previously dominated by natural and medical science. This paper examines the role of health-research funding structures in legitimizing and/or delimiting what counts as ‘good’ social science health research. Engaging Gieryn’s (1983) notion of ‘boundary-work’ and interviews with qualitative social science graduate students, it investigates how applicants developed proposals for CIHR. Findings show that despite claiming to be interdisciplinary, the practical mechanisms through which CIHR funding is distributed reinforce rigid boundaries of what counts as legitimate health research. These boundaries are reinforced by applicants who felt pressure to prioritize what they perceived was what funders wanted (accommodating natural-science research culture), resulting in erased, elided, and disguised social science theories and methods common for ‘good social science.’


Author(s):  
Marco Antônio Amaral Féris

As business competition increases, there is pressure on software development projects to become more productive and efficient. Previous research has shown that quality planning is a key factor in enhancing project performance. Thus, this article reports on the successful development and implementation of a tool (QPLAN) that enhances software development project performance by evaluating the planning quality of any type of software project and introducing best planning practices (such as references from historical data) that suggest how to manage projects in an appropriate manner, including encompassing lessons learned and involving the customer in the development process. This is applied research aimed at solving a real problem; thus, Design Science Research was adopted as the research methodology and the design science research process (DSRP) model was selected to conduct it. This artifact was designed for the project management literature, and implemented and validated in 11 organizations in five countries.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document