Search results

Brazil was heralded for completion of the first genome sequence of a plant pathogen following the development of a virtual research center — a collaborative network of laboratories throughout the state of São Paulo, drawing on the expertise of a dispersed and diverse scientific community and on investment from both the government and the private sector. Strategies key to the success of this model are discussed here in the context of continuing collaborative scientific endeavors in both developed and developing countries.

As part of the annual surveys in coordinated programmes, the DFG requests data on researchers who are involved in DFG-funded research groups. On the basis of this data pool, the reports focus on three topic areas: distribution according to gender, place of employment prior to joining the group and the funding of researchers involved. The results are considered in differentiated terms. The consideration of developments between 2014 and 2017 provides an overview of which structures are stable over time and which are subject to change. Differentiation between the four DFG scientific disciplines highlights differences dependent on the disciplines. The survey data from the 2017 reporting year is analysed for this purpose. The data reported to the DFG by the Collaborative Research Centres is incorporated into reports and analyses for DFG bodies, funding agencies (federal and state governments) and the public, as well as into independent analyses of funding practice in these programmes, such as in these reports. They form an important basis for the reporting of the DFG. ; Selected results from annual surveys of Collaborative Research Centres

For years journal articles from the natural sciences have been
characterized by multiple authors, reflecting the collaborative
nature of the research. The articles have also conformed to a
professional norm in giving credit to the authors and, at least
implicitly, indicating their relative contributions. Although such
collaborative research has grown significantly in political science,
the discipline is still wrestling with any standard to indicate who
gets credit and the nature of multiple authors' relative
contributions. This is an issue with which political scientists from
the most junior to the most senior continue to deal.

Digital humanities meets linguistics ; Collaboration advocacy is born both of perceived necessity and ideology. Necessity, since for in situ language research, community partnerships and interdisciplinary work have resolved problems of non-collaborative research (e.g. fraught communication, lack of access, limitations of data, theory, or methodology). But this advocacy also reflects ideologies of "empowering research" (Cameron et al. 1992). Strenuous objections to collaboration have been raised by a few within documentary linguistics and within the humanities in general. Some scholars are concerned that political correctness is overwhelming academic concerns (Malik 2000, Crippen and Robinson 2011). Some humanists view collaborative approaches entailing larger data sets as a covert rejection of contemporary literary analysis (Golumbia 2012). The pushback against collaborative approaches is ideological, rather than methodological or theoretical, and mirrors larger trends in the humanities. Do ideologies of collaboration create new obstacles to research? If so, what approaches could mitigate such effects? Identifying both methodological and ideological barriers enables better practice in linguistics, from research design through data analysis.

Summary This article examines the prospects for inter‐country collaborative research between academic institutions of greatly varying experience and resources, and notes the case for unilateral action by research institutes in poor countries which have suffered the domination of rich and powerful foreign research interests. Some criteria are suggested for assessing the readiness of research institutions in any part of the world to cooperate effectively. The question is left open as to whether we possess or are likely to acquire the capacity to collaborate successfully across barriers of history and contemporary events.Resume Signification de la recherche en collaborationCet article examine les perspectives relatives à la recherche inter‐pays impliquant la collaboration d'institutions académiques ayant une expérience et des ressources extrémement variées, et il cite l'argument en faveur de l'action unilatérale par des instituts de recherche dans les pays pauvres qui ont subi la domination d'intérêts de recherche étrangers riches et puissants. Plusieurs critères sont suggérés pour déterminer si les institutions de recherche en n'importe quel coin du monde sont prêtes à collaborer efficacement. Il n'est pas donné de réponse à la question de savoir si nous avons ou sommes susceptibles d'acquérir l'aptitude à collaborer efficacement malgré les barrières de l'histoire et des événements contemporaines.Resumen El significado de la investigación colaborativaEn el artículo se examinan las perspectivas para la investigación colaborativa entre países, a través de las instituciones académicas de experiencia y recursos muy variables, y pone de relieve la oportunidad de adoptar una acción unilateral por parte de institutos de investigación en países pobres que han sufrido el dominio de intereses de investigación extranjera potentes y ricos. Se sugieren ciertos criterios para evaluar la preparación de las instituciones de investigación en cualquier parte del mundo con objeto de cooperar de manera eficaz. Queda por saber si poseemos o es probable que consigamos adquirir la capacidad de colaborar con éxito a través de barreras históricas y acontecimientos contemporáneos.

This article examines the Alphabetic Braille Contracted Braille Study in relation to the dimensions of collaborative research: extent, intensity, substance, heterogeneity, velocity, formality, and productivity. It also discusses the dimensions of financing research and researchers' attitudes. The overall consensus is that the study would not have been as comprehensive without collaboration.

As part of the annual surveys in coordinated programmes, the DFG requests data on researchers who are involved in DFG-funded research groups. On the basis of this data pool, the reports focus on three topic areas: distribution according to gender, place of employment prior to joining the group and the funding of researchers involved. The results are considered in differentiated terms. The consideration of developments over time provides an overview of which structures are stable over the five-year period and which are subject to change. Differentiation between the four DFG scientific disciplines highlights differences dependent on the disciplines. The survey data from each reporting year is analysed for this purpose. The data reported to the DFG by the Collaborative Research Centres is incorporated into reports and analyses for DFG bodies, funding agencies (federal and state governments) and the public, as well as into independent analyses of funding practice in these programmes. They form an important basis for the reporting of the DFG. ; Selected results from annual surveys of Collaborative Research Centres