Professionalization and evaluation: The case of Indian agricultural research

Raina, Rajeswari S.

doi:10.1007/s12130-999-1004-6

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Distance from the core (capital city) is suggested to limit resource flows (Bradshaw, 1987) and to be associated with collaborative patterns that place the periphery at a disadvantage (Cole & Cole, 1973;Merton, 1968;Moody, 2004). Moreover, there are institutional variations in the reward criteria in assessing academic and research institute scientists (Raina, 1999). Different fields also have been known to reflect varying collaborative patterns (Lee & Bozeman, 2005;Moody, 2004;Stephan & Levin, 1992).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Internet Use Associated With Reporting Fewer Problems in Collaboration?

Duque

Miller

Barriga

et al. 2012

Science Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the developing world, many advocate the benefits of collaboration as the primary driver of research productivity. One of the crucial conditions that support, and help overcome problems in, distributed work is consistent access and use of Internet technologies. But it is argued that the collaborative benefits of Internet technologies are not symmetrically distributed worldwide, perhaps a result of neo-dependency relationships between the South and the North. To evaluate this, in this article, the authors consider the association between “e-mail use and diversity,” “reported problems in web surfing,” and “problems in research collaboration” for a population of scientists outside the mainstream, in the South American nation of Chile. They surveyed 337 scientists over three regions asking them to report on their collaborative behavior, Internet use, and research challenges. While they find that Chileans on the whole report fewer problems compared with other less developed nations studied in this way, they do report problems when reporting more collaborators and when their professional network is geographically heterogeneous. E-mail use, though, has no association with less frequent reports of research challenges, while reporting that “the Internet has made them more connected” and reporting (more intensely) “problems encountered while surfing the web” are significantly associated with reporting more problems in research, when controlling for background, professional activities, institutional and field context, and the number and location of collaborators.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Internet Use Associated With Reporting Fewer Problems in Collaboration?

Duque

Miller

Barriga

et al. 2012

Science Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The particularity of the client often determines 'what' is being evaluated: the research product, the process, the personnel or the overall organization of research (Raina, 1997). Evaluation of research is undertaken for a range of clients, among whom the most prominent and powerful client is the donor/sponsor.…”

Section: Scientists In and As Nodes: Evaluation Roles And Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patronage and Evaluation in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research

Raina

1999

Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the crucial role of scientific expertise and authority, in evaluation as well as in research decision-making. The case of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is used to demonstrate how the bureaucratic imperatives in a public research system can thwart the cause of scientific authority and accountability. Research decision-making is a function delegated to different points, or ‘nodes’, vested with scientific expertise and the power to make decisions. Scientific expertise is the basic asset used by the nodes, which may be individual scientists and/or groups, boards or organizations. Patronage or decision-making in the ICAR is, for the most part, vested in bureaucratic nodes, marking the dichotomy in the organization between scientific and administrative or financial decision-making. The concluding section of this article highlights the social reproduction of bureaucratic nodes, which perpetuates the marginalization of evaluation. The nodes in the ICAR rely on bureaucratic decision-making not validated by evaluations or assessments using scientific expertise. It is argued that stringent evaluation can replace bureaucratic authority with scientific expertise and authority, thereby bringing more accountability to the system of patronage of science.

show abstract