Research Approach towards Formulating Research and Innovation Capacity Development Framework for Disaster Resilience in Higher Education Institutions

Abstract

The developing countries have experienced a large number of disaster events with extensive loss of life and goods. Effective mitigation and preparedness can greatly reduce the threat posed by hazards of all type. The potential of networked models to enhance the impact and efficiency of investments in disaster resilience (DR) research capacity-building in Asia; the importance of ensuring stronger local ownership of initiatives; and, the importance of building sustainable research institutions have been identified by global funders and policymakers as the priority towards strengthening the capacity of developing countries to do and use research, which is widely viewed as vital for meeting long-term innovation in creating DR societies. To fill the gap in the literature with regards to research and innovation capacity development of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the disaster resilience related areas, this study formulated a capacity development framework (CDF) to help the HEIs play their roles as incubators of knowledge and ideas, and as the centre for innovation and generation of ideas. The key performance indicators and measures to assess research and innovation capacity were identified through qualitative systematic literature review and a three-round focus group discussions. Additional data was collected from 213 semi-structured interviews and 530 online survey questionnaires. The proposed capacity development framework consists of six lenses -policy, skills and training, staff, funding, infrastructure, and cross-cutting. Each lens highlights key category for current and future environment to strengthen research and innovation (R&I) capacity for the development of societal resilience to disasters in HEIs.

FADM: A Feasible Approach to Disaster Management

“…They support system transformation to better align RRI processes and outcomes with societal values, needs, and concerns by encouraging collaboration among all the actors of the QH. The RRI‐based approaches empower economic and environmental development and widen a community’s capacity for resilience (Hayat et al, 2018; Liyanage et al, 2018). There are also limitations, however, such as the material barriers to innovation and the abandonment or reduction of existing practices in favour of innovation processes and the (un)clear demarcation of responsibilities of the QH actors with divergent and even contradictory interests (de Hoop et al, 2016).…”