Transformando la excelencia en la investigación. Nuevas ideas del Sur Global

Mbula, Erika Kraemer; Tijssen, Robert; Wallace, Matthew L.; McLean, Robert; Allen, Liz; Barrere, Rodolfo; Chataway, Joanna; Bohórquez, Diego Andrés Chavarro; Chux, Daniels; Lebel, Jean; Marincola, Elizabeth; Mendiazabal, Enrique; Neylon, Cameron; Yaigaba, Ouattara Annette Lhaur; Raza, Falak; Singh, Suneeta; Siregar, Fajri; Ssembatya, Vincent A.; Sutz, Judith; African, Minds Minds

doi:10.12804/urosario9789587847710

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 70 publications

(102 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, Global South research goals may foreground factors of importance to the Global Majority, such as sustainable development, equity, and knowledge with practical value (e.g., Grieve & Mitchell, 2020; Mahajan et al, 2023; Miguel et al, 2023). In particular, local societal context and benefits together with local capacity building are more important in the Global South (Kraemer‐Mbula et al, 2020; Lebel & McLean, 2018).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which international co‐authorships produce higher quality journal articles?

Thelwall,

Kousha,

Abdoli

et al. 2024

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International collaboration is sometimes encouraged in the belief that it generates higher quality research or is more capable of addressing societal problems. Nevertheless, while there is evidence that the journal articles of international teams tend to be more cited than average, perhaps from increased international audiences, there is no science‐wide direct academic evidence of a connection between international collaboration and research quality. This article empirically investigates the connection between international collaboration and research quality for the first time, with 148,977 UK‐based journal articles with post publication expert review scores from the 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF). Using an ordinal regression model controlling for collaboration, international partners increased the odds of higher quality scores in 27 out of 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs) and all Main Panels. The results therefore give the first large scale evidence of the fields in which international co‐authorship for articles is usually apparently beneficial. At the country level, the results suggests that UK collaboration with other high research‐expenditure economies generates higher quality research, even when the countries produce lower citation impact journal articles than the United Kingdom. Worryingly, collaborations with lower research‐expenditure economies tend to be judged lower quality, possibly through misunderstanding Global South research goals.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which international co‐authorships produce higher quality journal articles?

Thelwall,

Kousha,

Abdoli

et al. 2024

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Balancing capacity building imperatives and addressing national priorities may not align with current perceptions of scientific excellence . In response to this problem, some have called for a more pluralistic view of research excellence, one that includes research capacity building (Kraemer-Mbula et al, 2020).…”

Section: Emerging Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Targeting research to address societal needs: what can we learn from 30 years of targeting neglected diseases?

Coburn¹,

Yaqub²,

Chataway³

2023

Handbook of Public Funding of Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neglected diseases have been characterised as a misalignment in the research system because so little research is directed towards such a large burden of disease. By focusing on one of the most extreme cases of misalignment, we highlight opportunities and potential pitfalls of targeting research towards specific social outcomes more generally.We trace how the category of neglected diseases came to prominence, largely framed as a problem to be addressed by scientific research. This mobilised R&D investment but there have been unintended consequences, particularly for broader health system strengthening and research capacity building efforts.These developments may contribute to a 'tragedy of the evaluation commons', where the effectiveness of broad remit research programs remain poorly characterised. This exacerbates a lack of evidence, relative to targeting specific diseases where the evaluation challenge is narrower. Research targeting then, is intimately tied to evaluation practice.A new research and policy agenda oriented towards broader research evaluation may support further investments not just for biomedical R&D in high-income countries, but also for researchers in other countries, for interdisciplinary, applied and social sciences, and ultimately, for poor patients.

show abstract

“…The second set of biases comes from the notion of "research excellence" and its indicators, driven by Western academic institutions, that exacerbate the disadvantages facing local and Indigenous knowledge and researchers (Kraemer-Mbula et al, 2019), hindering deep and reflexive co-production in disaster studies. The priority on high-impact journal publications as a performance measure further marginalizes local researchers for whom publishing processes are costly and complex and whose language and writing may differ from dominant Western academic norms.…”

Section: Surfacing Assumptions and Challenging Biases And Norms In Kn...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-production revisited: from knowledge plurality to action for disaster risk reduction

Tran,

Kim

2023

DPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe authors revisit the notion of co-production, highlight more critical and re-politicized forms of co-production and introduce three principles for its operationalization. The paper’s viewpoint aims to find entry points for enabling more equitable disaster research and actions via co-production.Design/methodology/approachThe authors draw insights from the authors’ reflections as climate and disaster researchers and literature on knowledge politics in the context of disaster and climate change, especially within critical disaster studies and feminist political ecology.FindingsDisaster studies can better contribute to disaster risk reduction via political co-production and situating local and Indigenous knowledge at the center through three principles, i.e. ensuring knowledge plurality, surfacing norms and assumptions in knowledge production and driving actions that tackle existing knowledge (and broader sociopolitical) structures.Originality/valueThe authors draw out three principles to enable the political function of co-production based on firsthand experiences of working with local and Indigenous peoples and insights from a diverse set of co-production, feminist political ecology and critical disaster studies literature. Future research can observe how it can utilize these principles in its respective contexts.

show abstract

Transformando la excelencia en la investigación. Nuevas ideas del Sur Global

Cited by 4 publications

References 70 publications

Which international co‐authorships produce higher quality journal articles?

Which international co‐authorships produce higher quality journal articles?

Targeting research to address societal needs: what can we learn from 30 years of targeting neglected diseases?

Co-production revisited: from knowledge plurality to action for disaster risk reduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About