Having trouble developing your dissertation or thesis proposal? Its like skydiving... you're in control and choose where you go, but the hardest part is jumping off. This slideshow provides an overview of the proposal development process. This is a presentation developed through the Graduate Resource Center at the University of New Mexico.
Having trouble developing your dissertation or thesis proposal? Its like skydiving... you're in control and choose where you go, but the hardest part is jumping off. This slideshow provides an overview of the proposal development process. This is a presentation developed through the Graduate Resource Center at the University of New Mexico.
Designing a connected research impact strategy for arts and humanities discip...Niamh NicGhabhann
These are the slides presented as part of an invited keynote given at Mary Immaculate College of Education in September 2017 on the subject of designing a connected research impact strategy for arts and humanities disciplines
There are both challenges and opportunities in the existing scenario characterized by heavy emphasis on collaboration, digitization and onset of social media. One needs to be connected with theme, institution, industry and society. The web 2.0 technologies make it possible for a researcher to be a connected one.
Gender differences in societal orientation and output of individual scientistsInge van der Weijden
Presentation at the STI 2014 conference
Gender differences in societal orientation and output of individual scientists
Authors: Inge van der Weijden, Zohreh Zahedi, Ulle Must and Ingeborg Meijer
Prieto et al. @ECTEL23: Designing technology for doctoral persistence and wel...lprisan
Slides from the presentation of our paper (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42682-7_24) at the EC-TEL 2023 conference in Aveiro.
----
Designing Technology for Doctoral Persistence and Well-Being: Findings from a Two-Country Value-Sensitive Inquiry into Student Progress
Abstract:
Doctoral education suffers from widespread dropout and well-being problems, for which we have not yet found scalable and generalizable interventions. This paper characterizes these problems as amenable to technology-enhanced learning (TEL) intervention and derives design knowledge for such solutions. We conducted two iterations of design-based research using a value-sensitive design approach to understand how technology could support doctoral progress, well-being, and persistence, with 19 doctoral students from multiple disciplines in Estonia and Spain. Our quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaires, interviews, and diary data confirms prior research about the importance of perceiving progress in the dissertation materials. They also highlight the uniqueness and self-direction of the doctoral journey, and particular (but well-defined) external factors that could be targeted by TEL support. Our design-oriented findings can inform the development of multiple TEL solutions to address these problems. Further, the particular methods used to elicit these findings both illustrate the added value of value-sensitive design for the field of TEL and provide examples of techniques that can be used to be mindful of stakeholder values when designing learning technologies.
1279 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS A COMPARISON BETWEEN .docxmoggdede
1279
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS: A COMPARISON
BETWEEN FOCUS-GROUP AND IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW
Zaharia Rodica Milena
Bucharest University of Eonomics, Romania, Faculty of International Business and Economics,
[email protected], Tel.:+40 21 319 19 90, tel. +40 0722179201
Grundey Dainora
Vilnius University, Kaunas Faculty of Humanities, [email protected], Tel.: +370 37 425 462,
Fax: +370 37 423 222
Stancu Alin
Bucharest University of Economics, Faculty of Marketing, [email protected], Tel.:+40 21 319 19 90
Qualitative research methods tend to be used more and more in academic research. The cost for these
methods is quite low and the results may be very interesting and useful for many fields of study. However,
the utility and the characteristic of qualitative research methods differ from subject to subject and from
discipline to discipline. This paper comes close to a comparison of two qualitative research methods
(focus-group and in-depth interview) used in investigating the opinion of academics, analyzing by
comparison the results founded in a research conducted in the Bucharest University of Economics using
focus group and in-depth interviews. The conclusions of the study reveal that apart of the limits states in
the literature, there are other elements that can contribute to obtaining unrealistic results.
Key words: Qualitative research methods, focus group, in-depth interview, academic research
Introduction
Rapid social change and the diversity of the world have contributed on a large scale to the diversification
of research methods. Limits of quantitative research methods have determined orientation to the qualitative
instruments which are more reliable in certain circumstances. There are many virtues of qualitative
research that determine a lot of researchers to manifest preference for these kinds of methods: are the
correct choice of appropriate methods and theories, the recognition and analysis of different perspectives,
the researchers’ reflections on their research as part of the process of knowledge production, and the
variety of approaches and methods (Flick, 2002:4). Qualitative research explain how it may be useful for
exploring “why” rather “how many”.
There are various types of instruments used to collect data for qualitative research. Focus groups and in-
depth interviews are among the most utilize instruments that researchers are using in collecting their data.
Focus group implies a group discussion in order to identify perceptions, thoughts and impressions of a
selected group of people regarding a specific topic of investigations (Kairuz, Crump and O’Brien, 2007).
Discussion should be perceived by the participants as no-threatening and free to express any kind of
opinion, no matter if this opinion is shared or not by the other participants. Focus groups generate valuable
information, especially when the participants represent small groups of interest, ignored by the quantitative ...
It has become imperative to conduct funded research in today's highly resource constrained landscape of higher education. We must understand the attributes of research the mindset of researcher and the requirements of funded research.
Intentions and strategies for evaluating the societal impact of research: Ins...Gemma Derrick
This research in progress paper describes the initial results of a long-term, large-scale analysis
of the operationalization of evaluation of the societal impact of research. Results from the
first stage of qualitative interviews are used to illustrate the strength of the methodological
design of the study.
Laura Eyre and Martin Marshall: Researchers in residence Nuffield Trust
Laura Eyre, Research Associate and Martin Marshall, Professor of Healthcare Improvement at UCL give an inside perspective on moving improvement research closer to practice.
Today research visibility is very important in an otherwise crowded digital environment. Here the concept of visibility generated and visibility earned is explained.
I need this completed by 7pm cstTypes of Research (250 words).docxheathmirella
I need this completed by 7pm cst?
Types of Research (250 words) 1 scholarly source read the presentation and chapter 1 reading below:
After completing the readings and reviewing the media piece assigned for Unit 1, discuss the ways in which Action Research relates to other forms of research? How is it similar? How is it different?
Collaborative Inquiry: Participatory Action
In this presentation, you will learn more about some specific types of projects in action research. This will provide fertile ground to plant your own possible dissertation concepts and topics to grow and tend over the coming quarters!
Remember – action research must include the participants as part of the solution development, and it must be community based, no matter how broad or large that community might be. Finally, action for social change must occur.
Four typical types of action research:
Diagnostic
– needs assessment or causal analysis (What is causing homelessness in our county?)
Prescriptive
– best program or policy to solve an identified community problem (Which type of housing would best serve the homeless population?)
Implementation
– accomplishes program goals outside of data collection (How can we strengthen ties within our community so that the homeless are not invisible?)
Evaluation
– assesses program impacts (How effective is this program to provide free medical and dental care in meeting the needs of the homeless?)
Any of these examples could be action research, and in some cases, a project may include more than one of these types. Diagnostic and prescriptive are the most common and the ones most often combined.
Most common partners: nonprofit organizations or community-based organizations, so cross-sector collaborations are a key factor. (Intersection of public sector/government, nonprofits/community organizations, and individuals with interests in this topic, plus the researcher.)
Typical ways to link action and research – through outcomes:
Organizing
– helping the participants organize for social change
Advocacy
– advocating for social change with the participants
Most of the time, the outcome in action research is mislabeled as simple reporting – written report, oral presentations, websites on the project, education models. None of these reporting features in and of themselves empower the participants, a key trait of action research.
If the participants only put a report on a shelf, social change has not occurred. Outcomes must be stated clearly.
Partners for action research may include:
Community based organizations
Community residents (individuals)
Coalition groups
Grass roots constituents/special interest constituents
Nonprofit organizations
Educational institutions at all levels
Government agencies
Stages are accomplished with participants, not solely prepared by the researcher:
Defining the research question
Developing the research method
Gathering the data
Analyzing the data
Reporting and acting on the research results/solutions
Rem.
Similar to Involving end users in research proposal evaluation: A case study with the Dutch Heart Foundation (20)
Discussion session hosted by Leonie van Drooge at the Workshop exploring Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Research Evaluation and Policy 2015 (QMM2015)
The in-vitro approach: Qualitative methodology to explore panel based peer re...Gemma Derrick
Presentation given by Gemma Derrick and Gabby Samuel at the Workshop exploring Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Research Evaluation and Policy 2015 (QMM2015)
Multiplying method: Ethnography and the reconceptualization of evaluation stu...Gemma Derrick
Discussion session hosted by Pau Wouters and Sarah de Rijcke at the Workshop exploring Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Research Evaluation and Policy 2015 (QMM2015)
Focus! A discussion about the use of focus groups as a methodGemma Derrick
Discussion session hosted by Leonie van Drooge at the Workshop exploring Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Research Evaluation and Policy 2015 (QMM2015)
Rethinking the 'international' in the governance of scienceGemma Derrick
Presentation given by Tereza Stockelova and Sarah de Rijcke at the Workshop exploring Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Research Evaluation and Policy 2015 (QMM2015)
(May 29th, 2024) Advancements in Intravital Microscopy- Insights for Preclini...Scintica Instrumentation
Intravital microscopy (IVM) is a powerful tool utilized to study cellular behavior over time and space in vivo. Much of our understanding of cell biology has been accomplished using various in vitro and ex vivo methods; however, these studies do not necessarily reflect the natural dynamics of biological processes. Unlike traditional cell culture or fixed tissue imaging, IVM allows for the ultra-fast high-resolution imaging of cellular processes over time and space and were studied in its natural environment. Real-time visualization of biological processes in the context of an intact organism helps maintain physiological relevance and provide insights into the progression of disease, response to treatments or developmental processes.
In this webinar we give an overview of advanced applications of the IVM system in preclinical research. IVIM technology is a provider of all-in-one intravital microscopy systems and solutions optimized for in vivo imaging of live animal models at sub-micron resolution. The system’s unique features and user-friendly software enables researchers to probe fast dynamic biological processes such as immune cell tracking, cell-cell interaction as well as vascularization and tumor metastasis with exceptional detail. This webinar will also give an overview of IVM being utilized in drug development, offering a view into the intricate interaction between drugs/nanoparticles and tissues in vivo and allows for the evaluation of therapeutic intervention in a variety of tissues and organs. This interdisciplinary collaboration continues to drive the advancements of novel therapeutic strategies.
Richard's entangled aventures in wonderlandRichard Gill
Since the loophole-free Bell experiments of 2020 and the Nobel prizes in physics of 2022, critics of Bell's work have retreated to the fortress of super-determinism. Now, super-determinism is a derogatory word - it just means "determinism". Palmer, Hance and Hossenfelder argue that quantum mechanics and determinism are not incompatible, using a sophisticated mathematical construction based on a subtle thinning of allowed states and measurements in quantum mechanics, such that what is left appears to make Bell's argument fail, without altering the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics. I think however that it is a smoke screen, and the slogan "lost in math" comes to my mind. I will discuss some other recent disproofs of Bell's theorem using the language of causality based on causal graphs. Causal thinking is also central to law and justice. I will mention surprising connections to my work on serial killer nurse cases, in particular the Dutch case of Lucia de Berk and the current UK case of Lucy Letby.
This pdf is about the Schizophrenia.
For more details visit on YouTube; @SELF-EXPLANATORY;
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAiarMZDNhe1A3Rnpr_WkzA/videos
Thanks...!
Earliest Galaxies in the JADES Origins Field: Luminosity Function and Cosmic ...Sérgio Sacani
We characterize the earliest galaxy population in the JADES Origins Field (JOF), the deepest
imaging field observed with JWST. We make use of the ancillary Hubble optical images (5 filters
spanning 0.4−0.9µm) and novel JWST images with 14 filters spanning 0.8−5µm, including 7 mediumband filters, and reaching total exposure times of up to 46 hours per filter. We combine all our data
at > 2.3µm to construct an ultradeep image, reaching as deep as ≈ 31.4 AB mag in the stack and
30.3-31.0 AB mag (5σ, r = 0.1” circular aperture) in individual filters. We measure photometric
redshifts and use robust selection criteria to identify a sample of eight galaxy candidates at redshifts
z = 11.5 − 15. These objects show compact half-light radii of R1/2 ∼ 50 − 200pc, stellar masses of
M⋆ ∼ 107−108M⊙, and star-formation rates of SFR ∼ 0.1−1 M⊙ yr−1
. Our search finds no candidates
at 15 < z < 20, placing upper limits at these redshifts. We develop a forward modeling approach to
infer the properties of the evolving luminosity function without binning in redshift or luminosity that
marginalizes over the photometric redshift uncertainty of our candidate galaxies and incorporates the
impact of non-detections. We find a z = 12 luminosity function in good agreement with prior results,
and that the luminosity function normalization and UV luminosity density decline by a factor of ∼ 2.5
from z = 12 to z = 14. We discuss the possible implications of our results in the context of theoretical
models for evolution of the dark matter halo mass function.
Nutraceutical market, scope and growth: Herbal drug technologyLokesh Patil
As consumer awareness of health and wellness rises, the nutraceutical market—which includes goods like functional meals, drinks, and dietary supplements that provide health advantages beyond basic nutrition—is growing significantly. As healthcare expenses rise, the population ages, and people want natural and preventative health solutions more and more, this industry is increasing quickly. Further driving market expansion are product formulation innovations and the use of cutting-edge technology for customized nutrition. With its worldwide reach, the nutraceutical industry is expected to keep growing and provide significant chances for research and investment in a number of categories, including vitamins, minerals, probiotics, and herbal supplements.
Predicting property prices with machine learning algorithms.pdf
Involving end users in research proposal evaluation: A case study with the Dutch Heart Foundation
1. Involving end users in research proposal
evaluation: A case study with the Dutch
Heart Foundation
Ingeborg Meijer
Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University
QMM Workshop, Brunel University, London
1-2 October 2015
2. Outline
• Societal quality: Ensuring use of of research
• DHF and the end user panel
• Evaluation in practice - triangulation
• Methods
– Observation of peer review
– Questionnaire
– Interview
• Results
• Conclusion
1
3. Scientific & societal quality
• Economic
returns
• Cultural
returns
• Social
returns
• Scientific
returns
Scientific
interactions
Professional
interactions
Private
interactions
Public
interactions
2
4. Science and society
Evaluation
science
Monitoring
Involving End
users
Programming
Societal
Demand
driven
• The process of value creation is by transferring
knowledge from a research institute into society (private
or public parties, or general public), and includes
(demand-driven, user-inspired) research programming,
and interaction with potential users during the research.
6. Dutch Heart Foundation (DHF)
• Charity Fund > 50% of budget to scientific research
• Mission: 3 times less….
– Less people get a cardiovascular disease;
– Less people suffer from cardiovascular disease;
– Less people die from cardiovascular disease.
• Change in objective:
– Closer connected to donators,
– Faster translation from results science to patients
– More participation from stakeholders
• Goal: to experiment with processes in the core of the
DHF > evaluation of research proposals.
• End User panel (EP) & criteria to evaluate societal
aspects
5
7. Societal quality operationalised
5 Criteria
• Relevance of the health problem
• Contribution of the research to
solving the health problem
• To the next step in the research
(or development) process.
• Focus on activities towards
(eventual) application of results in
healthcare
– CV of applicant
– Objectives, strategy and actions
• Participation of stakeholders
• Relation between criteria
6
Relevance
Activity
towards
actors
Societal quality
Participation
8. Phase 2 Practicing in reality
• Separate calls
– Young investigator personal grant
– Focused topic: women and cardiovascular disease
– Focused topic: congenital heart disease in children
• End user panel evaluation in parallel to scientific
evaluation panel
• Different types of information sharing
• No formal input of evaluation of societal aspects on
decision by the board of DHF (despite formal advice)
• Evaluation of the whole process by CWTS
7
9. Overview of calls and EP input
8
Societal aspects in evaluation process Personal Women Congenital CTMM
Information in call text + + + -
Intermediate advice to scientists - + - +
Final advice to scientists + + + -
Advice to ISC as referent - + - -
Advice to ISC in person - - + -
Interaction with EP on same day as ISC + + NA
Interaction with EP on another day as ISC - - + NA
10. Research questions
• Is the EP able to play a role in evaluation of research
proposals, and what kind?
• Is there a difference in focus between ISC and EP?
• How do scientists value the feedback from external
stakeholders?
• Are scientists aware of societal relevance or quality
aspects of their work?
• What do they think about the aim and set up of the DHF?
9
11. Evaluation in practice: triangulation
10
Questionnaire Interview
EP
Societal
ISC
EP
ISC
Interaction
Observation
13. Observations of peer review
• Aim: comparing
distribution of
arguments between
ISC and EP
• 2x ISC and 1x EP
• Session was chaired
• Only arguments were
scored, not final
judgement
12
14. Observations – Scores
• Use of observation score form
• Scoring arguments
– Positive
– Negative
– Person
– Before or after presentation
– Content of remarks
• Counting occurrence of arguments
• Limitation: Validation of scores by independent other;
field knowledge
13
15. Result observation Peer review –
congenital EP vs ISC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
MA1
MA2
MA3
MA4
MA5
WA1
WA2
WA3
WA4
WA5
AP1
AP2
AP3
AP4
CL1
CL2
CL3
CL4
pos voor
pos na
14
EP most used
“Next step” MA3 > positive
“Activity” MA4 > negative
Often in combination with:
“Feasibility” WA4 positive
“Solution” WA2 negative
Negative goes down
AP and CL arguments used
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
MA1
MA2
MA3
MA4
MA5
WA1
WA2
WA3
WA4
WA5
AP1
AP2
AP3
AP4
CL1
CL2
CL3
CL4
pos
neg
ISC most used
“Feasibility” WA4 both in positive and
negative context
All others: very limited
16. Result observation Peer review –
ISC congenital & women
15
Comparison two calls:
Feasibility is dominant argument in discussion
Secondly, the chosen approach (WA2) and workplan (WA5) are
discussed most and it relates to how realistic plan is
Note: ISC has not been asked to discuss societal aspects, and
contribution of EP in person (congenital) has little effect.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
MA1
MA2
MA3
MA4
MA5
WA1
WA2
WA3
WA4
WA5
AP1
AP2
AP3
AP4
CL1
CL2
CL3
CL4
pos
neg
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MA1
MA2
MA3
MA4
MA5
WA1
WA2
WA3
WA4
WA5
AP1
AP2
AP3
AP4
CL1
CL2
CL3
CL4
pos
neg
17. Preliminary conclusion
• EP and ISC use different arguments, where the EP uses
more scientific argumemts than the ISC societal
arguments.
• Suggests that EP has a broader vision compared to ISC
which has little attention for applicant or context related
aspects.
• EP peer review could have added value
16
19. Questionnaire
• Aimed at scientists involved in session with End user
panel (n=20)
• Goal: Establishing perceptions of “societal” and opinion
on capabilities of End User Panel
• Three main questions, worked out through statements to
agree upon (4-point Likert scale)
– Vision of scientists on the concept of societal quality
– Vision of scientists on the role of the End Users and their feedback
– Weighing the contribution of the EP and societal criteria on the outcome
of the evaluation
18
20. 19
Geef bij de stellingen die horen bij onderstaande vraag aan in welke mate u het er mee eens bent (1=
helemaal niet mee eens – 4 is helemaal eens; 1 vakje aankruisen svp)
3. Wat betekent voor u valorisatie en het maatschappelijk nut of de maatschappelijke kwaliteit van
onderzoek?
Stelling: Helemaal
niet mee
eens
Niet
mee
eens
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Ik denk dat het proces van valorisatie, van kennis tot
maatschappelijk nut leidt.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Volgens mij heeft maatschappelijk nut sociale,
economische en culturele elementen.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Ik denk dat maatschappelijk nut vooral over
communicatie met gebruikers gaat.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
De maatschappelijke kwaliteit van onderzoek heeft
denk ik betrekking op het creëren van waarde door de
interactie van een onderzoeksgroep met de
maatschappelijke omgeving (via kennisproductie,
kennisoverdracht en kennisgebruik).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Volgens mij gaat valorisatie van kennis vooral over
economische innovatie.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Ik vind dat maatschappelijke kwaliteit van onderzoek
samenhangt met gerichte activiteiten naar diverse
gebruikers.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Ik denk dat maatschappelijke kwaliteit van onderzoek
onafhankelijk is van de wetenschappelijke kwaliteit en
interactie met medewetenschappers.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Ik denk dat door in een vroeg stadium aandacht te
besteden aan de maatschappelijke kwaliteit van een
onderzoeksvoorstel, de kans groter wordt dat de
resultaten – indien positief - ook sneller op de juiste
plek (de volgende partij in de keten) terecht komen.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Ik vind het van belang dat onderzoekers ook rekening
houden met de context van de verschillende
gebruikers, en hun overdracht van kennis naar die
partijen daarop afstemmen.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Ik vind het terecht dat collectebusfondsen ook
aandacht vragen voor maatschappelijke kwaliteit en
maatschappelijke nut van onderzoek.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
21. Q: What is societal quality?
Yes, agree No, don’t agree
Process of knowledge valorisation leads to
societal benefit.
I think that societal benefit is mainly related to
communication with users.
Societal benefit has social, economic and cultural
aspects
I think that valorisation has mainly to do with
economic innovation (some doubt)
Societal quality of research relates to value
creation through the interaction of the research
group with the societal environment
I think that societal quality of research is
independent of the scientific quality and
interaction with fellow scientists.
Societal quality is related to focused activities
towards diverse users.
Paying attention to societal quality in an early
stage of a research project increases the chance
that results are indeed transferred to the right
actor much quicker.
It is important that scientists take into account the
context of users, and adjust the way they transfer
knowledge to that user.
20
22. Q: Contribution of EP to assessment
Statement All
(median
2)
personal EP
The judgement of my scientific peers on my
proposal is sufficient for me.
2,5 3 2 (2)
I understand that when a proposal is
scientifically ‘state of the art’, it may be
rejected based on insufficient societal
quality.
2,32 1,75 2,63 (3)
I understand that only proposal that have
sufficient societal quality proceed to
scientific evaluation process.
2,21 1,75 2,5 (2)
I think that scientific and societal quality
should count equally
2,18 1,5 2,38 (2)
I find all this attention for societal quality or
benefit unnecessary and too much
1,95 2,75 2,25 (2)
21
23. Preliminary conclusion
• Scientists and EP largely agree on what societal quality is.
• Young researchers have less interest in application of knowledge,
don’t want to pay attention to it in an early stage, and think it has
mainly to do with communication.
• Societal quality cannot be leading in deciding what proposals to fund
(scientists and EP)
• Method wise, also look at distribution of answers since n=low
22
25. Interviews – semi-structured
• N=20
• 3 topics:
– Preparing for the interaction with EP
– The actual interaction with the EP
– Feedback from EP
• Interview usually 30 minutes, after questionnaire
• All comments collected, not counted, broad picture
24
26. Interviews – snapshot of results
25
Presentation
Professionals in
EP
Role in decision
Positive
Next step
Communication
Career/grant
Feedback vague
Not transparent
Personal grants
28. Preliminary conclusion
• The contribution, assessment, and feedback of the EP has
added value, but in general scientists do not hear anything
new. It is a different emphasis.
• Scientsist think that End users have a different view, which is
true in some aspects but not in others.
• Interaction EP with ISC could be valuable
• Young scientists: different approach necessary because of
funding pressure and scientific careers (MM)
• Procedure needs to be transparent
• Feedback from EP more explicit
27
29. Thank you for your attention!
Want to know more.....contact me at
i.meijer@cwts.leidenuniv.nl
28
Editor's Notes
Economic focus, based on knowledge transfer to stakeholders through TTO’s
Availability of data