Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to research management on deped action and basic research
Similar to research management on deped action and basic research (20)
More from beriniaedeno
More from beriniaedeno (6)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
research management on deped action and basic research
- 1. MANAGEMENT RESEARCH GUIDELINES Casablanca Hotel, Legazpi City April 20, 2017
- 2. ACTIVITY OBJECTIVES • Orient the participants on the Research Management Guidelines; • Update participants on the improved grants processes of the BERF; and • Level off mechanisms in managing research initiatives;
- 3. OVERVIEW Research Management Guidelines (RMG) • Legal Basis and Policy Support • Milestones in Research Management in DepEd • Policy Objectives • Research Management Cycle • Fund Sources • Special Provisions
- 4. LEGAL BASIS R.A. 9155 Chapter 1, Section 5: “[DepEd] shall have authority, accountability and responsibility for the following: …5. National educational research and studies.”
- 5. POLICY SUPPORT DO 13, s. 2015 Policy Development Process systematic evidence-based participatory
- 6. DO 39, s. 2016 Basic Education Research Agenda GOVERNANCE TEACHING AND LEARNING CHILD PROTECTION HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POLICY SUPPORT
- 7. GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND MANAGEMENT INCLUSIVE EDUCATION POLICY SUPPORT DO 39, s. 2016 Basic Education Research Agenda
- 8. MILESTONES IN RESEARCH MANAGEMENT MARCH 2010 BERF Guidelines issued (DO 24, s. 2010) 2010
- 9. MILESTONES IN RESEARCH MANAGEMENT JANUARY - DECEMBER • Continuous implementation of BERF • Total Budget: PHP 55,399,232.28 • Only 12% (PHP 6,711,159.00) was used for education research • Most of the funds were reallocated particularly for trainings 2011-2014
- 10. MILESTONES IN RESEARCH MANAGEMENT 2015 JANUARY Establishment of Policy Research and Development Division – Planning Service FEBRUARY - JUNE Consultations and validation for the draft revised guidelines for the BERF SEPTEMBER 2015 Revised BERF Guidelines Issued (DO 43, s. 2015) OCTOBER 2015 BERF downloaded to Regions (PHP 2M) NOVEMBER Regional Orientations on the BERF and Call for Proposals
- 11. MILESTONES IN RESEARCH MANAGEMENT 2016 JANUARY - JUNE • Call for proposals, implementation of other regions • Issuance of Amendment to DO 43 (DO 4, s. 2016) JUNE-JULY • Research agenda issued • Regional Research Caravans • Policy review of BERF Guidelines NOVEMBER • Downloaded 2016 BERF to regions • Research Management Conference
- 12. MILESTONES IN RESEARCH MANAGEMENT 2017 JANUARY Downloaded 2017 BERF to regions MARCH-APRIL • Issuance of the Research Management Guidelines (DO 16, s. 2017) • Regional RMG Orientations • Call for Proposals
- 13. POLICY OBJECTIVES • To provide guidance in managing research initiatives across governance levels; • To improve support mechanisms for research such as funding, partnerships, and capacity building; and • To reinforce the link of research to education processes [policies/programs] through research dissemination, utilization, and advocacy
- 14. EXCELLENCE INTEGRITY OPENNESS • Relevant and researchable • Appropriate research methods • Logical, coherent, and evidence-based findings • High ethical standards • Honest and accurate in the collection, analysis, and reporting of data • Collaborative research work • Multi-disciplinary perspectives • Truthful and timely dissemination of research results GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH (DO 39, s. 2016)
- 17. CO-CHAIR CHAIR Undersecretary Field Operations & Planning Undersecretary Curriculum & Instruction Policy Research and Development Division SECRETARIAT Directors of: Planning Service Bureau of Education Assessment Bureau of Human Resources and Org Dev’t National Educators Academy of the PH Finance Service – Budgeting / Monitoring (Other bureaus/services, by invitation) MEMBERS NATIONAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE
- 18. • Provide guidance re: Research Agenda; • Approve proposals covering all regions or at least 2 regions; • Approve research initiatives and activities; • Forge partnerships; FUNCTIONS OF THE NRC
- 19. • Resolve emerging issues; • Recommend release of research funds; • Keep cost estimates within rules and regulations; and • Provide feedback to Execom re: research initiatives. FUNCTIONS OF THE NRC
- 20. • Organize, coordinate, and document meetings; • Conduct initial screening of submitted proposals; • Aid NRC members in recommending proposals for approval; FUNCTIONS OF THE NRC SECRETARIAT
- 21. • Liaise with academic and research institutions; • Provide TA to researchers; • Prepare staff work as needed. FUNCTIONS OF THE NRC SECRETARIAT
- 22. CO-CHAIR REGIONAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE Assistant Regional Director CHAIR Chief, Policy, Planning, & Research Division Policy, Planning, & Research Division SECRETARIAT Chiefs of: Curriculum and Learning Mg’t Division Education Support Services Division Human Resource Development Division Quality Assurance Division Field Technical Assistance Division Finance Division (By invitation) Legal Office or focal person MEMBERS
- 23. FUNCTIONS OF THE RRC • Guidance re: Research Agenda; • Approve proposals covering the region or at least 2 divisions; • Confirm/approve research initiatives and activities from the RO and DOs; • Forge partnerships;
- 24. • Resolve emerging issues; • Recommend research fund release; • Keep cost estimates within regulation; • Provide feedback to Execom re: research • Endorse proposals to NRC. FUNCTIONS OF THE RRC
- 25. FUNCTIONS OF THE RRC SECRETARIAT • Organize, coordinate, document meetings; • Conduct initial screening; • Aid RRC members in recommending proposals for approval; • Liaise with academic and research institutions;
- 26. FUNCTIONS OF THE RRC SECRETARIAT • Conduct periodic monitoring of research; • Provide TA to researchers; • Prepare accomplishment report on regional research initiatives and fund utilization; • Prepare staff work as needed.
- 27. CO-CHAIRS SCHOOLS DIVISION RESEARCH COMMITEE CHAIR Chiefs, SGOD and CID Schools Governance and Operations Div. SECRETARIAT SEPS, Planning & Research CID representative based on req’ts for evaluation Representative from Finance Unit (By invitation) Concerned focal person MEMBERS Assistant Schools Division Superintendent
- 28. FUNCTIONS OF THE SDRC • Provide guidance re: Research Agenda; • Approve proposals from schools and CLCs; • Evaluate & approve research initiatives and activities; • Forge partnerships;
- 29. FUNCTIONS OF THE SDRC • Prepare report re: research for RRC; • Resolve emerging issues; • Keep cost estimates within accounting rules & regulations; & • Endorse school-level proposals to RO.
- 30. FUNCTIONS OF THE SDRC SECRETARIAT • Organize, coordinate, document meetings; • Conduct initial screening; • Aid SDC members in recommending proposals for approval; • Liaise with academic and research institutions;
- 31. FUNCTIONS OF THE SDRC SECRETARIAT • Conduct periodic monitoring of research in schools and CLCs; • Provide TA to researchers; • Prepare accomplishment reports on division research; and • Prepare staff work as needed.
- 33. CALL FOR PROPOSALS INITIAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE EVALUATION RESULTS NOTIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION SUBMISSION & ACCEPTANCE UTILIZATION & DISSEMINATION ARCHIVAL RESEARCH MANAGEMENT CYCLE
- 34. CALL FOR PROPOSALS RESEARCH MANAGEMENT CYCLE
- 35. CALL FOR PROPOSALS At least once a year One month to submit In soft or hard copies Complete req’ts.
- 36. - Application form - Research proposal - Anti-plagiarism and conflict of interest declaration Submit:
- 38. Secretariat: Conduct initial screening. Return proposals that do not fulfill requirements.
- 39. Proposals for return: • Lack documentary req’ts; • With Conflict of Interest; • Failure to conform to research ethics;
- 40. Proposals for return (cont’d): • Exceed maximum grant w/o cost-sharing arrangements; • Non-alignment with Research Agendas; • Cost estimates violate accounting rules and regulations.
- 42. Use the appropriate rubrics for appraising research proposals.
- 43. The passing rate for proposals is %
- 44. CALL FOR PROPOSALS INITIAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE EVALUATION RESULTS NOTIFICATION RESEARCH MANAGEMENT CYCLE
- 45. For successful proponents: orientation Letter in Annex 5.a For unsuccessful proponents: TA and encouragement to resubmit Letter in Annex 5.b
- 47. Monitoring research is the responsibility of all governance levels.
- 48. Write the relevant Committee in case of planned deviations Valid reasons for extension: - Illness - Disasters - Other extenuating circumstances (per committee decision)
- 49. Only one may be granted… …And only up to a year! EXTENSIONS
- 50. CALL FOR PROPOSALS INITIAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE EVALUATION RESULTS NOTIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION SUBMISSION & ACCEPTANCE RESEARCH MANAGEMENT CYCLE
- 51. Executive datasets Final outputs (hard and soft copies) SUBMIT
- 52. UTILIZATION & DISSEMINATION CALL FOR PROPOSALS INITIAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE EVALUATION RESULTS NOTIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION SUBMISSION & ACCEPTANCE RESEARCH MANAGEMENT CYCLE
- 53. • • •
- 54. Policies Frameworks Programs Projects Plans Training IMs USE EVIDENCE IN DEVELOPING:
- 55. • • •
- 56. • • •
- 57. CALL FOR PROPOSALS INITIAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE EVALUATION RESULTS NOTIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION SUBMISSION & ACCEPTANCE UTILIZATION & DISSEMINATION ARCHIVAL RESEARCH MANAGEMENT CYCLE
- 58. Completed research and data sets will be archived. Conduct M&E for the entire cycle.
- 59. FUND SOURCES
- 60. USE BERF FOR:
- 64. Allowable expenses (research implementation) Supplies & Materials Domestic travel Communication Reproduction / Printing / Binding Food / other research expenses Other expenses not in non- eligible exp.
- 65. Equipment Software Payment for Resource Persons Utilities Office rental Overseas travel / expenses not in proposal Non- eligible Items
- 66. • • • SCOPE AND ALLOCATION OF PROPOSALS
- 67. • • •
- 68. • • •
- 69. • • •
- 70. % RO research support funds USE THE for capacity building and local dissemination of research results.
- 71. • • • •
- 72. • •
- 74. Scope Tranche Percentage Deliverables & Doc. Req’ts. National First Tranche (Mobilization Fund) 40% • Inception Report • Data collection instruments • Certificate of Acceptance (deliverables) • Copy of MOA Second Tranche 40% • Data collection activities • Data analysis • Initial findings • Certificate of Acceptance (deliverables) • Copy of MOA Last Tranche 20% • Final report • Certificate of Acceptance from the National Research Committee • Copy of MOA
- 75. Scope Tranche Percentage Deliverables & Doc. Req’ts. Region / Division First Tranche (Mobilization Fund) 40% Inception Report / Work Plan Data collection instruments Certificate of Acceptance Copy of MOA Second Tranche 40% Data collection activities Data analysis Initial Certificate of Acceptance Copy of MOA Last Tranche 20% Final report Certificate of Acceptance from the National or Regional Research Committees Copy of MOA
- 76. Scope Tranche Percentage Deliverables & Doc. Req’ts. Schools / CLCs First Tranche 80% Work Plan Certificate of Acceptance Copy of MOA Last Tranche 20% Final report Certificate of Acceptance from the National or Regional Research Committees Copy of MOA
- 79. %
- 82. Sign a MOA among all parties in the research project. Appearances may be charged to research budget.
- 83. Sole author/s: Grantee/s Owner for BERF-funded studies: Authors & DepEd
- 86. Researchers shall refer to the:
- 87. Observe:
- 88. • Original • With proper referencing and citation Works should be:
- 91. • • • • •
- 92. • • • •
- 95. THANK YOU! Planning Service – Policy Research and Development Division 2/F Alonzo Building, DepEd Complex, Pasig City ps.prd@deped.gov.ph (02) 635-3976
Editor's Notes
- Q: In cases of unavailability of the chiefs, can we assign alternates? A: You may designate but our alternates must also have permanency. Because it’s continuing work, we need to shepherd continuity in the round. Q: Our committees have members other than those provided in the policy. Is that okay? A: Yes. The policy is not meant to disrupt your current structures. We recognize that you have structures set up in response to the previous guidelines. The policy only sets the minimum members. Q: We are not yet aligned with the rationalized structure of the Central Office. In our present structure, only four will be part of the RMC as we don’t have FTAD and ESSD. Is that okay? A: We may add members by invitation. The policy institutionalized what was true for many regions. Q: If we do not have an ARD/ASDS, who will be the RRC and SDRC Chair, respectively? A: It is the prerogative of your executive to assign the temporary chair of the committee. Q: Are the members for invitation those from the offices related to the topic of the research proposal? A: Yes. We want to maximize everyone’s efforts. Let us invite those people who can really contribute. Q: Will the functions of the RRC and SDRC be reflected in the OPCRF and IPCRF so that the committee members will take it seriously? A: We will discuss the concern with BHROD. Q: There are clamors from chiefs of other functional division to recognize their contributions in the committees. Can we recognize them. A: We may give certificates in recognition of their contributions. Q: Does the committee’s decision on the evaluation of research proposals limited to either Pass or Fail? A: Yes. The screening committee has the crucial work of providing initial technical assistance to researchers which will facilitate faster evaluation. Check the work plan and cost estimates as these can be easily adjusted by the researchers.
- Q: Can we identify the chair in the RRC Secretariat? The research coordinator, with the majority of the responsibilities on research management under him, can be the chair with the other PPRD staff as members. A: Let us not confuse the responsibilities of the PRD/PPRD with those of the research committee secretariats. Many of us have the tendency to mix the responsibilities of these two bodies. For instance, the PRD is the NRC secretariat, but we also have the mandate of research management. The oversight of research management structures and capacity building are undertaken by the PRD and not the secretariat. The latter only has the responsibility to approve research proposals. As the PRD counterpart, the PPRD also has research management as a KRA. During the development of the RMG, there was a suggestion to create a subcommittee. However, it adding more layers in the organization makes it more complicated. Nevertheless, the policy provides for the creation of TWG to assist in evaluating research proposals. Q: Are the members of the TWG from the PPRD only or we can invite members from functional division? A: It is the prerogative of the region if you will involve the functional divisions or not. Q: the RRC secretariat will provide technical assistance. Is it okay if the TWG will undertake this function because they have the technical knowhow. A: All may provide technical assistance. We did not limit the tasks to certain groups. The principle that we follow is that the committees and secretariat have the technical know-how to support research management.
- Q: Can we possibly include ethical consideration as part of the functions of the SRDC? It will be more objective if the committee will certify that there is no ethical violation than the declaration. I think it should be the committee on the division level. A: During the application, the proponent will be required to submit an anti-plagiarism and no conflict of interest declaration but the committee would need to double check. We cannot take the declaration as it is. Q: Will only the research proposals approved by the SDRC be endorsed to the RRC? A: All the approved research proposals will be endorsed for the confirmation of the RRC.
- Q: Does the SDRC take the role of the principal/school head in supervising the teacher-researcher in the latter’s research? Would the SDRC stand between the teacher-researcher and school head? A: The supervisory role of the school head remains. He/she will provide the direction of the research. The SDRC will provide TA once the research proposal is approved. Q: Once we have the SDRC, will the Schools Division provide the funds for approved research proposals? A: The BERF is downloaded to the ROs and not SDOs. Hence, there is no fund in the SDO unless the research will be funded by the SEF. However, SDOs shall inform the RO if research initiatives will be funded by other fund sources for the latter to adjust the BERF’s utilization.
- Q: Does the policy ensure that the proponents will be informed of the reasons why their proposals fail? A: The new policy introduces the provision of TA starting on the evaluation of the proposal. We cannot return research proposals without inputs as this would be discouraging for our researchers. Presently, we are trying to encourage as many researchers as we can.
- Q: On Can we have guidelines on how to organize policy forums and conferences. A: We have plans to issue protocols for the conduct of research conference. We also have plans to issue protocols for the conduct of policy dialogue to discuss certain issues.
- Q: Is there any provision in the access of research readily available for dissemination? A: Right now, we are talking with ICTS to come up with an online portal of research that can be accessed even by the public and other agencies.
- Talking Points If in a team, the lead proponent will be appointed to liaise with the secretariat on admin and financial matters Q: As the BERF is only for DepEd personnel, is it okay for a DepEd researcher to partner with a non-DepEd personnel for a research utilizing the BERF? A: We have provisions for cost-sharing. Let us specify how much will be covered by BERF and other fund sources. Q: Can SHS teachers on provisionary status conduct research studies? A: Yes, but not funded by BERF as only those in permanent / regular status are eligible to apply for the fund. There are responsibilities related to research that cannot be assumed by COS/JO personnel given the nature of their engagement. Q: Is it possible for teachers in higher education to apply for BERF? A: Only DepEd personnel can avail the BERF. Q: Can a teacher from a small private school apply for BERF? A: No, but the PEAC manages a separate fund for research for GASTPE implementing schools.
- Q: Do we have limit on communication expenses? A: Communication allowance is load allowance. There is no prescribed limits but it depends on the requirements of research.
- Q: Can we provide funds peer review and hiring of statisticians? A: We were not able to secure approval of peer review and hiring of statisticians as part of the eligible expense of the proponent. However, such can be funded as a support mechanisms of the RO. Q: There are researchers who want to buy printer instead of printing them out house as the former is more economical. Is this an eligible expense? A: No. As per COA guidelines, equipment are ineligible expenses. We are bounded by oversight agencies. We have limitations. The COA does not allow the purchase of equipment.
- Talking Points Proposal must be in line with BE Research Agenda (DO 39, s. 2016) or it not, it must be a priority in the region, schools division or school. Schools, SD and R may submit nation-wide proposal but the conduct of research must not affect their other tasks
- Q: Is the funding for action research in the RO level in conflict with the provision of Php150,000.00 for region-wide research proposals? A: All action research, regardless of its governance level, may only avail of a maximum amount of P30,000.
- Q: Can a personnel in the SDO submit a region-wide proposal? A: Yes, but we encourage our personnel in the supervisory level to conduct more strategic research studies.
- Q: How do we encourage our school heads and teachers to conduct research considering they have other priorities? A: We do not have cash incentives but there are merits in doing research. Teachers become authors and they can use their research for promotion. In the long run, we want to set up incentive mechanisms. Q: Can action research tests two or more research strategies to know which is most effective in addressing the problem/concern? A: Yes, as long as the research strategies are already identified. Q: Does a preliminary study on the proposed intervention of the action research required? A: Yes as we already have an identified intervention in action research. Although the literature review is not part of action research, researchers still need to read relevant references for their intervention.
- Q: Can the communication of research coordinators be funded under the 25%? A: Yes, but let us put the expense in the WFP. Q: Can notarial expenses be covered by the BERF? Can it be covered by the grant? A: All MOA should be notarized. You can get that in the 25%. However, if you will put that under the expense of the proponent, you have to set a limitation on the amount
- Q: Is honorarium for resource speaker in research proponent an eligible expense? A: Yes, since it is on dissemination.
- Talking Points This means that the release of funds is determined by the submission and acceptance of grantee’s deliverables (1) submission of deliverables to Research Committee (2) submission of deliverables to Budget and Accounting (3) approved amount released to grantee (4) secretariat will inform the grantee
- Q: The policy does not have provisions on liquidation. How can we track liquidation documentation? A: BERF is output based. the provisions for eligible expenses are for planning processes of the proponents. We emphasize that cost estimates should be within accounting rules. We will be questioned if we will not put eligible and ineligible expenses. We will check how the money is spent during the evaluation. Q: What if the tranche is more than actual expenditure? A: We do not change the total amount. We just reimburse the researchers. In our previous guidelines, the first tranche is 20% which is often insufficient to fund the expenses of the grantees. Hence, we increased it to 40%. Q: Do we have templates for cost estimates and work plan? A: None. The work plan is only a Gantt Chart detailing the activities in the implementation of the research. On the other hand, the cost estimates enumerate the proposed items and their corresponding cost which are necessary to conduct the research. However, it is the prerogative of the RO or DO if they want to come up with templates for these.
- Q: Should action research be restricted for teachers? A: Under the RMG, offices may conduct action research. In light of the implementation of the rationalization plan, we thought that offices might need to conduct action research in order to assess their functions and systems. The matter of credit for action research towards hiring and promotion is something that we are aware of, and will brought up with BHROD.
- Q: When can a research be funded under the SEF? Accountants often have different interpretations on the use of other fund sources. A: The local school boards decide on the use of SEF. The screening for research proposals can follow the process in the RMG while the usual government auditing and accounting rules and regulations will be followed. Q: If they are not applying for grant, can researchers seek the endorsement or approval of the Research Committee? A: Yes, the research committees can evaluate proposals which are not for funding of the BERF. Q: Need all research studies, which will be credited for points in promotion, pass the evaluation of the committee in order to ascertain their validity and reliability? A: It is the prerogative of your RO/DO. In the national level, we have to consult BHROD on this.
- Q: What will be the sanctions if researchers failed to present their research without permission? A: For firth time offense, a warning will be given, 2nd time: There should be a mechanism to set up accountability
- There should be an emphasis on the confidentiality of respondents Q: Can issues of plagiarism and forging be given more emphasis? A: It was consulted in the Legal Division. Researchers who committed plagiarism will be blacklisted. This will also be considered under the Copy Right Law since there is no existing policy on Plagiarism. However, there is still a need to lobby measures to address serious offenses. Q: Not all research instruments can be administered by teachers; some instrument needs duly licensed personnel for administration. A: Adoption of research tools will be linked with comprehensive guidelines on ethics.
- Q: Will research extension be allowed? A: Extension is allowed, provided however that the researcher will finish the research on the given timeline. Q: On the financial side, will there be any interest if research fund is returned? A: There is no interest. It will not go beyond the amount received by the researcher.
- Q: Will you provide the format for MOA on partnerships? A: We will issue a sample template in the future. Q: On partnership: Nothing is articulated pertains to research fund under the SEF. In the new Joint Memorandum, why not fund support from the local government? A: It is possible to utilize SEF. Just to support that, page 15 section 4.1 of Joint Memorandum 1, s. 2015 has provision on partnering with LGU to support research. There is a need to strengthen advocacy in terms of representation. Try to look at why LGUs prefer spending on sport and how to make research look at that way and how it can be popularized in the external stakeholders. Q: There should be a clear definition and provision of Capacity building in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to be able to help the teachers/researchers in the conduct of their research. A: Everything must be contextualized. When engaging partners in terms of capacity building, all objectives should be made clear.
- Q: Is there an existing M&E tool to be used by Regional Offices for monitoring of research? A: There is a tracking form presented yesterday. Also, everyone is encouraged to develop their own monitoring tool. The DepEd CO may provide technical assistance in the crafting of M&E tool.