External Research Funding Sources for Graduate Students

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nisha Gottfredson
2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Behnke ◽  
Laura McConnell ◽  
Chris Ober

Within a changing research world, international collaboration has become even more important in achieving scientific success. Given the increased need and desire for multinational research, the actors are forced to identify appropriate funding sources. Whereas, science knows no international boundaries, support for scientific research, including in chemical sciences, is mostly provided by the national funding organizations. This is particularly true for the chemical sciences, where most research projects are relatively small in size and with respect to the number of involved PIs. Traditionally, national organizations are reluctant to provide funds to non-domestic researchers, and in practice, funding truly international research projects can be a real challenge for a variety of technical and bureaucratic reasons. In an effort to change this, an international Committee on Chemistry Research Funding (CCRF)—backed by several leading funding organizations—was established by IUPAC in December 2007 to promote increased international collaboration and networking in the global chemistry community. The following report gives a short overview on the history of IUPAC’s involvement in service for chemistry research funding and on the most recent developments.


2017 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianping Li ◽  
Yongjia Xie ◽  
Dengsheng Wu ◽  
Yuanping Chen

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Gross ◽  
Gavin T. Reed ◽  
Rachel Engelmann ◽  
John R. W. Kestle

Object Funding of hydrocephalus research is important to the advancement of the field. The goal of this paper is to describe the funding of hydrocephalus research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over a recent 10-year period. Methods The NIH online database RePORT (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools) was searched using the key word “hydrocephalus.” Studies were sorted by relevance to hydrocephalus. The authors analyzed funding by institute, grant type, and scientific approach over time. Results Over $54 million was awarded to 59 grantees for 66 unique hydrocephalus proposals from 48 institutions from 2002 to 2011. The largest sources of funding were the National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Of the total, $22 million went to clinical trials, $15 million to basic science, and $10 million to joint ventures with small business (Small Business Innovation Research or Small Business Technology Transfer). Annual funding varied from $2.3 to $8.1 million and steadily increased in the second half of the observation period. The number of new grants also went from 15 in the first 5 years to 27 in the second 5 years. A large portion of the funding has been for clinical trials. Funding for shunt-device development grew substantially. Support for training of hydrocephalus investigators has been low. Conclusions Hydrocephalus research funding is low compared with that for other conditions of similar health care burden. In addition to NIH applications, researchers should pursue other funding sources. Small business collaborations appear to present an opportunity for appropriate projects.


2017 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie Forbes ◽  
Gina Schlesselman-Tarango ◽  
Peggy Keeran

This case study describes the development, implementation, and assessment of a series of grants research workshops for graduate students, which were implemented to fill a gap in graduate student support. We assessed the workshops through a series of focus groups, and findings show overall satisfaction with the grants tools and workshop. However, participants noted areas of improvement around outreach and promotion and general communication with graduate students. Additional themes emerged related to graduate student socialization and research behaviors, which suggests that librarians have an important role to serve in these areas.


Author(s):  
Patricia Sheridan ◽  
Jillian Seniuk Cicek ◽  
Liz Kuley ◽  
Robyn Mae Paul

 Abstract – Four Canadian Engineering Education graduate students from the Universities of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Toronto, and Calgary are conducting a national mixed-methods research study to characterize the identity of graduate students studying engineering education in Canada. The first phase of this study comprised of the dissemination of a survey designed using McAlpine’s Identity-Trajectory framework to explore whom our engineering education graduate students are, how our graduate studies are manifest in this field, and how our academic identities are formed through the construction of our unique intellectual, institutional, and networking experiences. This paper presents select findings and descriptive analyses from these survey data. Findings show that participants in our study predominantly identify as female, come from engineering backgrounds, are over-stretched in terms of commitments, need better access to research funding and peer communities, actively present at conferences, and are sufficiently supported by their institutions and supervisors to feel that they can conduct quality research in engineering education. Noteworthy, is that the gender demographic in our study participants, which is predominantly female, is in contrast to the minority female demographic found in engineering graduate studies. Significantly, findings suggest that graduate students pursuing degrees in engineering education may be guided by a potentially unconscious positivistic approach to their research.


AORN Journal ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 462-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne C. Beyea ◽  
Leslie H. Nicoll

2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (01) ◽  
pp. 43-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Lake

Political science as a discipline lacks any convention on the order in which authors should be listed in co-authored publications. As a result, the order of authors' surnames currently provides no information to other scholars, hiring and promotion committees, and other reviewers about the relative contributions of each collaborator. This lack of information impedes the allocation of proper credit for scholarly contributions. Moreover, in collaborations between junior and senior colleagues, or other asymmetric status hierarchies, the absence of both information and any convention tends to favor more established scholars; this makes it more difficult for graduate students, untenured professors, and other vulnerable co-authors to negotiate for and receive appropriate credit. Listing authors by relative contribution is both more informative and fair. In publications where one author provides the necessary research funding, or a faculty member is not only a co-author but also a dissertation or other academic advisor, it is also appropriate to designate that collaborator as “last” or “senior author.” In all cases, articles should carry a short statement indicating the division of labor between the co-authors, even or especially if the contributions are equal.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document