Delivering Covid‐19 research during the UK pandemic: Experiences of a local research taskforce

The policy worker and the professor: understanding how New Zealand policy workers utilise academic research

Policy Quarterly ◽

10.26686/pq.v11i3.4546 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Karl Lofgren ◽

Dona Cavagnoli

Keyword(s):

New Zealand ◽

Advisory Committee ◽

Academic Research ◽

Science Advisory ◽

Everyday Work ◽

The Uk ◽

Science Advisory Committee ◽

Local Research

How do policy workers actually use academic research and advice? While there are several recent studies regarding this question from other Westminster jurisdictions (e.g. Talbot and Talbot, 2014, for the UK; Head et al., 2014, for Australia; Amara, Ouimet and Landry, 2004 and Ouimet et al., 2010, Canada), similar academic studies have been rare in New Zealand. So far, most of the local research in this field has been conducted by the prime minister’s chief science advisor and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee, with the particular instrumental purpose of improving the government’s ministries and agencies’ ‘use of evidence in both the formation and evaluation of policy’. However, none of these studies have asked how, and to what extent, policy workers in government are utilising academic research in their everyday work.

Download Full-text

The 2014 DAF Survey at the University of Sheffield

International Journal of Digital Curation ◽

10.2218/ijdc.v10i1.362 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. 210-229 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Andrew Cox ◽

Laurian Williamson

Keyword(s):

Data Sharing ◽

Target Population ◽

Research Data ◽

Management Policy ◽

Research Data Management ◽

Data Practices ◽

Positive Attitudes ◽

The Uk ◽

The University ◽

Local Research

The Data Asset Framework methodology has evolved to provide a model for institutional surveys of researchers’ data practices and attitudes. At least 13 such studies have been published in the UK and internationally. The aim of this paper is to analyse the results from the 2014 DAF survey at the University of Sheffield and to reflect on the comparability of this with previous published studies. 432 researchers responded to the survey representing 8% of the target population. Researchers at Sheffield collect multiple types of data and a significant number have accumulated very large amounts of data. Data was backed up on a diverse basis. Only 25% of respondents had a DMP. Eighteen months after its creation most respondents were still not aware of the local research data management policy. Fortunately, most respondents were favourable to the idea of training in many aspects of RDM. Researchers had generally had no experience of sharing data, but attitudes were positive, both in terms of a significant minority seeing a lack of data sharing as an obstacle to the progress of research and also desire to reuse the data of others and share their own with a broad group of researchers. Comparison of the Sheffield results with those of other institutions is difficult particularly because of the divergence of questions asked in the different studies. Nevertheless, in terms of data practices and identifying training priorities there are common patterns. This institutional survey showed less positive attitudes to data sharing than the results of cross-institutional studies, such as conducted by Tenopir et al. (2011).

Download Full-text

Research approvals iceberg: helping it melt away

BMC Medical Ethics ◽

10.1186/s12910-019-0434-2 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Simon E. Kolstoe ◽

David Carpenter

Keyword(s):

Clinical Research ◽

Research Ethics ◽

Health Research ◽

Ethics Committees ◽

Research Network ◽

Regulatory Environment ◽

Research Ethics Committees ◽

The Uk ◽

Governance Processes ◽

Local Research

Abstract Background In their paper “Research approvals iceberg: how a ‘low-key’ study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better” Petrova and Barclay highlight concerns with the health research regulatory environment in the UK. Discussion As long-standing chairs of NHS research ethics committees, researchers, and also academics in research ethics, we are also often frustrated with the regulatory process in the UK. However, we think that Petrova and Barclay’s analysis is misleading because it conflates research ethics with governance and funding processes, thus failing to adequately distinguish between the national coordinating function of the Health Research Authority, local research governance processes, and interactions with research sponsors and/or the Clinical Research Network.

Download Full-text