Scientific Research Collaboration during a Special Historical Period

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 604-609
Author(s):  
M. Koshueva

The article is devoted to the manuscript of Kasym Tynystanov dictionaries, as the founder of Kyrgyz lexicography, which date back to 1937 and his contribution to the history of the literary language. The necessity of scientific research of K. Tynystanov dictionaries (relating to various branches of science) stored in archives is noted. The study of the lexical richness of the Kyrgyz language is important in determining its place among the Turkic languages. Manuscripts are also a reflection of the economic and cultural development of the country in the historical period.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. 68
Author(s):  
Xiangjin Xiao ◽  
Manoch Prompanyo

Collaboration in science is a complex phenomenon that affects scientific performance in various ways. Thus, understanding the influences of the research collaboration network is important for researchers. This paper explores the relationship between research collaboration network structural and scientific research performance and conducts an empirical test with data from 416 scholars. Findings revealed that network stability reduces the scholars' research performance, and network centrality promotes research performance. The network structural holes that the scholar spans, moderate the detrimental effects of network stability. This research provides suggestions for scholars to build a reasonable scientific research collaboration network to improve their research performance.


2021 ◽  
pp. 218-225
Author(s):  
V. O. V. O.

The article discusses the problematic issues of the historical preconditions for the formation of the system of criminalistics knowledge. Analyzed the scientific works of scientists and practitioners of law enforcement agencies regarding the system of criminalistics knowledge and criminalistics science. The importance of taking into account the historical period regarding the formation of the structure and system of criminalistics knowledge is emphasized. Systematization of criminalistics knowledge took place in several stages. Thus, one of the first to summarize and classify criminalistics knowledge was Hans Gross. Similarly, SM Tregubov and RA Reiss attempted to form a system of criminalistics knowledge in their scientific works. A. I. Vinberg and B. M. Shaver in their work argued for the need to distinguish in criminalistics science of the general and special part. In certain historical periods, different views were proposed on the formation of a system of criminalistics knowledge, which is associated with the historical development of society at that time, the state of scientific research on the detection, detection and investigation of criminal offenses. Depending on the historical stages, practitioners and scientists offered their own system of criminalistics knowledge and criminalistic science.


2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll ◽  
Maui Hudson ◽  
Jeff Foote ◽  
Maria Hepi ◽  
Marara Rogers-Koroheke ◽  
...  

The phrase ‘for Māori, by Māori, with Māori’, synonymous with Kaupapa Māori research, reflects the strong community participatory orientation and aims of this paradigm. Its use has evolved from glib reference and catchphrase, to a ‘checklist'/gauge of how well a research project has enacted community participatory principles, and to what extent Māori participation in the research process is meaningful and empowered. Description of research according to this ‘shorthand’ definition, however, can be misleading. This paper will discuss two models of collaborative scientific research, conducted at the Institute of Environmental Health and Research (ESR) in association with Māori communities, ‘for, by and with Māori’. However, Te Riu o Hokianga and the Rakaipaaka Health and Ancestry Study occupy opposite ends of the shared partnership – researcher-led spectrum, and differ quite significantly in their orientation, application of Māori research principles, and approach to achievement of their objectives. If the ‘for, by and with’ mantra does not in itself sufficiently guarantee alignment with Kaupapa Māori principles, what other mechanisms exist to ensure that this is so? Is articulating the degree of Māori responsiveness for funding and ethics proposals adequate? Where these judgements are largely subjective, who decides when a research project ‘measures up’: Kaupapa Māori researchers, participating Māori communities, funders, or perhaps ethics committees? The importance of Māori-focused innovation, development and advancement in research has been indicated within Vote RS&T policy and incorporated into funding/investment opportunities within an existing framework that values research excellence and a track record. Ensuring that research excellence as defined and purchased translates into excellence in practice is one issue. A further and equally important issue is whether the measures and means of achieving excellence therein translate into excellence for research practice with Māori communities. In the context of conducting research with Māori within a Crown Research Institute, a third issue emerges: that of the alignment (or not) of science excellence indicators and outcomes with those of Māori research excellence. With reference to two examples of science research collaboration with Māori communities, these three key issues will be considered, with inference for Māori research excellence and future directions in collaborative scientific research.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-45
Author(s):  
Katharine A. Anderson ◽  
Seth Richards-Shubik

Abstract This paper studies productivity and preferences in scientific research. Collaboration is increasingly important for innovation in science, and other domains, but we have limited understanding of the factors researchers use to choose their collaborators and the projects they work on. Here, we use a model of strategic network formation and a recently developed econometric method to examine this question in the context of economics researchers. We learn that research teams with more collaborators tend to produce papers with higher impact, without increasing individual costs of communication and coordination. This suggests the trend toward larger research teams in economics will continue.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document