scholarly journals SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 47-57
Author(s):  
Jorge Daher Nader ◽  
Amelia Patricia Panunzio ◽  
Marlene Hernández Navarro
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Management ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
University Management ◽  
Practice Of Teaching ◽  
Low Motivation

Research management is conceptualized as the institutional activity oriented to the search, study, knowledge of reality, systematization of this knowledge and its transfer to satisfy needs and contribute to solving the problems of society. The results obtained in this article about scientific research, seem to be common to the scope of this research; What is clear is that the low motivation of teachers for research constitutes a common denominator in the universities of Ecuador, which, in the opinion of the author, can be increased if the management of the research process favors the institutional, administrative, curricular conditions that articulate the practice of teaching with research practice.

PROMOTE OUTSTANDING FOREIGN-RELATED LEGAL TALENTS TRAINING THROUGH THE PRACTICE MANAGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 49-53
Author(s):  
ZHANG ZHENGYI ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Economic Integration ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Law Students ◽  
Research Management ◽  
Practice Management ◽  
Teaching Management ◽  
Centralized Management ◽  
Autonomous Management

With the advancement of world globalization and economic integration, the demand for outstanding foreign-related legal talents is increasing. After years of practice, Shanghai University of Political Science and Law has emerged in a number of international competitions and formed a unique management system for training foreign-related legal talents. The practice management of international moot competition includes centralized management, teaching management, scientific research management and autonomous management. The mutual coordination of the above management methods can effectively improve the ability of law students to analyze and solve problems, help them better adapt to the international practice environment in advance, and provide a replicable and popularized mode for long-term cultivation of outstanding foreign-related legal talents.

scholarly journals Is Banning Significance Testing the Best Way to Improve Applied Social Science Research? – Questions on

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 95-105
Author(s):  
Thees F Spreckelsen ◽  
Mariska Van Der Horst
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Significance Testing ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Applied Social Science

Significance testing is widely used in social science research. It has long been criticised on statistical grounds and problems in the research practice. This paper is an applied researchers’ response to Gorard's (2016) ‘Damaging real lives through obstinacy: re-emphasising why significance testing is wrong’ in Sociological Research Online 21(1). He participates in this debate concluding from the issues raised that the use and teaching of significance testing should cease immediately. In that, he goes beyond a mere ban of significance testing, but claims that researchers still doing this are being unethical. We argue that his attack on applied scientists is unlikely to improve social science research and we believe he does not sufficiently prove his claims. In particular we are concerned that with a narrow focus on statistical significance, Gorard misses alternative, if not more important, explanations for the often-lamented problems in social science research. Instead, we argue that it is important to take into account the full research process, not just the step of data analysis, to get a better idea of the best evidence regarding a hypothesis.

DEVELOPING INFORMATION SYSTEM OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH MANAGEMENT IN HEALTH SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 11-11
Author(s):  
G.S. Lebedev ◽  
◽  
O.B. Krylov ◽  
A.I. Leljakov ◽  
V.V. Tkachenko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Information System ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Management ◽  
Scientific Institutions

Introduction: Psychiatric Research and Extraordinary Science

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Research ◽  
Psychiatric Research ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Current Crisis ◽  
The Core ◽  
Research Programs ◽  
Research Domain

This chapter introduces the core thematic ideas of the present volume: that psychiatric research is in crisis, that it has entered a period of extraordinary science, and that a fully adequate response to the crisis should be responsive to the perspectives and interests of persons. We identify various sources of the crisis, drawing special attention to controversies concerning the role of the DSM in psychiatric research. And, we identify different strategies of response to the current crisis, including approaches that emphasize the importance of personal perspectives and the needs of the clinic and those that emphasize the important role of various scientific research programs. Further, we survey various developments (e.g., debates over fundamentals and a role for philosophical analysis, probing of the problems of the DSM framework, relaxation of standard forms of research practice, the introduction of the Research Domain Criteria initiative and other novel research programs) that are jointly suggestive of Thomas Kuhn’s characterization of periods of crisis that can arise in scientific research and of the “extraordinary science” that ensues. We suggest that this Kuhnian framework is useful for understanding the state of psychiatric research and it provides a framework for thinking about responses to the current crisis. We conclude with brief overviews of the contributions to the volume, each of which provides such a response.

scholarly journals Frauds in scientific research and how to possibly overcome them

2020 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-106639
Author(s):  
Erik Boetto ◽  
Davide Golinelli ◽  
Gherardo Carullo ◽  
Maria Pia Fantini
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
Past History ◽  
Current System ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
Trust System ◽  
History Of ◽  
Journal Policies

Frauds and misconduct have been common in the history of science. Recent events connected to the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted how the risks and consequences of this are no longer acceptable. Two papers, addressing the treatment of COVID-19, have been published in two of the most prestigious medical journals; the authors declared to have analysed electronic health records from a private corporation, which apparently collected data of tens of thousands of patients, coming from hundreds of hospitals. Both papers have been retracted a few weeks later. When such events happen, the confidence of the population in scientific research is likely to be weakened. This paper highlights how the current system endangers the reliability of scientific research, and the very foundations of the trust system on which modern healthcare is based. Having shed light on the dangers of a system without appropriate monitoring, the proposed analysis suggests to strengthen the existing journal policies and improve the research process using new technologies supporting control activities by public authorities. Among these solutions, we mention the promising aspects of the blockchain technology which seems a promising solution to avoid the repetition of the mistakes linked to the recent and past history of research.

scholarly journals Co-Creation in participatory epidemiology

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Bach ◽  
C Santos-Hövener ◽  
S Jordan
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Health Administration ◽  
Multiple Perspectives ◽  
Research Partnerships ◽  
Participatory Epidemiology ◽  
Epidemiologic Evidence

Abstract Background Participatory epidemiology aims to involve public health professionals, health activists, and community representatives in epidemiological studies. Paramount are equitable research partnerships for identifying the causes of health problems, generating data, and finding ways to address health related issues. Alongside the research process, co-creation informs various aspects of participatory epidemiology. Methods A scoping review was conducted to develop the conceptual foundations of participatory epidemiology. Workshops with staff from public health administration and public health practitioners were held to check feasibility of the concept for public health monitoring, policy making and the development of relevant public health recommendations. From this research, principles and practices of co-creation were identified. Results Co-creation is of importance for participatory epidemiology. 1) Methodologically: Co-creation asks to apply multiple perspectives (research, practice, communities) in data collection and synthesis, what may require the adaption of a given study design. 2) Research practice: Co-creation in participatory epidemiology means producing epidemiologic evidence while contributing to concrete public health interventions, two goals that have to be balanced. 3) Personal attitudes: In participatory epidemiology academic researchers, practitioners, and community representatives are requested to acknowledge each other as co-researching partners, which can be challenging for each of them. Conclusions Co-creation is a prerequisite for establishing equitable research partnerships. In participatory epidemiology, co-creation offers ways to produce meaningful knowledge for research and practice. Main messages Participatory epidemiology offers ways of producing epidemiologic evidence while contributing to public health practice. Co-creation is a prerequisite, way, and attitude to conduct meaningful research, hopefully for all of those who are involved.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document