合作项目的南北研究资助动态:研究人员对机构项目框架的拨款策略

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Science and Public Policy Pub Date : 2023-06-19 DOI:10.1093/scipol/scad036
Montserrat Alom Bartrolí
{"title":"合作项目的南北研究资助动态:研究人员对机构项目框架的拨款策略","authors":"Montserrat Alom Bartrolí","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n North–South research funding dynamics have been progressively marked by the rise of project-based funding responding to agencies’ predefined research topics. Still, Southern researchers’ behaviour to cope with Northern agencies’ project frameworks remains an understudied question. This article addresses this gap by examining Southern applicants’ practices when preparing proposals for collaborative research for development projects in the social sciences, in particular their strategies to appropriate Northern donors’ frameworks. Findings single out that the appropriation process leads to the co-creation of a new cognitive framework accommodating both researchers’ and funders’ interests expressed in different agendas. This article also contributes to shedding light on Southern researchers’ active role in the face of asymmetric relationships. Finally, findings inform research management about the importance of defining relatively large frameworks that include applicants’ knowledge, competences, and contextual features to enhance local relevance while contributing to the policy debate on project-based funding impact on contemporary research.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"North–South research funding dynamics of collaborative projects: researchers’ appropriation strategies of agencies’ project frameworks\",\"authors\":\"Montserrat Alom Bartrolí\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/scipol/scad036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n North–South research funding dynamics have been progressively marked by the rise of project-based funding responding to agencies’ predefined research topics. Still, Southern researchers’ behaviour to cope with Northern agencies’ project frameworks remains an understudied question. This article addresses this gap by examining Southern applicants’ practices when preparing proposals for collaborative research for development projects in the social sciences, in particular their strategies to appropriate Northern donors’ frameworks. Findings single out that the appropriation process leads to the co-creation of a new cognitive framework accommodating both researchers’ and funders’ interests expressed in different agendas. This article also contributes to shedding light on Southern researchers’ active role in the face of asymmetric relationships. Finally, findings inform research management about the importance of defining relatively large frameworks that include applicants’ knowledge, competences, and contextual features to enhance local relevance while contributing to the policy debate on project-based funding impact on contemporary research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad036\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad036","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

南北研究资助的动态逐渐以响应各机构预先确定的研究课题的基于项目的资助的增加为标志。尽管如此,南方研究人员应对北方机构项目框架的行为仍然是一个未被充分研究的问题。本文通过审查南方申请者在为社会科学发展项目的合作研究准备提案时的做法,特别是它们采用北方捐助者框架的战略,解决了这一差距。研究结果指出,拨款过程导致共同创造一个新的认知框架,以适应研究人员和资助者在不同议程中表达的利益。这篇文章也有助于揭示南方研究者在面对不对称关系时所起的积极作用。最后,研究结果告诉研究管理人员,定义相对较大的框架的重要性,该框架包括申请人的知识、能力和背景特征,以增强当地相关性,同时有助于关于基于项目的资助对当代研究影响的政策辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
North–South research funding dynamics of collaborative projects: researchers’ appropriation strategies of agencies’ project frameworks
North–South research funding dynamics have been progressively marked by the rise of project-based funding responding to agencies’ predefined research topics. Still, Southern researchers’ behaviour to cope with Northern agencies’ project frameworks remains an understudied question. This article addresses this gap by examining Southern applicants’ practices when preparing proposals for collaborative research for development projects in the social sciences, in particular their strategies to appropriate Northern donors’ frameworks. Findings single out that the appropriation process leads to the co-creation of a new cognitive framework accommodating both researchers’ and funders’ interests expressed in different agendas. This article also contributes to shedding light on Southern researchers’ active role in the face of asymmetric relationships. Finally, findings inform research management about the importance of defining relatively large frameworks that include applicants’ knowledge, competences, and contextual features to enhance local relevance while contributing to the policy debate on project-based funding impact on contemporary research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Science and Public Policy is a leading refereed, international journal on public policies for science, technology and innovation, and on their implications for other public policies. It covers basic, applied, high, low, and any other types of S&T, and rich or poorer countries. It is read in around 70 countries, in universities (teaching and research), government ministries and agencies, consultancies, industry and elsewhere.
期刊最新文献
Diversity and directionality: friends or foes in sustainability transitions? Morality policy at the frontier of science: legislators’ views on germline engineering Regulatory agencies as innovation enablers: a conceptualization The impact of winning funding on researcher productivity, results from a randomized trial Operation warp speed: Harbinger of American industrial innovation policies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1