04 20

What is the quality of research

[19]

  • 15 July - the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson’s announcement to abolish the Australian Research Council Board. As part of the Review of the Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders (Uhrig Report), of the ARC, Minister Nelson has made the decision to abolish the ARC’s Board in favour of an executive management system. In 2004 the Minister exercised his power under the ARC Act to reject grants recommended for funding by the ARC Board. [20]
  • 17 August - AVCC released an updated proposal for the Research Quality Framework as a work-in-progress.
  • what is the quality of research How to critically evaluate the quality of a research.

    what is the quality of research Indicators of Journal Quality - Research Online

    The initiative is expected to more than double existing scholarships for the Asia-Pacific over the next five years, and was scheduled to commence on 1 July 2006.[29]
  • 4 May - AVCC Chief Executive Officer John Mullarvey recommended told the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee that universities had concerns about a number of changes proposed in the ARC Amendment Bill.[30]
  • 9 May - 2006-2007 Budget is released.[31]
  • 10 May - Senate Committee is scheduled to release its findings.[32]
  • 21 July - Australian Labor Party Shadow Minister for Education Jenny Macklin releases Australia's Universities: Building our future in the World – A White Paper on Higher Education, Research and Innovation.
  • RAND focuses on the issues that matter most: health, education, national security, international affairs, law and business, the environment, and more. The quality of RAND's research and the importance of its contributions to its clients and sponsors as well as to the public good have earned RAND an enviable reputation.

    In the six decades since RAND's establishment, its work has changed in many respects. Policy issues have become more complex and dynamic. The scope of RAND's research agenda has expanded. Its clients and sponsors have diversified, as have the research products and services they require. Research methodologies and technologies have advanced. Data and information have multiplied. Nevertheless, throughout six decades of change, one aspect of RAND's research has never changed—its commitment to high quality and objectivity. Every RAND report, article, database, and presentation is carefully peer-reviewed before its public release. RAND also conducts periodic external and internal reviews of its body of research.

    RAND's standards for high-quality research and analysis articulate longstanding RAND concepts and values regarding the characteristics of high-quality studies.

    The study should be compelling, useful, and relevant to stakeholders and decisionmakers.

    A high-quality study makes an impression and compels respectful attention; it cannot be ignored or dismissed by those working in the area it addresses.

    RAND conducts policy research that focuses on real-world problems and practical issues: Therefore, a high-quality study must be not only interesting but also useful. It must contribute to RAND's mission of helping to improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis.

    As a nonpartisan organization, RAND is widely respected for operating independently of political and commercial pressures. RAND's research style involves frequent interactions with its clients and sponsors, who are recognized as an important source of expertise; but because RAND conducts its research in the public interest, a high-quality study must also be relevant to other stakeholders in the policy domain. Interaction with a broad set of stakeholders can help to ensure the relevance of the research and the practicality of its recommendations.

    The study should be objective, independent, and balanced.

  • Professor Ian Chubb, Chair of the Group of Eight from November 2003 to September 2005, and Vice-Chancellor of Australian National University since 2001
  • Professor Peter Høj, CEO of the Australian Research Council since 1 October 2004
  • Dr Ian O Smith, Executive Director, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation since May 2004.
  • Dr Robin Batterham, chief technologist of Rio Tinto Group. Formerly chief scientist of Australia.
  • Professor Peter Sheehan, Chair of the AVCC's RQF working group, and currently Vice-Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.
  • [33]
  • 4 August - AVCC submits its response to the Productivity Commission research study, recommending [34]:
    • increased investment in research and innovation from 1.6% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 3% by 2020, and
    • new incentives for private sector participation in research
  • 30 August - AVCC issues a statement regarding Australian business investment in research and innovation, which was 0.86% for expenditure as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, compared to the OECD average of 1.53%. The United States is at 1.87% and Japan at 2.36%.[35] Source: OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators Database 2006.
  • October 2006 - The RQF – Development Advisory Group (DAG), headed by Chief Scientist Jim Peacock, provided Minister Julie Bishop with the "Recommended Model".
  • 3 Thus, although a systematic review of randomised trials would be appropriate for answering questions about the main effects of a treatment, it would be ludicrous to attempt to use it to ascertain the relative accuracy of computerised versus human reading of cervical smears, the natural course of prion diseases in humans, the effect of carriership of a mutation on the risk of venous thrombosis, or the rate of vaginal adenocarcinoma in the daughters of pregnant women given diethylstilboesterol. For some types of research, established formal methodologies are appropriate—for example, regression analyses, validated models, or survey protocols. Where no obvious formal methodologies apply, the analytic approach should always be described, and it should be defended if it is at all novel or controversial. The introduction of a new method, the combination of multiple methods, and the application of an existing method to a new kind of problem are situations that obligate the study team to explain the rationale for the selected approach and its advantages over alternatives.

    Obviously, even a brilliant design does not guarantee a high-quality study. The research and analysis must also be executed with rigor, technical prowess, and creativity.

    The study should demonstrate understanding of related studies.

    A high-quality study cannot be done in intellectual isolation: It necessarily builds on and contributes to a body of research and analysis. The relationships between a given study and its predecessors should be rich and explicit. The study team's understanding of past research should be evident in many aspects of its work, from the way in which the problem is formulated and approached to the discussion of the findings and their implications.

    They may also suggest that a theory can be held with increased confidence, needs refinement, or must be rejected.

    For decisionmakers, high-quality findings may bear importantly on a particular decision or deliberation. Or they may contribute to an ongoing debate, helping to frame or inform the discussions in a policy area.

    The implications and recommendations should be logical, warranted by the findings, and explained thoroughly, with appropriate caveats.

    Based on its findings, a study team derives implications and may develop recommendations.

    A high-quality study thoroughly explores the implications of its findings. It examines where new knowledge and old knowledge are congruent and where they are not; it examines whether existing theories and conceptual frameworks have been strengthened or must be modified.

    To recommend a course of action is a highly accountable step for researchers. Because of the nature of RAND's mission, the actions of decisionmakers relying on our studies may affect the resources or well-being of many millions of individuals—even entire nations or regions. For this reason, recommendations must follow logically from a study's findings and implications and be strongly supported by them.

    In a Press Club address Minister Bishop recognised the importance that the role the chief scientist has in raising the profile of science and innovation in Australia, encouraging links and acting as an effective liaison between government, the private sector, and the research sector. The AVCC states that it is concerned that the position has been appointed on a part-time basis.[24]
  • 10 March - Treasurer Peter Costello and Minister for Education, Science and Training, Ms Julie Bishop announce the Productivity Commission Review into the benefits of public investment in science and innovation in Australia.[25]
  • 28 March - Minister Julie Bishop received the Research Quality Framework: Assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia – Final Advice on the Preferred RQF Model paper from Sir Gareth Roberts, who chaired the Expert Advisory Group (EAG).
  • They are also important to the users of RAND's research, in both the policymaking and research communities, who naturally have an interest in the quality of the research and how that quality is assured.

    The standards described below help to ensure that RAND accomplishes its mission of improving policy and decisionmaking through objective, high-quality research and analysis.

    The problem should be well formulated, and the purpose of the study should be clear.

    Problem formulation is a strength of RAND's research style. A study addressing a practical problem must formulate it within as full a context as possible, to avoid coming up with answers that are suboptimal, naïve, or infeasible. So long as the problem remains tractable, a more broadly conceived study is potentially more useful, more valuable, and, perhaps, enduring. An improved formulation of the problem can become a major research output.

    For a study to be successful, a problem must be formulated in a way that ensures it can be, if not solved, at least addressed effectively, with a substantial measure of progress. In order to judge the success of a study and to apply its results, it is important to have a clear understanding of what it is attempting to accomplish—that is, its purpose.

    Retrieved 11 November 2008. 
  • ^ "Funding bodies consult on the future of research assessment". Higher Education Funding Council for England. 29 May 2003. Retrieved 30 January 2007. 
  • ^ "Research Quality Framework Expert Advisory Group: Membership" (PDF). DEST. Retrieved 31 January 2007. 
  • ^ "Expert Advisory Group announced".
  • Macquarie University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 August 2007. Retrieved 31 January 2007. 
  • ^ "Now's the time to capitalise on Australia's R&D investment". AVCC. 4 May 2004. Retrieved 30 January 2007. 
  • ^ "Australia's higher education R&D continues to increase". ABS. 3 May 2004. Retrieved 30 January 2007. 
  • ^ "Quality and Accessibility Frameworks for Publicly Funded Research".
  • [15]
  • 25 May - AVCC responds to Governments 31 March paper.[16]
  • 26 May - AVCC releases "Quality and Diversity: A framework for approving higher education providers in response to the Government's issues paper Building University Diversity: future approval and accreditation processes for Australian higher education." (Appears unrelated).[17]
  • 31 May - Government released the Advanced Approaches Paper, "Research Quality Framework: Assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia". [18]
  • May 2005 - RQF Issues Paper
  • 2 June - Research Quality Framework National Stakeholder Forum
  • 3 June - Expert Advisory Group meets.[19]
  • 15 July - the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson’s announcement to abolish the Australian Research Council Board.
  • In 2004 the Minister exercised his power under the ARC Act to reject grants recommended for funding by the ARC Board. [20]
  • 17 August - AVCC released an updated proposal for the Research Quality Framework as a work-in-progress. [21]
  • 19 August - EAG meeting held
  • September 2005 - The RQF Preferred Model was released.
  • 9 September - AVCC welcomes the release of the "Research Quality Framework: Assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia – The Preferred Model." [22]
  • 6 October - Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee’s Board of Directors, AVCC President Di Yerbury put forward a proposal, for discussion at the plenary meeting of AVCC in November, for a full review of AVCC.
  • 12 October - AVCC submits an issues paper to the Expert Advisory Group’s (EAG) Preferred Model for the Research Quality Framework (RQF).
  • Philip Clark, representing the Business Council of Australia, member of the J P Morgan Advisory Council, and was the CEO of Minter Ellison.
  • Professor Ross Milbourne, representing the Australian Technology Network of Universities and Vice Chancellor and President of the University of Technology, Sydney.
  • Professor Anne Edwards, Convenor of the Innovative Research Universities Australia and Vice Chancellor of Flinders University.
  • Professor Alan Pettigrew, CEO of the National Health and Medical Research Council since January 2001.
  • Dr Evan Arthur, Group Manager of the Innovation and Research Systems Group in Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST).
  • Development Advisory Group[edit]

    Minister Julie Bishop received the Research Quality Framework: Assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia – Final Advice on the Preferred RQF Model paper from Sir Gareth Roberts, approved its release, and announced the establishment of the RQF Development Advisory Group (RQFDAG), to be chaired by Australia's chief scientist, Dr Jim Peacock AC.

    Nelson says : all of the Institutional Grants Scheme (IGS) and at least 50% of the Research Training Scheme (RTS).

    Committees[edit]

    Expert Advisory Group[edit]

    UK's Professor Sir Gareth Roberts was appointed as the Chair of the Expert Advisory Group,[1] having been commissioned in June 2002 to review the future of research assessment in the UK.[3]

    Members

    The list of members was announced 21 December 2004 as:[4][5]

    • Professor Paul Callaghan, Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

    Comments

    1. Hoxexaneziza

      I will surely research and provide you the whole context of it

    2. Vahoyik

      American Vehicular Sciences is a subsidiary of , a notorious NPE.

    3. Xogesabip

      I was still for the most part in dude mode out of college but I worked in research for 3.5 yrs and it took 6 months to find an intern job

    4. Xahiyupur

      I feel your pain. There"s another danger: raising those issues can potentially get you frozen out of colleagues" research.

    5. Voxihowefoqoc

      Pope Francis: No Research Justifies Killing Human Embryos, Unborn Babies “Precious in the Eyes of God”

    6. Wibulelezojibe

      I have done plenty of research thanks

    7. Fegebujabatofe

      I"m still doing research, awaiting confirmation of facts. Until then I have no opinion.

    8. Betujoneqokero

      77% of LinkedIn members research ;randed products or services on the network. ( Sou ce: PunchMedia )

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>