Search

Novel combinations of global conditions, issues under investigation and research alliances require constant reassessment of how to conduct cross‐cultural research. Here we recount an exploratory investigation considering cross‐cultural research between Australian and Indonesian researchers. This paper sets out a range of considerations for practitioners of cross‐cultural research between our two countries. This investigation supports intentions to develop trans‐disciplinary climate change adaptation research but is applicable across multiple research topics and disciplines. We engaged a small multi‐disciplinary mix of researchers, from both countries, conducted two initial focus groups, and subsequently involved participants in drafting of this paper as an exploration of how being cross cultural could manifest. We highlight that cross‐cultural collaborations occur in environments of both cultural differences and power differences. Four main strategies emerged for dealing with the challenges (or opportunities): working respectfully, being reflective of cross‐cultural research practice, being flexible, and learning about culture. Overarching these strategies, we found cross‐cultural research requires considerable extra (long term) effort to tackle and that this is sustained by researchers' intrinsic motives to care for people and place, making this type of research a distinctive labour of love. Finally, we found similarities between cross‐cultural research and climate change adaptation research (even when conducted within one country) where both endeavours call for boundaries of places, cultures and disciplines to be crossed in order to effectively engage with complex topics and environments. Negotiating the liminalities here often defies set formulas and requires a willingness to engage with and 'muddle through' the messiness. Our findings will be of value to those undertaking cross‐cultural research across a wide range of issues. This paper addresses research collaboration between Australia and Indonesia and considers challenges and strategies for working at the intersection of cross cultural research collaboration and climate chance adaptation science. Analysis of focus group data from a multi‐disciplinary mix of researchers from these two countries highlighted four strategies for dealing with challenges: working respectfully, being reflective of cross‐cultural research practice, being flexible, and learning about culture. Overarching these strategies, we found cross‐cultural research requires extra effort and that this is sustained by a researcher's intrinsic motivations of care for people and place – a labour of love. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recently issued ISSCR standards in stem cell research recommend registration of human pluripotent stem cell lines (hPSCs). Registration is critical to establishing stem cell provenance and connecting cell lines to data derived on those lines. In this study, we sought to understand common barriers to registration by conducting interviews with forty-eight Australian stem cell stakeholders, including researchers, clinicians, and industry professionals. Australian stem cell researchers do not routinely register their lines, and only a third of those Australian lines captured by an international registry have fully completed the registration process. Most registered Australian cell lines lack complete information about their ethical provenance or key pluripotency characteristics. Incomplete registration is poorly aligned with the goals of open science on which registries are founded. Users also expressed concerns about the quality of the incomplete information provided to the resource. Registration was considered negatively, for instance as a hurdle or barrier to publication, which impacted on user perceptions of usefulness of registration and lowered the likelihood that they would engage with registries to find resources. Broader adoption of registration by journals, and continued advocacy by stem cell societies, will be important levers for awareness and engagement with registration. Although the Australian community represents a small fraction of potential registry users, the results of this study suggest ways for journals, registries, funders, and the international stem cell community to improve registration compliance., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Christine Wells reports financial support was provided by Medical Research Future Fund Australia. NM SM and AK are members of hPSCreg. CAW is funded to implement the Australian stem cell registry. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper]., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Although previous studies of today's globalised and competitive research landscape have mentioned the research collaborations of CANZUK countries (i.e., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom), none have yet studied them in detail. Further, such studies have used different measures of international research collaboration (IRC), resulting in disparate findings. This paper, therefore, analyses the strengths of CANZUK research collaborations, how those collaborations have changed over time, and assesses the effect of three ways of measures on the results (absolute strength, bilateral similarity, and multilateral similarity). We provide a detailed characterisation of the CANZUK research network and its relationships with partner countries, which reveals that the most collaborative CANZUK countries are the UK and Australia, among other findings. We also confirm that many findings differ depending on which measures are used. We offer an explanation of this difference with reference to the nature of the measures (i.e., what they really measure) and make suggestions for suitable measures in future studies depending on their purpose. Finally, we discuss how this study's findings can be used by research policy makers (in CANZUK and elsewhere) in deciding on research strategy and by researchers in appropriately measuring IRC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers have found that many post-secondary music students suffer from physical and mental health issues. However, researchers have mainly studied these problems at the individual level, with little investigation of how music students' work is shaped by the coordinating effects of policies, texts, and discourses at and beyond their local site. This paper describes a protocol for an international project that will explore the health of music students in the context of their daily work. Using an institutional ethnography approach, we will examine the social organization of music students' work at three universities: two in Canada and one in Australia. This will be the first set of studies that use institutional ethnography specifically for the purpose of understanding how the social organization of music students' work shapes their health. Data will be collected using several methods common to institutional ethnography: interviews, focus groups, observations, and collecting texts. Data analysis will begin during the data collection process and proceed in two fluid stages. The first stage will involve a detailed investigation of the pertinent work activities at each music school. The second will involve linking that work to specific social relations within and beyond the institution. After data analysis has been completed at all three sites, findings will be compared to one another to identify commonalities and differences in how students' work is organized. Findings of the entire project may inform policy-making and lead to positive change at the institutions studied, as well as others where similar social organization may occur. The novel approach described here will provide opportunities to expand current knowledge about music students' work and health beyond what has been learned through approaches that focus on students' individual behaviours and attributes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite their relatively small numbers, large old trees play disproportionately important roles in global biodiversity and ecosystem functions. There is a lack of systematic reviews and quantitative analyses of the accumulated literature. Understanding the research context and evolution could pump prime research and conservation endeavors. Using the comprehensive Web of Science, we applied VOSviewer (1.6.19) and CiteSpace (6.1R2) bibliometric software to examine the large old tree research field in 2000–2022. The queries of the bibliographic database generated quantitative–visual depictions in the form of knowledge maps. The nodes denote research intensity, and inter-node linkages denote the pathways and frequencies of collaborative activities. The research outputs differed significantly in terms of regions, countries, institutions, high-citation articles, productive researchers, hot topics, and research frontiers. Conspicuous spatial disparities were displayed, with the U.S.A., China, and Australia leading in publication counts and a cluster of European countries making considerable collective contributions. The research collaboration demonstrated a dichotomy: European countries networked more by geographical propinquity, and the top three countries connected by long-distance leap-frog jumps. The entrenched discrepancies between the endowed developed domains vis-à-vis the deprived developing domains were clearly expressed. The research productivity progressed through three stages: initial, growth, and flourishing. The leading institutions, researchers, and highly cited papers were recognized. The keyword analysis pinpointed diverse research hotspots: growth dynamics, conservation and management, ecological functions, and environmental response. This study informs recommendations for future research directions and cooperation on longevity mechanisms, evolutionary adaptation, dynamic monitoring, and temporal–spatial patterns. The integrated application of GIS, machine learning, and big data technologies could strengthen research capability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is opportunity for universities to actively engage with Aboriginal communities to participate, conduct and ideally lead responsible research that attends to community priorities and issues. The Health from the Grassroots (Grassroots) project sought to address an ongoing mismatch between university-defined and community-defined priorities in rural northern New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Grassroots, led by Aboriginal staff of the University Centre for Rural Health (UCRH), aimed at engaging Aboriginal communities in conversations to inform research priorities. The Grassroots project was a true representation of collaborative research led by and for Aboriginal people. The team designed a local survey conducted yarning sessions with community members and used this information to visualize report findings. Community members were highly engaged in the consultation process and the "rich picture" continues to be used to further conversations about evolving health and research priorities. The Aboriginal research team identified strengths and challenges faced by communities and health services in the region and centred community in decision-making for project design and direction. Challenges encountered include limited resources and time for team members to devote to the project outside of their substantive paid positions. This paper describes the project vision, implementation, and research team lessons in the first years. Meaningful consultation to inform research action arose from the team's deep-rooted relationships and identities as members of the community in which we live and work. Research priorities identified through the Grassroots project have been integrated into the ongoing work of the UCRH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across disciplines, qualitative researchers have documented epistemological and practical tensions in the ethical review of community-based and participatory research, with many arguing that ethics committees' decisions perpetuate the exclusion of marginalised communities from research engagement. In the existing literature, the research team and the ethics committee are often characterised as staunch opponents. Conversely, in our recent qualitative research addressing communication about sexuality with young people with cerebral palsy who use communication methods other than speech (augmentative and alternative communication), we found that constructive collaboration between researchers and committee members yielded novel insights. Co-authored by a multi-disciplinary research team and the former chair of a Human Research Ethics Committee, this reflexive case study identified three key tensions which arose in the ethical review of research involving this purportedly marginalised population, which reflected the wider importance of trust. We propose a series of practical recommendations to support productive collaboration in the pursuit of safe, inclusive and community-driven research. Plain language summary: Introduction: In Australia, researchers follow rules and policies to make sure their research is safe, fair, and correct. Before a research project starts, a group of experts called an ethics committee checks the researchers' plan, to make sure it is safe. Sometimes, ethics committees are worried that people with a disability could be hurt or upset by a research project. To protect people with a disability, ethics committees may say: • that the research activities need to change, or • that children with disability or people with intellectual disability can't participate in the research, or • that other people (e.g., a parent or guardian) should always give their permission for the person with a disability to participate. Sometimes these changes are sensible and safe. But sometimes they make research unfair or hard to access for people with a disability. This is frustrating when a research plan has been designed by people with a disability, or by people who know them well. What We Did: We did research with young people who have cerebral palsy who use methods other than speech to communicate (like gestures, communication books, or communication devices). Our research was about private topics like relationships and sex. When we applied to do our research, the ethics committee had lots of concerns. They asked us to change a lot of things. They even asked us to change some of the things that people with disability told us they wanted or needed. It was a long and frustrating process. We talked with the leader of the ethics committee and decided to write this article together. We wanted to help other researchers, ethics committees, and people with disabilities to work better together. What We Found: It is important that people with a disability be included in research that is fair and safe. Ethics committees have a big responsibility to keep people safe, but the experts who work on an ethics committee may not know a lot about disability. Stories and videos of people with disabilities participating in research can help the ethics committee to understand what is possible. Ethics committees can also talk to people with a disability, to learn more about their research needs and experiences. All research participants with a disability are unique. Every person will have different risks and different needs. Some people will have more than one accessibility need. For example, a young person with physical disability like cerebral palsy may also have difficulty reading and may not use speech to communicate. When ethics paperwork asks about each need separately, it can be hard to explain how a person with a lot of access needs will be supported. When research participants have complex needs, ethics committees can feel confused and worried. If this happens, they should have a conversation with the researchers about it, instead of saying "no" to the research. Sometimes researchers want to use special or creative research methods to involve people with disabilities. These need to be explained clearly, so the ethics committee can trust that they are safe. Researchers and ethics committees can also use research rules and resources that are created for, and by, people with a disability. These are written by large organisations like the International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (https://iassidd.org/). By following these steps, we think that research can be safer and more inclusive for everyone. Contact: If you want more information about this article, you can email Megan Walsh at mcwalsh@deakin.edu.au. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is widely appreciated that population forecasts are inherently uncertain. Researchers have responded by quantifying uncertainty using probabilistic forecasting methods. Yet despite several decades of development, probabilistic forecasts have gained little traction outside the academic sector. Therefore, this article suggests an alternative and simpler approach to estimating and communicating uncertainty which might be helpful for population forecast practitioners and users. Drawing on the naïve forecasts idea of Alho, it suggests creating "synthetic historical forecast errors" by running a regular deterministic projection model many times over recent decades. Then, borrowing from perishable food terminology, the "shelf life" of forecast variables, the number of years into the future the forecast is likely to remain "safe for consumption" (within a specified error tolerance), is estimated from the "historical" errors. The shelf lives are then applied to a current set of forecasts and presented in a simple manner in graphs and tables of forecasts using color-coding. The approach is illustrated through a case study of 2021-based population forecasts for Australia. It´s concluded that the approach offers a relatively straightforward way of estimating and communicating population forecast uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many countries, including Australia, have established a national scheme that supports the recognition of a single ethical review for multi-centre research conducted in publicly funded health services. However, local site-specific governance review processes remain decentralised and highly variable. This short report describes the ethics and governance processes required for a negligible risk national survey of physiotherapy-led airway clearance services in Australia. We detail inconsistencies in research governance document preparation and submission (platforms, processes, forms and signatories) and report the time cost and likely impact of these inconsistencies on health services research outcomes. Processes and strategies that facilitated success in this project are identified and summarised as helpful hints to other researchers looking to embark on negligible risk research in public health facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]