Search

Interdisciplinary collaboration fuels research innovation and funders are increasingly offering long-term grants prioritising partnerships. However, a gap remains regarding the effective development, evaluatation, and sustainment of research partnerships; particularly those supporting marginalised populations like sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY). There is a concomitant need to expand research internationally to cross-culturally conceptualise SGMY's experiences, which information and communication technologies (ICTs) may facilitate. The International Partnership for Queer Youth Resilience (INQYR) is a research consortium comprising over 40 academic and community representatives investigating and addressing issues faced by SGMY in Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), and Mexico from an interdisciplinary perspective by: (a) conducting and disseminating interventions and exploratory research on SGMY's ICT use, and (b) training cohorts of SGMY scholars and practitioners. This article details INQYR's rationale and formation, including its objectives and organisational framework. Facilitators and barriers are discussed through reflection on INQYR's first operational phase from 2018–2021, considering collaboration with diverse stakeholders and settings; shared goals; language and technology barriers; personal and workload barriers; infrastructure; and power and historical tensions. Implications for other research partnerships and concrete tools such as author guidelines for large-scale research partnership formation, operation, and evaluation are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bowen and colleagues ask us to re-imagine how to conduct research in academic-practice partnerships, and to develop capacity in the applied research and health workforce to do this. This commentary reinforces their messages, and describes a framework of research capacity development for impact (RCDi) which emphasizes active and continuous experiential learning within research partnerships. The RCDi framework includes the need to focus on multiple levels in the collaboration architecture, and describes principles of working that aims to increase impact on services, and learning opportunities for all partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Against a backdrop of historic inequities between Northern and Southern scholars, the UK's Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) calls for "meaningful and equitable" research partnerships between UK-based academics and partners in the Global South. This paper draws on qualitative data from three workshops in the Ethiopia, Rwanda and the UK to interrogate GCRF funding criteria from the perspectives of African-based research partners. The GCRF criteria are considered with respect to African partners' experiences of, and aspirations from, such international research partnerships in order to enrich and extend ongoing debates about power relations in development research. The study finds that GCRF criteria do address many of the familiar historic concerns of African partners, while also identifying ways in which this and similar funding schemes may unintentionally reproduce structural inequities within the South. In highlighting these less visible equity concerns, the paper draws lessons for funders, academics and others concerned with establishing genuinely equitable research partnerships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The literature suggests that academic researchers with dual-appointment contracts, i.e. those employed concurrently by a university and an organization outside academia, have the potential to be more engaged in research collaborations with non-academic partners than colleagues contractually linked to a university only. Our results suggest that this relationship is not simple. Based on a sample of 7773 academic researchers in Europe, our findings show that the relationship between dual appointments and research collaborations is negative when the appointment involves an organization in the private sector and positive when the dual appointment is with an organization in the public sector. Our results also highlight that the profiles of academic researchers in dual appointments differ from those of academics mostly involved in research collaborations with non-academic organizations. The main differences relate to the academic researchers' educational paths, international mobility experiences and contractual status. The implications of these findings for research collaborations between the academic and non-academic sectors are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We study collaborative and noncollaborative projects that are supported by government grants. First, we propose a theoretical framework to analyze optimal decisions in these projects. Second, we test our hypotheses with a unique data set containing academic publications and research funds for all academics at the major university engineering departments in the United Kingdom. We find that the type of the project (measured by its level of appliedness) increases the type of both the university and firm partners. Also, the quality of the project (number and impact of the publications) increases with the quality of the researcher and firm, and with the affinity in the partners’ preferences. The collaboration with firms increases the quality of the project only when the firms’ characteristics make them valuable partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]