Challenges Of Collaborative Research Research Articles

Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science

As climate change continues to impact New England's coastal ecosystems and their related fisheries, the need for measuring, projecting, interpreting, and applying those impacts for adaptive management is expanding. In New England, different types of formal and informal research efforts that involve collaboration between the fishing community and traditional university and government researchers continue to develop to address some of this need. To better understand the opportunities and challenges that these collaborative research efforts face, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 members of the fishing and research communities who are engaged in advancing New England climate change and fisheries science. Participants showed clear concern for the impacts of climate change on New England fisheries and about the insufficient availability of the necessary science to manage for those impacts. They also noted a number of challenges in collaborative research, including poor communication and a lack of trust among fishers, researchers, and decision makers, as well as a lack of perceived credibility for research coming out of the fishing community. We identify a number of opportunities for improving collaboration and communication among these groups, which could build upon the identified value of existing collaborations.

An Implementation Research Approach to Evaluating Health Insurance Programs: Insights from India.

One of the distinguishing features of implementation research is the importance given to involve implementers in all aspects of research, and as users of research. We report on a recent implementation research effort in India, in which researchers worked together with program implementers from one of the longest serving government funded insurance schemes in India, the Rajiv Aarogyasri Scheme (RAS) in the state of undivided Andhra Pradesh, that covers around 70 million people. This paper aims to both inform on the process of the collaborative research, as well as, how the nature of questions that emerged out of the collaborative exercise differed in scope from those typically asked of insurance program evaluations. Starting in 2012, and over the course of a year, staff from the Aarogyasri Health Care Trust (AHCT), and researchers held a series of meetings to identify research questions that could serve as a guide for an evaluation of the RAS. The research questions were derived from the application of a Logical Framework Approach ("log frame") to the RAS. The types of questions that emerged from this collaborative effort were compared with those seen in the published literature on evaluations of insurance programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In the published literature, 60% of the questions pertained to output/outcome of the program and the remaining 40%, relate to processes and inputs. In contrast, questions generated from the RAS participatory research process between implementers and researchers had a remarkably different distribution - 81% of questions looked at program input/processes, and 19% on outputs and outcomes. An implementation research approach can lead to a substantively different emphasis of research questions. While there are several challenges in collaborative research between implementers and researchers, an implementation research approach can lead to incorporating tacit knowledge of program implementers into the research process, research questions that are more relevant to the research needs of policy-makers, and greater knowledge translation of the research findings.

Mind the gap: rigour and relevance in collaborative heritage science research

Background: This paper examines if there is a ‘rigour-relevance gap’ in collaborative heritage science research and what enables and impedes effective collaboration between academic researchers and users of research evidence in practice. A quantitative attitudes questionnaire was distributed amongst the heritage science community: 210 responses were received. Respondents answered in relation to one project they had worked on in the UK in the previous five years. They were asked about their personal goals in relation to the project and whether these were achieved, satisfaction levels in relation to project outcomes and impact, level of agreement with a series of attitude statements to ascertain what helped and hindered projects, personal characteristics and project characteristics. The questionnaire was analysed using a factor analytic, segmentation and profiling approach. Results: Most respondents sought both rigour and relevance in collaborative research, were generally satisfied with the outcomes of projects and reported positive experiences of collaboration. However, respondents were less satisfied that the impact of projects would be realised. Practice-focussed goals were associated with lower levels of self-rated achievement than academic goals and a sizeable minority reported challenges in collaborative research. Furthermore, researchers and users differed in terms of their goals, experiences and level of satisfaction. Users had high expectations that research would translate into practice, but did not always feel this was realised. Conclusion: Results from this project will inform how to improve heritage science research collaborations.

Evaluating international global health collaborations: Perspectives from surgery and anesthesia trainees in Uganda

The number of international academic partnerships and global health programs is expanding rapidly worldwide. Although the benefits of such programs to visiting international partners have been well documented, the perceived impacts on host institutions in resource-limited settings have not been assessed adequately. We sought to describe the perspectives of postgraduate, Ugandan trainees toward international collaborations and to discuss how these perceptions can be used to increase the positive impact of international collaborations for the host institution. We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional survey among anesthesia and surgery trainees at Makerere College of Health Sciences (Kampala, Uganda) using a pretested, self-administered questionnaire. Data were summarized as means or medians where applicable; otherwise, descriptive statistical analyses were performed. Of 43 eligible trainees, 77% completed the questionnaire. The majority (75%) agreed that visiting groups improve their training, mostly through skills workshops and specialist camps. A substantial portion of trainees reported that international groups had a neutral or negative impact on patient care (40%). Only 15% agreed that research projects conducted by international groups are in priority areas for Uganda. Among those surveyed, 28% reported participation in these projects, but none has published as a coauthor. Nearly one-third of trainees (31%) reported discomfort with the ethics of some clinical decisions made by visiting faculty. The current perspective from the surgery and anesthesia trainees of Makerere College of Health Sciences demonstrates rich ground for leveraging international collaborations to improve training, primarily through skills workshops, specialist camps, and more visiting faculty involvement. This survey also identified potential challenges in collaborative research and ethical dilemmas that warrant further examination.

Challenges of collaborative research

Challenges of collaborative research