The Effective and The Evocative : A Spectrum of Creative Practice Research

In the expanding literature on creative practice research, art and design are often described as a unified field. They are bracketed together (art-and-design), referred to as interchangeable terms (art/design), and nested together, as if the practices of one domain encompass the other. However it is possible to establish substantial differences in research approaches. In this chapter we argue that core distinctions arise out of the goals of the research, intentions invested in the resulting “artefacts” (creative works, products, events), and the knowledge claims made for the research outcomes. Moreover, these fundamental differences give rise to a number of contingent attributes of the research such as the forming contexts, methodological approaches, and ways of evidencing and reporting new knowledge. We do not strictly ascribe these differences to disciplinary contexts. Rather, we use the terms effective practice research and evocative practice research to describe the spirit of the two distinctive research paradigms we identify. In short, effective practice research (often pursued in design fields) seeks a solution (or resolution) to a problem identified with a particular community, and it produces an artefact that addresses this problem by effecting change (making a situation, product or process more efficient or effective in some way). On the other hand, evocative practice research (often pursued by creative arts fields) is driven by individual pre-occupations, cultural concerns or human experience more broadly. It produces artefacts that evoke affect and resonance, and are poetically irreducible in meaning. We cite recent examples of creative research projects that illustrate the distinctions we identify. We then go on to describe projects that integrate these modes of research. In this way, we map out a creative research spectrum, with distinct poles as well as multiple hybrid possibilities. The hybrid projects we reference are not presented as evidence an undifferentiated field. Instead, we argue that they integrate research modes in deliberate, purposeful and distinctive ways: employing effective practice research methods in the production of evocative artefacts or harnessing evocative (as well as effective) research paradigms to effect change.

Justice in human research ethics : a conceptual and practical guide

One of the core values to be applied by a body reviewing the ethics of human research is justice. The inclusion of justice as a requirement in the ethical review of human research is relatively recent and its utility had been largely unexamined until debates arose about the conduct of international biomedical research in the late 1990s. The subsequent amendment of authoritative documents in ways that appeared to shift the meaning of conceptions of justice generated a deal of controversy. Another difficulty has been that both the theory and the substance of justice that are applied by researchers or reviewers can be frequently seen to be subjective. Both the concept of justice – whether distributive or commutative - and what counts as a just distribution or exchange – are given different weight and meanings by different people. In this paper, the origins and more recent debates about the requirement to consider justice as a criterion in the ethical review of human research are traced, relevant conceptions of justice are distinguished and the manner in which they can be applied meaningfully in the ethical review all human research is identified. The way that these concepts are articulated in, and the intent and function of, specific paragraphs of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, ARC, UA, 2007) (National Statement) is explained. The National Statement identifies a number of issues that should be considered when a human research ethics committee is reviewing the justice aspects of an application. It also provides guidance to researchers as to how they can show that there is a fair distribution of burdens and benefits in the participant experience and the research outcomes. It also provides practical guidance to researchers on how to think through issues of justice so that they can demonstrate that the design of their research projects meets this ethical requirement is also provided

Creative arts research : a long path to acceptance

The majority of tertiary practice-led creative arts disciplines became part of the Australian university system as a result of the creation of the Unified National System of tertiary education in 1988. Over the past two decades, research has grown as the yardstick by which academic performance in the Australian university sector is recognised and rewarded. Academics in artistic disciplines, who struggled to adapt to a culture and workload expectations different from their previous, predominantly teaching based, employment, continue to see their research under-valued within the established evaluation framework. Despite a late 1990s Australian government funded inquiry, many of the inequities remain. While the Excellence in Research in Australia (ERA) exercise has acknowledged the non-text outputs of artist-academics in its evaluation of 'research outcomes', much of the process remains resolutely framed by measures that work against creative arts researchers.

Good Practice Report : Postgraduate Research and Coursework Degrees

Over the past decade, enrolments in postgraduate courses in Australian universities have risen by 34% (or from 258,164 in 2004 to 347,363 in 2013) (uCube, 2014). This substantial growth can be attributed to increased demand for postgraduate coursework as continuing professional education, the expansion of Higher Degrees Research (HDR) intakes, and the development of postgraduate research and coursework degrees in new fields. At the same time, the establishment of the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) and national Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), as well as the internationalisation of postgraduate education, have brought challenges and opportunities to the sector. During the past five years, the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) and its predecessor bodies have funded a number of projects and Fellowships on postgraduate coursework and research degrees. They span diverse topics–from entry pathways and research training to supporting international and Indigenous students, examination, scoping studies of new and emergent programs, and effective supervision. In 2014 the OLT commissioned this good practice report to review the grants and fellowships conducted between 2009 and 2014. Encompassing twenty-seven learning and teaching projects and fellowships, the aims of this report include providing universities and academics with an overview of the current state of postgraduate study in Australia and the major influences upon it; a coherent overview of funded projects’ findings and outcomes; and a central point to access good practices, resources and tools in summary form. The objectives of this good practice report are to provide: • A literature review, which contextualises the projects within the Australian and international Higher Education environment, emphasises factors that currently influence postgraduate programs, and highlights challenges and opportunities for the sector. It also explains variations in postgraduate course types and definitions within the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF), and identifies key learning and teaching issues as well as good practices identified in scholarly research and position papers. • A collated overview of the twenty-seven national learning and teaching projects and fellowships on postgraduate coursework and research, including a summary of each project’s aims and objectives, methodologies, outcomes and resources. • A summative index of project characteristics (topics, themes and approaches) and inventory of scholarly research outcomes of the completed projects (publications, reports) as well as resources produced (tools, methods, good practice case studies), and their location (URL Links, references, etc.). • A summary of good practices that have been identified from the literature and the findings of completed projects. • A set of recommendations to address remaining gaps in the field and areas in which further work or development are appropriate. Bringing this work together will help enable university course teams to improve the delivery and development of existing postgraduate courses and to develop new ones, and it will provide academics with an overview of good practices and resources for teaching, supervising and supporting postgraduate students.

Designing better on-farm research in Australia using a participatory workshop process

There are renewed calls for end-user participation and the integration of local knowledge in agricultural research. In Australia, the response has included an increased emphasis on participatory on-farm research with farmers and commercial agronomists that tests accepted principals to answer practical local farming questions. However, this pursuit of greater relevance has often led to compromises in research designs, unclear results and frustration amongst farmers, commercial agronomists and Research Development and Extension (RDE) agency researchers. This paper reports on a series of pre-season planning workshops from `Doing successful on-farm research', a workshop-based initiative that provides guidelines and a series of interactive activities to plan better participatory on-farm research. The workshop approach helps people design on-farm research that is appropriate to their own needs and local conditions. It assists them to clearly identify their issues, develop specific research questions and decide the best approach to answer those questions with the appropriate rigour for their own situations. These `Doing successful on-farm research' workshops address four potential deficiencies in on-farm research and farming systems RDE more generally in Australia: (1) variable participation of scientists and farmers in on-farm research; (2) the lack of clear guidelines for effective participatory practice and on-farm research; (3) limited support for on-farm research beyond the intensive investigations conducted by RDE agencies and (4) limited support for industry and farmers to contextualise information and research outcomes for specific individual circumstances and faster adaptation of technology. This may be a valuable contribution to balancing the demands for both relevance and rigour in on-farm research in Australia. In "Ground–breaking Stuff’- Proceedings of the 13th Australian Society of Agronomy Conference, 10-14 September 2006, Perth, Western Australia.

Issues in socially desirable responding and personality research

The four studies presented in this dissertation were designed to examine the influence of socially desirable responding (SDR) on personality research outcomes. The assessment of personality relies heavily on the use of self-report questionnaires. Their validity could be threatened by people being dishonest in their self-descriptions and ascribing more desirable traits to themselves than would be warranted by their behaviour. Scales designed to detect SDR have been around for half a century, but their status continues to be debated. Paulhus (1991) Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) is perhaps the most prominent of the scales developed to distinguish between those individuals who have distorted their responses and those who have not. The first two studies included in this dissertation mostly deal with the properties of the BIDR. The other two studies are less focused on SDR scales and investigate, more generally, the potential effects of SDR on two phenomena that are of central interest to the general personality discourse personality stability over time and volunteering as participants in psychological research. The data of Studies I and II showed that Paulhus BIDR scales, designed to be indicators of SDR, are not pure measures both the communion management and self-deceptive enhancement scales are, at once, measures of response bias and measures of more substantive individual differences in behaviour. The data further suggested that the communion management and self-deceptive enhancement scales of the BIDR are somewhat accurate measures of communal and agentic bias, respectively. No evidence for a suppressor model of SDR, and only weak evidence for a moderator model, was found in those studies. Concerning research on personality stability, some data in Study I suggested that SDR may add reliable and common variance to a personality questionnaire administered at two different points in time, thus artificially inflating the test-retest correlation of that questionnaire. Furthermore, Study III demonstrated that the maturity-stability hypothesis may be in part, but not entirely, a product of SDR. Study IV suggested that some of the observed personality differences between research volunteers and nonvolunteers may be due to heightened SDR of volunteers. However, those personality differences were by no means exclusively attributable to differences in SDR. In sum, the work presented in this thesis reveals some ambiguity regarding the effects of SDR on personality research, as is true of much of the previous research on SDR. Clear-cut conclusions are difficult to reach, as the data were neither fully consistent with the view that SDR can be ignored, nor with the view that SDR needs to be controlled in some way. The struggle to understand the influence of SDR on personality research continues.

Talkin' up our doctoral research

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, undertaking the PhD journey brings with it specific challenges in how best to use the knowledge gained to make changes that will actively benefit Indigenous peoples and communities. Even within the health sector implementing research outcomes can sometimes be problematic. The Maori and Indigenous D octoral (MAI) Conference hosted by Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi (Indigenous U niversity), Whakatane, New Zealand, addressed this by considering the contribution of Indigenous doctoral research to advancements of Maori. As Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people engaging in Doctoral studies, this conference was equally relevant to us.

Harmful algal research and response: A human dimensions strategy

Harmful Algal Research and Response: A Human Dimensions Strategy (HARR-HD) justifies and guides a coordinated national commitment to human dimensions research critical to prevent and respond to impacts of harmful algal blooms (HABs). Beyond HABs, it serves as a framework for developing hu-man dimensions research as a cross-cutting priority of ecosystem science supporting coastal and ocean management, including hazard research and mitigation planning. Measuring and promoting commu-nity resilience to hazards require human dimensions research outcomes such as effective risk commu-nication strategies; assessment of community vulnerability; identification of susceptible populations; comprehensive assessment of environmental, sociocultural, and economic impacts; development of effective decision support tools; and improved coordination among agencies and stakeholders. HARR-HD charts a course for human dimensions research to achieve these and other priorities through co-ordinated implementation by the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) In-teragency Working Group on HABs, Hypoxia and Human Health (IWG-4H); national HAB funding programs; national research and response programs; and state research and monitoring programs. (PDF contains 72 pages)

CGIAR research program on grain legumes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and context The Grain Legumes CRP was established to bring all research and development work on grain legumes within the CGIAR system under one umbrella. It was set up to provide public goods outcomes to serve the needs of the sustainable production and consumption of grain legumes in the developing world, capitalising upon their properties that enhance the natural resource base upon which production so unequivocally depends. The choice of species and research foci were finalised following extensive consultation with all stakeholders (though perhaps fewer end users), and cover all disciplines that contribute to long-lasting solutions to the issues of developing country production and consumption. ICRISAT leads Grain Legumes and is partnered by the CGIAR centers ICARDA, IITA and CIAT and a number of other important partners, both public and private, and of course farmers in the developed and developing world. Originally in mid-2012 Grain Legumes was structured around eight Product Lines (PL) (i.e. technological innovations) intersecting five Strategic Components (SC) (i.e. arranged as components along the value chain). However, in 2015, it was restructured along a more R4D output model leading to Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs). Thus five Flagship Projects (FP) more closely reflecting a systematic pipeline of progression from fundamental science, implementation of interventions and the development of capacity and partnerships to promote and adopt impactful outcomes: FP1) Managing Productivity through crop interactions with biotic and abiotic constraints; FP2) Determination of traits that address production constraints and opportunities; FP3) Trait Deployment of those traits through breeding; FP4) Seed Systems, post-harvest processing and nutrition; FP5) Capacity-Building and Partnerships. Another three cross-cutting FPs analyse the broader environment surrounding the adoption of outputs, the capitalising of investments in genomics research, and a focus on the Management and Governance of Grain Legumes: FP6) Knowledge, impacts, priorities and gender organisation; FP7) Tools and platforms for high throughput genotyping and bioinformatics; and FP8) Management and Governance. Five FPs focus on R4D; FPs 5 and 6 are considered cross-cutting; FP 7 has a technical focus and FP 8 has an overarching objective. Over the three year period since its inception in July 1012, Grain Legumes has had a total budget of $140 million, with $62M originally to come from W1/W2 and the remaining $78M to come from W3/bilateral. In actuality only $45M came from W1/W2 but $106M from W3/bilateral corresponding to 106% of expectation. Purpose, scope and objectives of the external evaluation Principally, the evaluation of Grain Legumes is to ensure that the program is progressing in an effective manner towards addressing the system-level outcomes of the CGIAR as they relate to grain legumes. In essence, the evaluation aims to provide essential evaluative information for decision-making by Program Management and its funders on issues such as extension, expansion and structuring of the program and adjustments in relevant parts of the program. Subsequent to the formal signing of the agreed terms of reference, the evaluation team was also invited to comment upon the mooted options for merging and/or disaggregating of Grain Legumes. The audiences are therefore manifold, from the CGIAR Fund Council and Consortium, the Boards of Trustees of the four component CGIAR centres, the Grain Legumes Steering, Management and Independent Advisory Committees, to the researchers and others involved in the delivery of R4D outcomes and their partner organisations. The evaluation was not only summative in measuring results from Grain Legumes at arm’s length; it was also formative in promoting learning and improvements, and developmental in nurturing adaption to transformational change with time. The evaluation report was written in a manner that allows for engagement of key partners and funders in a dialogue as to how to increase ownership and a common understanding of how the goals are to be achieved. We reviewed research undertaken before the CRPs but leading to impacts during Grain Legumes, and research commenced over the past 2.5 years. For related activities pre- and post-commencement of Grain Legumes, we reviewed the relevance of activities and their relation to CGIAR and the Grain Legumes goals, whether they were likely to lead to the outcomes and impacts as documented in the Grain Legumes proposal, and the quality of the science underpinning the likelihood to deliver outcomes. Throughout, we were cognisant of the extent of the reach of CGIAR centres’ activities, and those of stakeholders upon which the impact of CGIAR R4D depends. Within our remit we evaluated the original and modified management and governance structures, and all the processes/responsibilities managed within those structures. Besides the evaluation of the technical and managerial issues of Grain Legumes, we addressed cross-cutting issues of gender sensitivity, capacity building and the creation and nurturing of partnerships. The evaluation also has the objective to provide information relating to the development of full proposals for the new CRP funding cycle. The evaluation addressed six overarching questions developed from the TOR questions (listed in the Inception Report, 2015 [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh] and others including cross-cutting issues, phrasing them within the context of traditional evaluation criteria: 1. Relevance: Global development, urbanisation and technological innovation are progressing rapidly, are the aims and focus of Grain Legumes coherent, robust, fit for purpose and relevant to the global community? 2. Efficiency: Is the structure and effectiveness of leadership across Grain Legumes developing efficient partnership management and project management across PLs? 3. Quality of science: Is Grain Legumes utilising a wide range of technologies in a way that will increase our fundamental understanding of the biology that underpins several PLs; and are collected data used in the most effective way? 4. Effectiveness: Are Product Lines strategic contributors to the overarching aims and vision for Grain Legumes? 5. Impact: Are the impact pathways that underlie each PL well defined, measureable and achievable; and are they sufficiently defined in terms of beneficiaries? Does progress towards achieving outputs and outcomes from the major research areas indicate a lasting benefit for CGIAR and the communities it serves? 6. Sustainability: Is Grain Legumes managing the increasing level of restricted funding in terms of program quality and effectiveness, including attracting and retaining quality staff? Questions for the evaluation of governance and management focused on accountability, transparency, the effectiveness and success of program execution, change management processes and communication methods, taking account of the effects of CGIAR reform. The three crosscutting issues were considered as follows: i) gender balance in program delivery, e.g. whether each PL is able to contribute to the increased income, food security, nutrition, environmental and resource conservation for resource-poor women and men existing in rural livelihoods; ii) are internal and external capacity gaps identified/met, is capacity effectively developed within each product line, and are staff at all levels engaged in contributing ideas towards capacity building; and iii) is there effective involvement of partners in research and activity programming, what are the criteria for developing partnerships, how they are formalised and how is communication between partners and within Grain Legumes managed? It was not in remit to search for output, outcomes or impact, however as highlighted later, much of our time was spent on searching for information to support claims of impact, since Grain Legumes had no effective dedicated M&E in place at the time of undertaking the review. Approach and methodology The evaluation was conducted when Grain Legumes had been operational for approximately 3 years. The approach and methodology followed that outlined in the Inception Report [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh]. The CCEE Team based its findings, conclusions and recommendations on data collection from several sources:  review of program documents, communications with the CO, minutes and presentations from all management and governance committee meetings  review of previous assessments and evaluations  sampling of Grain Legume projects in 7 countries1  more than 66 face to face interviews, a further 133 persons in groups and 4 phone/Skype conversations: ICRISAT, ICARDA, CIAT and IITA staff, partners and stakeholders. Meetings with one Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) member.  meetings with over 100 people in 16 external groups, such as farmers’ groups  online survey completed by 126 (33.4%) scientists who contribute to Grain Legumes and a number of non-CGIAR partners and Management representatives  bibliometric review of 10 publications within each PL to qualitatively assess the design, conduct, analysis and presentation of results  quantitative and qualitative self-assessment of the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above completed by PLCs (see below). We reviewed the Logical Framework that underpins the desired Goals, or Impacts of Grain Legumes, and the links between the outputs and inputs as they related to the organisational units of Grain Legumes. The logical framework approach to planning and management of Grain Legumes activities implies a linear process, leading from activities, outputs, outcomes, to impacts, but within such an approach there may be room for a more systems dynamics approach allowing for feedback at every step and within every step, in order to refine and improve upon the respective activities as new results, ideas, and directions come to light. We then developed a matrix that summarised quantitatively and qualitatively the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above. Main findings and conclusions Grain legume production and consumption remain of great importance to the food security of not inconsiderable populations in the developing world, and merit sustained research investment. We conclude that Grain Legumes continues to contribute significant returns to research investments by the CGIAR, and such investment should continue. The global research community looks to the CGIAR for leadership in Grain legumes, but needs to be assured of value adding when bringing CGIAR centres under the expected umbrella of synergy. However, there is considerable scope for improving the efficiency with which outcomes are achieved. We note that an absence of an effective M&E has hampered the assessment of the effectiveness of proposed impact pathways. Likewise progress has been hampered by the limited numbers of research partnerships with Advanced Institutes and by budgetary constraints (lamented for their stifling effects on continuation of ongoing exciting research). The unworkable management structure constrains the CRP Director’s leadership role; responsibility without authority will never lead to effective outcomes. Good fortune is responsible for many of the successes of Grain Legumes, underpinned by a devoted work force across the participating CGIAR centres and partners. The quality of the science is not uniformly high, and we believe that mentoring of scientists should be given priority where quality is poor. Simplified yet informative reporting is an imperative to this. World class science underpins the identification of, and molecular basis for, traits important for yield improvement and this expertise should be extended to all grain legume species, capitalising upon the germplasm collections. The linking of Grain Legumes with regional research and development consortia has been very successful, with outcomes aligning with those of Grain Legumes. We see that with declining funding consolidation of research effort based on likely successes will be necessary, and welcome the move afoot to incorporate grain legumes into an agri-food system focused on successful value chains that deliver sustainable outcomes. Relevance and Strategy Grain Legumes has geographic and disciplinary relevance, addressing the major supply chain issues of variety development seed system and agronomy, with some attention to quality and postharvest marketing systems. The CRP has provided the opportunity to cut ongoing and to initiate new research. Research funded by the Gates Foundation (Anon, 2014) suggests that the need for improvement is greatest in Africa and advocates reducing the number of crop by country combinations when resources are sparse. The lesser research investment in Latin America, however, is not in line with the regions’ dependency on legumes. In spite of the fact that there is no evidence of strong inter-partner CGIAR centre or internal synergy, the program is still moving ahead on most fronts in line with the overall project logframe. This is in spite of continual pushing and pulling by in particular donors and the CO. However, to quantify real impact, we believe Grain Legumes must have access to reliable baseline data on production and consumption, and this is missing. Similarly, there is little evidence of the proposed ‘Inclusive Market Oriented Development’ (IMOD) framework being used to assist with priority setting. The product lines, eight of which cover most of the historical programmes in place in the partner CGIAR centres at the commencement of the Grain Legumes, do not cover all the constraints for formal constraints analysis was not undertaken at the inception of the Grain Legumes, and some of this additionally identified research is undertaken under the umbrella of the FPs; this needs to be rationalised. We found the PLs to be isolated in activity, even with minimally-integrated activities within each PL, with little evidence of synergy between PLs. Even though the SCs should ensure a systems approach, as with the new FPs, we did not get a feel that this is so. The underplaying of agronomy, and production practices may be one reason for this. We believe that treating legume crops as if they were horticultural crops will increase farmer returns from investment. The choice of Flagship Projects makes sense, with the flow of activity firstly around crop management and agronomy followed by the logical sequence of trait discovery, incorporation into improved varieties, dissemination of those varieties through appropriate seed chains leading to market impacts, and the capacity building required at all steps. One obvious omission, however, is the lack of a central and strategic policy on the role of transgenics in Grain Legumes. We found four notable comparative advantages for Grain Legumes: the access to germplasm of component species, the use of the phenotyping facility at ICRISAT, the approach for village level industry for IPM, and the emphasis on hybrid pigeonpea. Efficiency Each centre has strong control of, and emphasis on, their ‘species’ domains, and ownership of the same detracts from possible synergy. Without synergy or value add, the Grain Legumes brings with it no comparative advantage over each centre continuing their own pre-CRP research agendas. We found little evidence of integration of programmes between centres and almost no cross-centre authorship of publications, such as could have occurred with the integrated cross-centre approaches to stress tolerance including crop modelling: the one publication (Gaur et al., 2015) on heat tolerance by ICRISAT, CIAT and ICARDA does not provide any keys to inter-centre collaboration. The integration of each centre with NARS and university research programmes is good, but the cross-centre links with NARS are poor. A better coordinated integration with Grain Legumes, , rather than through the individual centres, may reduce transactions costs for NARS, Monitoring and evaluation is, as noted throughout our report, one area of Grain Legumes research management that has not been given the attention it should have received. If it had have received proper attention, some of the issues of poor efficiency might have been nipped in the bud. A strong monitoring and evaluation system would have provided the baseline data and set the milestones that would have allowed both efficiency and effectiveness to be better appraised. We found no attempt to define comparative advantages of the CGIAR centres and their R4D activities, although practice showed the better grasp of CIAT in developing innovative seed distribution systems. During field visits and interviews, the CCEE Team observed shortcomings in the communication processes within Grain Legumes and with the broader scientific community and the public. For example, the public face of the program on the internet is out of date. Survey findings, however, suggest that information is shared freely and routinely within the PL within which scientists work. Some external issues, such as those with funding, low W1/W2 and poor sustainability of funding (especially if funding is top heavy with a few agencies), undermine research investment and confidence of partners in the system (e.g. as voiced by researchers working on crops and countries not included in TL III and the cessation of ongoing competitively-funded projects especially in India), but other issues attributable to the governance and management of the Grain Legumes, such as opaque integration of W3/bilaterals with W1/W2 funding require attention. Offsetting this, the existence of the Grain Legumes did mobilise additional funding [that it would not have if Grain Legumes did not exist]. We were concerned that Grain Legumes is simply not recognised outside of the CRP, with a limited www presence and centres promote themselves, rather than Grain Legumes (with exception in IITA). This is not a good move if one wishes to increase investment in the Grain Legumes. Although funding agencies require cost:benefit ratios, for example for each PL we faced difficulty in determining comparative value for money between investment in different types of research, and in being able to clearly attribute research and development outcomes to financial investment. There was also a time CCEE frame issue too. There is poor interaction with the private sector, notably in areas where they have a comparative financial advantage. We questioned in particular the apparent lack of interaction with the major agro-chemical companies, with respect to the development of herbicide tolerant (HT) grain legumes and the lack of evidence that the regulatory and trade aspects related to herbicide tolerant crops had been considered. Quality of science The quality of the science is highly variable across Grain Legumes, with pockets of real excellence that are linked to good levels of productivity, whereas other PLs are struggling to deliver quality publications, and outputs and outcomes that are based on these. There is much evidence of gradualism in terms of research output and outcomes, i.e. essentially the same activities that were ongoing at the time of the launch of Grain Legumes are still in place. However, there are examples of game changers including those from valuable investments in genomics, phenotyping, and bio-control. We were pleased to see large proportions of collaboration on publications with non-CGIAR centres, reflecting cooperation with partners in developed and developing countries. The value of collaboration when ensuring quality of science cannot be stressed highly enough both within the CRP, and with other global and national partners. PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. There is little cohesion between PLs and with other CRPs as evidenced by publications, although there are some exceptions. We suspect the reasons for this are driven by funding. Productivity from the different PLs is also highly variable and it is not clear what other activities staff are engaged in since, in some PLs, they do not appear to lead to quality publications. Effectiveness Grain Legumes has been very effective in addressing component issues of research, but not the continuum from variety development to legumes on someone’s dinner plate. Our overall assessment of the effectiveness of Grain Legumes in stimulating synergy, innovation and impact indicate that gradualism is more prevalent than innovation. It also shows, as do publications, that there is little integration of disciplines or a focus on ‘systems’. The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. However, research on genomics, plant breeding and seed systems have made great strides forward, on the brink of delivering impact. Agronomy has been a poor sister, but some of the competitive grants within Grain Legumes have unearthed some potential game changers, such as objective use of transplanting as an agronomic practice. As mentioned earlier, the lack of effective M&E (however, this was part of some major projects such as TL II/TL III), and therefore the ability to monitor impact pathways and achievement of impact, implies no systematic management of data. This creates difficulty when attempting to evaluate the achievement of the Grain Legumes objectives. One might have expected at least one attempt to try to develop publications between centres arguing for similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella, but we did not find any evidence for this. It is most unfortunate that, due to budgetary cuts, the new ‘schemes’, e.g. competitive grants and scholarships, were cut off before gaining a foothold. With 8 species addressed by Grain Legumes, it is not unexpected that there will be little evidence of shared protocols across centres/species. One rare example was that hosted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on shared methods for phenotyping of legume germplasm. Researchers from CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT and three USDA stations attended, focusing in simple canopy temperature and root morphology measurements. It is our belief that as a set of research centres, the CGIAR centres should be focusing on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral), it is less so for a research institute, and the structure should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres as in a CRP). Impact It is well known that research does not always lead to scientific breakthroughs. Also, activities such as plant breeding are long term; making impacts difficult to assess. We believe that sufficient progress with genomics and associated research has been made to warrant impact, but we are unable to quantify the levels of impact, or the timeframe for the same. Work in Grain Legumes has enormous potential for real impact in scientific research, commercial, farming, smallholder and household communities, much of which is being realised. However, the PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases that are strongly evidenced for these impacts, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding. Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment. Interviews conducted by the CCEE during site visits showed that PLs are quantifying the area of adoption of varieties, but in most cases they are not measuring the impact on environment, health/nutrition. Since the health and nutritional benefits and the environmental gains from growing legumes are major arguments for supporting grain legume research, the community is currently missing substantial opportunities to strengthen its own case for continued support. Whilst there are some impressive examples of considering the whole value chain, e.g. white beans from production through to export; in the main, the pipeline to end user is somewhat piece-meal, with no clear definition of the end user nor differential responsibility of Grain Legumes and of partners. The lack of robust time-defined impact pathways is highlighted in Section 7.4, and even though developed for PL5, timeframes are essential for measuring progress against prediction. Sustainability In summary, there is general acknowledgement that future funding is likely to become more limited, specifically in W1&2 and there is understandable concern over the support for the staff and basic infrastructure that underpin the Grain Legumes programme. For example, it is reported that staffing in parts of CIAT has been dependent on W1&2 and that this is too unstable to re-establish a critical mass. The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2. This position is not sustainable in the long term as there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. The only obvious options to prevent this outcome include a severe reduction in the fixed costs of the centres and/or a refusal to accept W3 and bilateral funding with an inadequate overhead component. In the latter case, there is an obvious danger that funders will move their resources away from the CGIAR system towards other, perhaps less expensive, suppliers of research, and possibly more relevant development expertise. This issue must be addressed. As the Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Gender is not mainstreamed, but there is some evidence that this is improving, especially with dedicated gender specialists and the slow integration of gender across CRPs. There is a need to approach gender through the vision of agriculture as a social practice, with recognition of what changes will be acceptable culturally and what not, and capitalising upon the perceived and actual features of production and processing that grain legumes are primarily women-based crops. Gender awareness may be high among Scientists, but it appears to be a predominantly passive attribute with few proactively seeking opportunities for gender equity. It is, however, a sound sensitivity base on which to build. Nevertheless, examples of notable gender initiatives were identified during field visits. For example, in Benin, the development of biocontrol technologies has enthusiastically integrated diversity, engaging with women farmers’ and youths while maintaining cultural norms. Women are gathering and processing, youths are taking the product to market. The implication is that several groups benefit, rather than domination by the majority group. In Malawi, innovative approaches have been developed to improving nutrition for children, such as incorporating nutrient enriched bean flour products into snacks. In India, scientists collaborating with gender scientists and socio-economists are identifying the impact of mechanical harvesting on agricultural labour and the potential displacement of female labourers. In Kenya, a novel initiative is improving the accessibility of certified seed for new varieties. Seed suppliers have introduced small packs of grain legume seed at low unit cost, which are being purchased by young people and women. Capacity building efforts for external partners are not clearly aligned with the research mandate and delivery of Grain Legumes. However, there are a number of training activities that are being undertaken by Grain Legumes, largely through the W3/bilateral project. Gender balance never reaches parity, but it appears that efforts are made to include female participants. Within the evaluation timeframe it was not possible to conduct external surveys to further validate or review external capacity building efforts in Grain Legumes. Training of scientists is significant, with >40 benefiting. Postgraduate training is varied across PLs, and there is some opportunity to increase the numbers being supervised. We consider that support for postgraduates at ICRISAT could be better coordinated, satisfying more of the students’ needs. It is important, however, to follow up investments in capacity building by monitoring effectiveness, career progressions and so on. Training activities appear to be rather centre-specific, not following a coordinated programme managed by, nor at the level of, the Grain Legumes. Numbers of persons trained and their gender are important, but a measure of the effectiveness of the training is more important. Although optimism is expressed by the great majority of Research Managers that partnerships were working well to leverage knowledge and research capacities, scientists have a less favourable view, particularly in terms of their incentives to participate. It seems likely that the activities taking place within Grain Legumes were, in the most part, continuations of previous collaborations. This is not surprising in light of the reduction in the emphasis on partnerships as Grain Legumes evolved to a funded project, and the consequent lack of opportunity and ambition for establishing novel partnerships. Where they exist, partnerships are good on the whole, especially with US. They could be expanded where comparative advantages exist (for example with Canada and Australia for machine harvestable legumes), but some earlier identified partnerships, e.g. with Turkey, have not been capitalised upon. Others experience problems of variety access (the embargo on exports of some sources of materials from India), yet others do have relevance e.g. imported Brazilian varieties in pre-release in Ethiopia (even though two of the three are from CIAT materials). Governance and Management The standard format of committee structure and responsibilities is common to other CRPs, as are the attendant problems. One of the major problems is that the Grain Legumes Director has responsibility but no authority; hence, even with the support of the RMC, the Director is unable to ‘direct’ in the literal sense of the work the activities of Grain Legumes. We also see the same sense of helplessness with the role of the PLCs. They have responsibility but no authority in managing the affairs of their PL, and they have no access to funds with which to promote intellectual collaboration and cooperation. Minutes from governance and management meetings do not reflect the compromised weak position of the Director and the associated difficulties in the management of Grain Legumes. Nor do the minutes reflect concerns about the amount of time spent by scientists in meetings for planning, integration, evaluation and reporting. Many scientists reported significant opportunity costs in participating in the ongoing imposed [by the CO] evolution of Grain Legumes and CRPs in general. The changes brought in by the CO have not helped promote any greater authority and capacity of the Grain Legumes Director to direct. Likewise, they do not address any of the issues with the conflict of interest in having the Lead Centre chair the Steering Committee. Indeed, we believe that the combining of the Steering Committee with the Independent Advisory Committee, besides becoming unwieldy in number, annuls any sense of independence in advice offered to the Grain Legumes management. We have concerns with the declining proportion of W1/W2 funds (as expressed in the section on Sustainability), and believe that when basic financial planning takes place, integration of W1/W2 and W3/bilateral sources must occur, and be linked to anticipated outcomes and impacts. This will ensure a close alignment of collaborators’ and partners’ objectives and contributions to that of the Grain Legumes. We also queried the process for, and the formality, or lack of, surrounding, the approval of annual budgets, and the level of priority setting when budgets are cut. Recommendations for Grain Legumes The CCEE Team makes the following recommendations, critical issues are highlighted in bold, and those that require action by an entity other than the Grain Legumes Research Management Committee or Project Management united are identified in a footnote. Relevance and Strategy Recommendation 1: A period of consistency is necessary to raise confidence, morale and trust across scientists, managers and partners to foster the assembly of enduring Grain Legumes outcomes2.  There needs to be a concerted effort to undertake baseline studies and to implement a robust M&E activity during this period. Without these data the foundation for integrated research in grain legumes is jeopardised.  There is a strong need to link more closely with the private sector, especially where there are financial and other comparative advantages to do so. Recommendation 2: The agronomic and physiological trait targets of Grain Legumes (tolerance to changing climate patterns, to the pests and diseases of today and of the future, incorporation of quality traits and adaptations to intensive production systems [machine-harvestability and herbicide tolerance], and short season high yielding characters) are all worthy of continued investment when selecting for improved varieties.  There needs to be a common strategy, implemented across centres and species, as to how to address these trait targets through conventional and modern breeding approaches, but only if adequate funding is assured and secured and if a consistency and unity of purpose can be achieved across a large-scale. This should take the form of cross-species coordinated research programmes to address these breeding targets that cooperate across centres and make efficient use of facilities and other resources.  The CRP should undertake a detailed strategic review of the role of transgenics across the range of targets in the mandate crops. Efficiency Recommendation 3: The lack of an effective M&E process is a significant omission, not least in terms of more efficient use of resources and the lack of baseline data with which to measure impact, and must be rectified.  Reinforcing Recommendation 1, an effective M&E system initially directed towards baseline studies must be implemented.  Transaction costs may be reduced through bilateral projects, which are seen as more cost effective than W1/W2 where transaction costs are disproportionately higher. Recommendation 4: To improve communication and coordination within the CRP, and with a broader audience:  There is a priority need for a central database containing, names of staff associated with Grain Legumes and their time commitments, their responsibilities, and involvement in CRP activities, their progress and achievements, their publications, plans of training, travel, and other opportunities for interaction.  Regular global meetings of staff involved in managing PLs, the entire CRP management staff and the IAC are essential for effective coordination of all activity within Grain Legumes.  The website must be given a complete overhaul and improvement and then regular maintenance must be provided to keep it current. Quality of Science Recommendation 5: It is essential to continue investment in good science and to institute a change from gradualism in research output and outcomes to an expectation of innovative and concrete achievements that can be attributed clearly to people, centres and core facilities.  A cost:benefit analysis and subsequent strategic planning must be undertaken to justify further investment in the genomics and phenotyping facilities at ICRISAT especially as such technologies advance rapidly. Strategic planning and coordination must also be implemented for capitalising on the investment in crop simulation modelling. (The phenotyping facility of ICRISAT needs to focus on delivering some outcomes, not only outputs.)  PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. The CCEE recommends special recognition of high quality collaborative papers, thereby encouraging increased quality of the research programmes and widening the penetration of research impacts.  More importance should be placed on the quality of publication, rather than quantity of outputs and there should be recognition of other types of outputs from Grain Legumes. The CRP Director must be party to this.  If staff are engaged in activities that relate more to impact than publication then this needs to be monitored and recorded and a clearer understanding developed of what constitutes a pathway to impact and how success of such activities can be evaluated. A system must be devised and incorporated into the M&E to enable recognition of other types of outputs (non- publication based) from Grain Legumes, e.g. varieties for breeders. Effectiveness Recommendation 6: To develop greater synergy, Grain Legumes should review management processes and the direction of research activities. In particular, far more extensive integration of research and knowledge exchange should take place across both African and Asian continents so that the best aspects of both can be shared. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended that considers processing solutions, as well as breeding solutions, to capitalise upon the nutritional benefits of the grain legume crops. We recommend:  A better collaboration with social scientists at the design stage of experiments in order to improve the utility of the work carried out and to understand its reach.  Supporting3 the adoption of best practice electronic data collection, central storage and open access, particularly of genomic data, for public use.  Given the focus on the link between phenotyping and genotyping, we note that there is a lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped, and therefore these could be better aligned within each species.  Concentrating investment external to Grain Legumes on scaling up production of varieties with the most promising trait profiles to meet the basic seed requirement.  Developing a more holistic approach that coordinates an understanding of the disease pathology and epidemiology, and of new chemicals before they become commercially available, together with agronomic practice such that recommendations can be made for growers. Continuing work to establish whether agronomic factors hold true in different environments and to assess GxE effects within breeding programmes. Such rigorous trial practices should be used to inform the evaluation of breeding lines and to provide phenotype data to associate with markers for traits such as heat, drought and herbicide tolerance.  Considering grain legumes as if they were vegetable crops in terms of the strategy for intensification of production, both from the management perspective and for seed systems, will be a useful development objective into the future. This will bring about more rapid intensification and is likely to increase farmer returns from investment. Recommendation 7: The CGIAR centres should focus in on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral) it is less so for a research institute, and should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres in a CRP).  Collaborative approaches should be explored within Grain Legumes, e.g. similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella. Similarly better alignment is needed to address the lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped.  Despite positive impacts from research in genomics, plant breeding and seed systems, the lack of an effective M&E, already mentioned elsewhere, has reduced the ability to monitor impact pathways. This must be addressed.  The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. Responsibilities of the different actors in the whole value chain must be considered and identified when developing impact targets, and the pathway leading to them, for individual projects. People with socio-economist skills must be part of the team from project inception so that appropriate frameworks are incorporated for measuring and influencing sociological and economic changes brought about by Grain Legumes research. Impact Recommendation 8: PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases in which impact is strongly evidenced, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding.  Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment.  It is essential that Grain Legumes provides training to staff on what constitutes impact and how it can be recorded.  Specific, rather than generalised, potential impacts arising from activity within Grain Legumes should be defined at the time of justifying the programme of work and a pathway to impact should form part of the documentation prepared ahead of a piece of research commencing. . In other words, centres should submit work plans to Grain Legumes before they are undertaken using W1/W2 funds Recommendation 9: The reporting activity must be streamlined to a single (brief) format that can be used to report to Grain Legumes, Centres and to donors for special project activities4. Sustainability Recommendation 10: As Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Zeigler (Director General of IRRI) states “…time and effort would be better spent … making tough decisions about which programs deserve the precious support.”  The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2 and there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. To prevent this outcome it is necessary to significantly reduce the fixed costs of the centres and/or refuse to accept W3 and bilateral funding without an adequate overhead component.  In the absence of long term certainty, the scale of the budget allocated to each of the new CRPs should be very conservative, a feature that can only be achieved by restricting/reducing the scope, probably quite significantly. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Recommendation 11: The challenge for Grain Legumes is to achieve pro-active gender mainstreaming, which facilitates opportunities for gender diversity within all activities, from employment processes through research to end users.  Strategic measurable gender indicators need to be embedded in research design, for instance, through specific IDOs for each of the flagships projects. Accurate baseline data are also required to facilitate M&E reviews of progress.  Implementation of the Gender Strategy is the responsibility of everyone, not solely the Gender Team. Thus, ownership could be encouraged by setting personal development for key personnel objectives with specific outcomes, e.g. employment practices or research outcomes.  Recognising the positive gender initiatives in progress or planned, feedback must be communicated and integrated into broader research planning to share opportunities, methods and outcomes.  In addition to promoting gender equity in research, Grain Legumes also needs to ensure that working environments are gender sensitive and that recruitment processes, including promotion opportunities are equitable. Gender imbalance in management should be actively examined to identify further opportunities for developing female leadership. Recommendation 12: It is recommended that a training plan be devised to ensure that capacity building efforts are more clearly aligned with the research mandate, delivery and timeframe of Grain Legumes. Moreover, we recommend that ICRISAT develop a strategy to treat their new cohort of researchers more equitably in the future. Recommendation 13: To develop a more coherent strategic programme designed to eliminate overlap and promote synergy between programmes with common aims, Grain Legumes should hold a meeting with a range of partners. Governance Recommendation 14: Governance processes should be re-assessed and the structure altered to ensure that the Grain Legumes Director has the authority and budget control to drive the execution of strategy.  The ISC should be truly independent and given the power to influence strategic decisions before they become final. We also recommend that PLCs are provided with the authority to manage the direction and finances of their PL; and that ring-fenced funds are provided for the promotion of collaboration, coordination and staff training5. The way ahead In our view, having seen the ineffectiveness of much of the attempts [or lack of attempts] to harness synergies between multiple centres, and of the strength in few or sole centre partnerships, we believe that there is little to justify a full retention of the 8 legume species and 4 CGIAR centres in a CRP. TL I and II and PABRA have shown to be reasonably good cross-centre and single centre integrated programmes, but even they suffer from incomplete value chain approaches to increasing rural incomes while increasing food and nutritional security; they both need multi-faceted solutions which are not immediately forthcoming from Grain Legumes. It is important to embed Grain Legumes research within the agri-food systems these crops serve. Figure ES1 broadly shows the perceived current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and species, and is discussed more in the text. It is clear that the value chains for individual species from trait determination to nutritional impact have more cohesion than do the individual activities (e.g. trait deployment) across species. For this reason we believe that the future for research in Grain Legumes is best addressed by focusing on each of the species separately, and within an ecosystem framework; any synergy for research across species can be effected through communication and not necessarily through obligatory cooperative research. The ecosystem framework will allow for strengthening of agronomy type systems research, the arguments for benefits of inclusion of grain legumes in cropping systems, which is notable by its absence in much of what Grain Legumes currently undertakes. Figure ES1. Current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and crop species We therefore agree with the innovation in agri-food systems approach of the CG, and believe that Grain Legumes rightly belongs in the Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agri-food Systems. We believe that the option of combining the crops of dryland cereals and legumes in the cereal-legume-livestock systems of subsistence farming communities for whole-farm productivity is closest to the best way forward. Indeed the inclusion of grain legumes may not warrant even a CRP alone, rather the legume components should fit in with the major crops that determine the production systems. Legumes will always be subservient to the major cereals, as necessary adjuncts to the whole production system, providing both nutritional diversity and environmental services, neither achievable from cereals alone. Figure ES2. Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP, which  Incorporates ex-Dryland Systems, Dryland Cereals, Grain Legumes, some HumidTropics, some ex-Livestock &Fisheries into a new CRP  Will cover full agri-food system VC for all 8 legumes in all ecologies, but must interact (dock) with the relevant AFS-CRPs for the dominant cereal in the relevant ecology  Hence, will need to negotiate with other Agrifood Systems-CRPs on who does what for legumes  In addition, responsible for sorghum and millet in the mixed dryland crop-livestock agro-ecologies For major game changers to be effected, we believe that the game has to change, and there is little evidence of this. The direction of CRPs is the correct route, but the journey has not yet come to its destination. A major change of game [such as the adoption of a Flagship Project approach as exemplified by the Australian CSIRO – where flagships contract services from centres of research excellence] would be painful to implant. The CGIAR system is going down the right pathway but it has not gone far enough.

Challenges of measuring and linking patient outcomes to nursing interventions in acute care settings

Measuring and linking patient outcomes to nursing intervention is an important task that has professional, financial and political ramifications. The importance and complexity of measuring patient outcomes accurately should not be overlooked, as there are a number of emergent factors that influence this process. These include the turbulent context of practise, variations in care due to the large number of health professionals, individual patient characteristics impacting on outcomes, determining appropriate nursing outcome measures, nursing's lack of autonomy within the system and difficulties experienced while trying to link patient outcomes to nursing interventions. So that the results reflect reality, it is important for researchers in the field to take note and consider these factors when measuring patient outcomes. The present article aimed to examine and discuss a number of these factors as they relate to the evaluation of patient care.

The influence of collectivism in society and its implications for research on information systems and national culture

This paper argues that the nature of IS research that deals with indigenous culture must be informed as much by context as it is by culture models, which has been the focus of such research in the past. This is considered important because it better reflects the meaning of the data collected for the researcher. To appreciate the importance of context this papers also argues that research subjects from designated individualist societies will inform the researcher in different ways from those subjects located in collectivist societies. To illustrate the practical implications of this argument the paper reports three separate case studies in IS research where the researchers reflect on the impact that a collectivist view has had on the research findings. The paper suggests that (1) similar ethnicity and appearance are significant in gaining the trust of subjects in a collectivist society; that is the researcher is part of the in-group as they belong to the same culture or ethnic group; that (2) who introduced the researcher to the subject is significant in that trust is best reflected when a member of the group/collective plays an important role in the research process itself; and that (3) an ability to (a) communicate in the natural language and (b) understand the implicit body language and (c) cultural codes is important in gaining significant and more meaningful research outcomes. This is enabled via the implicit meanings embedded in members of the collectivist society.

Women in research? Investigating research opportunities for female academics in Australia

Women continue to be surprisingly under-represented in academia, given the increasing numbers of female postgraduate students and the flexible working conditions offered by most Australian Universities. To date, research has emphasised multiple causes for the 'gender gap' in academia, including the structural characteristics of the university system, cultural and societal barriers to the advancement of women, the influence of marital status on the productivity of women academics and the interaction of cultural, social and personality factors on women's professional careers. However, the implications of a 'gender gap' in academic rank reach beyond arguments of equality between sexes, to questions regarding consequences of a male-dominated professoriate to the nature and subjects of academic research in Australia. The aim of this paper is to investigate the factors that determine the rank of Australian academics and in part, to investigate whether there is a gender gap of rank or authority, through an analysis of data collected on all Australian academics by the Federal Department of Education, Science and Training. The implications of these findings on opportunities for female academic researchers and for research outcomes will be discussed.

Inclusion and accountability: communications research with consumers with disabilities

Over the past two decades there has been an increasing focus on doing research with and for consumers rather than on consumers. Research that is collaborative and inclusive has been called for by people with disabilities. People with disabilities are a group of telecommunications consumers who are disadvantaged because of social barriers and access issues with equipment, services and information. In this paper, the benefits and challenges of collaborative (e.g. participatory, participatory action, emancipatory) research with these consumers and the processes that can facilitate inclusive and accountable research outcomes are addressed. Throughout the paper, four questions will be explored: Who determines which research issues are explored and the methods that are used? What is the level of consumer involvement in the research process? How can academics and government ensure that consumer-focused research is inclusive and participatory? How, and to whom, should research results be made available?

In the first part of the paper, the perspectives on consumer research by people with disabilities are presented. Respect for and appreciation of consumers' views underpins the philosophical stance needed by researchers and funding bodies before serious engagement in empowering, person-centred research can be successful.

In the second part of the paper, there is a focus on defining the features of collaborative research approaches. Participatory research, participatory action research, and emancipatory research are variations that incorporate differing levels of consumer involvement. Each of these, however, embrace shifts in philosophy and methods away from more traditional 'scientific' research. Such changes result in a greater sense of inclusion and project ownership by consumers.

The third part of the paper addresses some of the issues associated with collaborative research for consumers with disabilities, for academic researchers, and for government funding bodies. Differing understandings of the social nature of disablement influence attitudes toward consumer involvement and are demonstrated in the choice of research questions, project aims, and the methodologies used. Differing agendas are reflected in reactions to the traditional project requirements and processes of government, the preferred research methodologies of researchers, and the perceived accountability of researchers or government for the dissemination and sharing of research results. The challenges to successful engagement with consumers in collaborative research have been identified in the literature and a number of strategies recommended (Barnes, 2003; Clear, 1999; Mercer, 2002; Oliver, 1992, 1997; Zarb, 1997). Application of inclusive strategies by researchers and funding bodies is essential for positive change and inclusive, empowering outcomes.

The paper concludes with a case study of a DCITA-funded research project. The project is evaluated using participatory/emancipatory research criteria modified from Zarb (1992) and addresses consumer, researcher, and funding body participation. The four questions used in the discussion of the paper are applied to this particular project. In addition, the benefits and learnings from the project will be compared with the outcomes desired by consumers who espouse collaborative research approaches.

Nurse practitioner competency standards: findings from collaborative Australian and New Zealand research

Background: The title, Nurse Practitioner, is protected in most jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand and the number of nurse practitioners is increasing in health services in both countries. Despite this expansion of the role, there is scant national or international research to inform development of nurse practitioner competency standards.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to research nurse practitioner practice to inform development of generic standards that could be applied for the education, authorisation and practice of nurse practitioners in both countries.

Design: The research used a multi-methods approach to capture a range of data sources including research of policies and curricula, and interviews with clinicians. Data were collected from relevant sources in Australia and New Zealand.

Settings: The research was conducted in New Zealand and the five states and territories in Australia where, at the time of the research, the title of nurse practitioner was legally protected.

Participants: The research was conducted with a purposeful sample of nurse practitioners from diverse clinical settings in both countries. Interviews and material data were collected from a range of sources and data were analysed within and across these data modalities.

Results: Findings included identification of three generic standards for nurse practitioner practice: namely, Dynamic Practice, Professional Efficacy and Clinical Leadership. Each of these standards has a number of practice competencies, each of these competencies with its own performance indicators.

Conclusions: Generic standards for nurse practitioner practice will support a standardised approach and mutual recognition of nurse practitioner authorisation across the two countries. Additionally, these research outcomes can more generally inform education providers, authorising bodies and clinicians on the standards of practice for the nurse practitioner whilst also contributing to the current international debate on nurse practitioner standards and scope of practice.

In search of a future strategy for market research services : clients' views on market research suppliers

The market research environment is transforming rapidly and research suppliers may not be keeping up with changing research client needs. This paper examines research client perceptions of current research supplier performance and future competencies. The key findings are that research suppliers need to move their staffing profiles beyond technical expertise in conducting research (generating outputs) to functional expertise in understanding research outcomes within internal and external organizational contexts. The transition from data collector to expert advisor may involve anew business model and new pricing strategies based on intellectual expertise rather than margins on data collection services.