Traditional Chinese medicine research in the post-genomic era: good practice, priorities, challenges and opportunities

Background and aims: GP-TCM is the 1st EU-funded Coordination Action consortium dedicated to traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) research. This paper aims to summarise the objectives, structure and activities of the consortium and introduces the position of the consortium regarding good practice, priorities, challenges and opportunities in TCM research. Serving as the introductory paper for the GPTCM Journal of Ethnopharmacology special issue, this paper describes the roadmap of this special issue and reports how the main outputs of the ten GP-TCM work packages are integrated, and have led to consortium-wide conclusions. Materials and methods: Literature studies, opinion polls and discussions among consortium members and stakeholders. Results: By January 2012, through 3 years of team building, the GP-TCM consortium had grown into a large collaborative network involving ∼200 scientists from 24 countries and 107 institutions. Consortium members had worked closely to address good practice issues related to various aspects of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) and acupuncture research, the focus of this Journal of Ethnopharmacology special issue, leading to state-of-the-art reports, guidelines and consensus on the application of omics technologies in TCM research. In addition, through an online survey open to GP-TCM members and non-members, we polled opinions on grand priorities, challenges and opportunities in TCM research. Based on the poll, although consortium members and non-members had diverse opinions on the major challenges in the field, both groups agreed that high-quality efficacy/effectiveness and mechanistic studies are grand priorities and that the TCM legacy in general and its management of chronic diseases in particular represent grand opportunities. Consortium members cast their votes of confidence in omics and systems biology approaches to TCM research and believed that quality and pharmacovigilance of TCM products are not only grand priorities, but also grand challenges. Non-members, however, gave priority to integrative medicine, concerned on the impact of regulation of TCM practitioners and emphasised intersectoral collaborations in funding TCM research, especially clinical trials. Conclusions: The GP-TCM consortium made great efforts to address some fundamental issues in TCM research, including developing guidelines, as well as identifying priorities, challenges and opportunities. These consortium guidelines and consensus will need dissemination, validation and further development through continued interregional, interdisciplinary and intersectoral collaborations. To promote this, a new consortium, known as the GP-TCM Research Association, is being established to succeed the 3-year fixed term FP7 GP-TCM consortium and will be officially launched at the Final GP-TCM Congress in Leiden, the Netherlands, in April 2012.

'In practice it doesn't always work out like that.' Undergraduate experiences in a research community of practice

This paper examines the extent to which a structured undergraduate research intervention, UROP, permits undergraduate students early access to legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) in a research community of practice. Accounts of placement experiences suggest that UROP affords rich possibilities for engagement with research practice. Undergraduates tread a path of gaining access to mature practice while also building their own independence, participating in work that they see matters to the community and making gains in use of a shared research repertoire. Students place UROP experiences in a contrasting frame to research exercises experienced during degree programmes; their sense of the authenticity of the research experienced through UROP emerges as a key element of these accounts. The data generate the interesting question that the degree of engagement with mature practice may account for more of the gain from UROP than simply the quantity of contact other researchers.

Bridging the gap between research and practice in organizational network analysis: a conversation between Rob Cross and Martin Kilduff

The article features a conversation between Rob Cross and Martin Kilduff about organizational network analysis in research and practice. It demonstrates the value of using social network perspectives in HRM. Drawing on the discussion about managing personal networks; managing the networks of others; the impact of social networking sites on perceptions of relationships; and ethical issues in organizational network analysis, we propose specific suggestions to bring social network perspectives closer to HRM researchers and practitioners and rebalance our attention to people and to their relationships.

Connecting research and practice in TESOL: a community of practice perspective

In line with a growing interest in teacher research engagement in second language education, this article is an attempt to shed light on teachers’ views on the relationship between teaching and practice. The data comprise semi-structured interviews with 20 teachers in England, examining their views about the divide between research and practice in their field, the reasons for the persistence of the divide between the two and their suggestions on how to bridge it. Wenger’s (1998) Community of Practice (CoP) is used as a conceptual framework to analyse and interpret the data. The analysis indicates that teacher experience, learning and ownership of knowledge emerging from participation in their CoP are key players in teachers’ professional practice and in the development of teacher identity. The participants construe the divide in the light of the differences they perceive between teaching and research as two different CoPs, and attribute the divide to the limited mutual engagement, absence of a joint enterprise and lack of a shared repertoire between them. Boundary encounters, institutionalised brokering and a more research-oriented teacher education provision are some of the suggestions for bringing the two communities together.

Ethnographic methodologies for construction research: knowing, practice and interventions

Ethnographic methodologies developed in social anthropology and sociology hold considerable promise for addressing practical, problem-based research concerned with the construction site. The extended researcher-engagement characteristic of ethnography reveals rich insights, yet is infrequently used to understand how workplace realities are lived out on construction sites. Moreover, studies that do employ these methods are rarely reported within construction research journals. This paper argues that recent innovations in ethnographic methodologies offer new routes to: posing questions; understanding workplace socialities (i.e. the qualities of the social relationships that develop on construction sites); learning about forms, uses and communication of knowledge on construction sites; and turning these into meaningful recommendations. This argument is supported by examples from an interdisciplinary ethnography concerning migrant workers and communications on UK construction sites. The presented research seeks to understand how construction workers communicate with managers and each other and how they stay safe on site, with the objective of informing site health-and-safety strategies and the production and evaluation of training and other materials.

Built environment education, research and practice: integrating diverse interests to make an impact

The role of the academic in the built environment seems generally to be not well understood or articulated. While this problem is not unique to our field, there are plenty of examples in a wide range of academic disciplines where the academic role has been fully articulated. But built environment academics have tended not to look beyond their own literature and their own vocational context in trying to give meaning to their academic work. The purpose of this keynote presentation is to explore the context of academic work generally and the connections between education, research and practice in the built environment, specifically. By drawing on ideas from the sociology of the professions, the role of universities, and the fundamentals of social science research, a case is made that helps to explain the kind of problems that routinely obstruct academic progress in our field. This discussion reveals that while there are likely to be great weaknesses in much of what is published and taught in the built environment, it is not too great a stretch to provide a more robust understanding and a good basis for developing our field in a way that would enable us collectively to make a major contribution to theory-building, theory-testing and to make a good stab at tackling some of the problems facing society at large. There is no reason to disregard the fundamental academic disciplines that underpin our knowledge of the built environment. If we contextualise our work in these more fundamental disciplines, there is every reason to think that we can have a much greater impact that we have experienced to date.