Promoting research-user collaboration: an assessment of funding schemes: Fifth NCCR North-South Report on Effectiveness

Donors increasingly require that the research they fund be of benefit for society and the environment. To this end, researchers addressing complex and uncertain problems should work together with research users. This is not always easy: researchers are expected to collaborate with non-academic partners, but are not funded for the additional work. Collaborative research projects often cannot tap the full potential of user engagement. Therefore, specific institutional and organisational conditions are necessary that foresee or even foster research–user engagement; funding schemes are one possible solution. Right from the start, the NCCR North-South programme introduced Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes of Global Change (PAMS). This evaluation assesses the types of collaboration supported by PAMS, as well as the value of PAMS as a funding scheme for collaboration. It compares PAMS with similar funding schemes of other universities, research programmes, or projects, and contains recommendations.

Research partnerships: the benefits of North-South collaboration

Partnerships between Northern and Southern researchers are a powerful tool for studying problems of global change and for shaping development policies. North–South partnerships enable teams of researchers to focus on specific problems and to strengthen research capacities in developing countries. They also enable Southern researchers to contribute to their home countries as part of an international network. This issue of evidence for policy draws on recent publications from the NCCR North-South to illustrate how partnership benefits science and sustainable development.

Panel report ECIS 2012: publication strategy for junior researchers: quantity vs. quality, importance of the first authorship and collaboration

The publication record is a key component of a successful academic career in IS. Despite its importance, its definition - especially for junior researchers―remains unclear. Is it better to have one A-publication or three Bpublications? Does being the third author on an A-publication carry more weight than being the first author on a Bpublication? Is it better to publish with as few co-authors as possible to demonstrate ability for independent work or is publishing with others a sign of good teamwork and academic excellence? Faced with these uncertainties, young researchers increasingly question the choices they make regarding their publication strategy. If unaddressed, these issues are bound to interfere with the quality of the IS research and scholars’ job satisfaction. This article raises these concerns associated with a publication strategy for junior researchers and reports the views voiced by five academics at a panel session at the European Conference on Information Systems 2012. In particular, the following topics are discussed: quantity vs. quality, value of the first authorship, the “optimal” number of authors, and the issues of co-authorship with an academic supervisor.

Publication trade-offs for junior scholars in IS: conjoint analysis of preferences for quality, first authorship, collaboration and time

A publication record provides evidence of research productivity and is critical for junior scholars starting their careers in academia. Publication attributes, such as level of the publication outlet, order and number of authors, are typically used to evaluate its quality. However, time spent on a publication is a limited commodity, and researchers face significant trade-offs when deciding which publications they should concentrate on. To better understand the choices made, conjoint analysis with 241 junior IS scholars was conducted. We find that when “quality vs. number of authors” and “quality vs. time” trade-offs are considered, quality is prioritized. However, the emphasis on quality is less pronounced when “rank as an author” is at stake. Especially Ph.D. students tend to choose first authorship when dealing with “quality vs. rank as an author” trade-off. Our findings provide intriguing insights into how publication attributes weigh against each other when research collaboration decisions are made.

Social skills as predictors of communication, performance and quality of collaboration in project-based learning

The assumption that social skills are necessary ingredients of collaborative learning is well established but rarely empirically tested. In addition, most theories on collaborative learning focus on social skills only at the personal level, while the social skill configurations within a learning group might be of equal importance. Using the integrative framework, this study investigates which social skills at the personal level and at the group level are predictive of task-related e-mail communication, satisfaction with performance and perceived quality of collaboration. Data collection took place in a technology-enhanced long-term project-based learning setting for pre-service teachers. For data collection, two questionnaires were used, one at the beginning and one at the end of the learning cycle which lasted 3 months. During the project phase, the e-mail communication between group members was captured as well. The investigation of 60 project groups (N = 155 for the questionnaires; group size: two or three students) and 33 groups for the e-mail communication (N = 83) revealed that personal social skills played only a minor role compared to group level configurations of social skills in predicting satisfaction with performance, perceived quality of collaboration and communication behaviour. Members from groups that showed a high and/or homogeneous configuration of specific social skills (e.g., cooperation/compromising, leadership) usually were more satisfied and saw their group as more efficient than members from groups with a low and/or heterogeneous configuration of skills.

Multiprofessional collaboration in teaching practices in all-day-schools in Switzerland

Multiprofessional collaboration in settings of extended education has been an important research topic in the past 40 years and has been discussed as a means to improve educational achievement, foster professional development, and support teachers in their everyday work. Several recent studies in multiprofessional settings found that collaboration practices often remain on a student-centered, time-limited, and superficial level of exchange, whereas higher forms of collaboration are very rare (Dizinger, Fussangel, Kasper, 2011). Furthermore there exists an obvious research gap on collaboration in Swiss all-day schools (Jutzi&Thomann, 2012). In this study we analyzed practices of multiprofessional collaboration in school-based and community-based extracurricular activities of all-day schools in Switzerland. The aim of this qualitative study of 10 all-day schools was to answer the following questions: (a) What forms of collaboration (informal/formal) are used between the different professionals? and (b) Are there different types of all-day schools with regard to distinctive and consistent types of collaboration? We conducted 18 problem-centered interviews (with the principals/heads of the all-day schools) and 10 focus group discussions (teams). In the process of data evaluation, we applied the method of qualitative content analysis. The results show that multiprofessional collabo ration is taking place in all of the all-day schools examined in the study. However, the collaborative practices differ in their level of intensity, design, and purpose.

Conditions promoting good multiprofessional collaboration practices in Swiss all-day schools

Multiprofessional collaboration in all-day schools refers to teamwork and coordination that takes place between professionals with different vocational backgrounds. In Switzerland, all-day schoolscomprise regular school instruction and school-based extracurricular activities. Nevertheless, multiprofessional collaboration can also refer to collaboration between education professionals in all-day schools and professionals outside the school in a community-based setting of extracurricular activities. A synthesis of the literature shows that collaboration inside and outside the school setting is promoted by conditions in three areas: structural characteristics of the institution, characteristics of the team, and interpersonal processes (Schüpbach, Jutzi & Thomann 2012). In view of these findings, it was the aim of this study to analyze conditions of good collaboration practices in all-day schools in Switzerland. This qualitative study examined 10 all-day schools in five different cantons in the German-speaking part of Switzerland that showed good collaboration practice. In the course of this study, we conducted 18 problem-centered interviews and 10 focus group discussions. In the process of data evaluation, we applied the method of qualitative content analy sis. The findings show that all of the three areas of conditions promoting good collaboration proved to be relevant in the whole sample of all-day schools. Nevertheless, for the three different types of collaboration found? The school- oriented, the mixed/in termediate, and the social environment-oriented type? We identified different conditions of good collaboration practice.

Drivers of collaboration to mitigate climate change: An illustration of Swiss climate policy over 15 years

Climate change mitigation policy is driven by scientific knowledge and involves actors from the international, national and local decision-making levels. This multi-level and cross-sectoral context requires collaborative management when designing mitigation solutions over time and space. But collaboration in general policymaking settings, and particularly in the complex domain of climate mitigation, is not an easy task. This paper addresses the question of what drives collaboration among collective actors involved in climate mitigation policy. We wish to investigate whether common beliefs or power structures influence collaboration among actors. We adopt a longitudinal approach to grasp differences between the early and more advanced stages of mitigation policy design. We use survey data to investigate actors’ collaboration, beliefs and power, and apply a Stochastic Actor-oriented Model for network dynamics to three subsequent networks in Swiss climate policy between 1995 and 2012. Results show that common beliefs among actors, as well as formal power structures, have a higher impact on collaboration relations than perceived power structures. Furthermore, those effects hold true for decision-making about initial mitigation strategies, but less so for the implementation of those measures.

Tableaux de la lande et autres poèmes, traduit par Patrick Suter en collaboration avec Bernard Böschenstein

Annette von Droste-Hülshoff, «die grösste deutsche Dichterin», comme on le dit fréquemment en allemand, a longtemps passé pour intraduisible. Ces traductions essaient pour la première fois de respecter la densité des vers allemands, tant sur les plans phonique que sémantique.

Poor Reliability between Cochrane Reviewers and Blinded External Reviewers When Applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool in Physical Therapy Trials

OBJECTIVES To test the inter-rater reliability of the RoB tool applied to Physical Therapy (PT) trials by comparing ratings from Cochrane review authors with those of blinded external reviewers. METHODS Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PT were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analysis of PT interventions. RoB assessments were conducted independently by 2 reviewers blinded to the RoB ratings reported in the Cochrane reviews. Data on RoB assessments from Cochrane reviews and other characteristics of reviews and trials were extracted. Consensus assessments between the two reviewers were then compared with the RoB ratings from the Cochrane reviews. Agreement between Cochrane and blinded external reviewers was assessed using weighted kappa (κ). RESULTS In total, 109 trials included in 17 Cochrane reviews were assessed. Inter-rater reliability on the overall RoB assessment between Cochrane review authors and blinded external reviewers was poor (κ  =  0.02, 95%CI: -0.06, 0.06]). Inter-rater reliability on individual domains of the RoB tool was poor (median κ  = 0.19), ranging from κ  =  -0.04 ("Other bias") to κ  =  0.62 ("Sequence generation"). There was also no agreement (κ  =  -0.29, 95%CI: -0.81, 0.35]) in the overall RoB assessment at the meta-analysis level. CONCLUSIONS Risk of bias assessments of RCTs using the RoB tool are not consistent across different research groups. Poor agreement was not only demonstrated at the trial level but also at the meta-analysis level. Results have implications for decision making since different recommendations can be reached depending on the group analyzing the evidence. Improved guidelines to consistently apply the RoB tool and revisions to the tool for different health areas are needed.