			Home About us Contact

Research Agencies (research + agencies)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Business, Economics, Finance and Accounting	50%

Selected Abstracts

Establishing a minimum standard for collaborative research in federal environmental agencies,

INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT, Issue 3 2008
Kalle E Matso
Abstract There is a general consensus that,given the magnitude of the challenges facing our nation's natural resource managers,the rate, efficiency, and effectiveness of linking research to decision making must be enhanced. Many reports have touched on this issue, most of them culminating with the exhortation to "foster more interactions between scientists and users," but very few documents provide details or assign responsibility to drive the interactions that most agree should happen. As a result, many natural science and engineering programs "talk the talk",that is, they say they do collaborative research with intended users; however, upon inspection, few of them "walk the walk" by effectively supporting collaboration throughout the research process. Moreover, when called to support transition to application in specific ways, research agencies often balk, most often objecting that research programs cannot afford to take any support away from funding more research. They may also argue that science works best for society when it is freed from concerns related to application. In this paper we will 1) review the cultural conflict that often underlies disagreements about collaborative research, 2) offer details on the basic ingredients required to achieve a minimum standard for collaborative research, 3) suggest an approach for determining the appropriate level of support for collaborative research, given various research goals, and 4) recommend specific steps for motivating scientists and stakeholders to participate in collaborative research. [source]

Mystery shopping: Using deception to measure service performance

PSYCHOLOGY & MARKETING, Issue 7 2001
Alan M. Wilson
This article reports on a program of exploratory research aimed at examining the practice of mystery shopping in service organizations. Mystery shopping, a form of participant observation, uses researchers to deceive customer service personnel into believing that they are serving real customers or potential customers. The research focused on the views of senior managers responsible for commissioning mystery shopping research and directors of market research agencies responsible for the provision of such research. The research findings identify the manner in which mystery shopping is used and the methods used to maximize the reliability of the technique. The study also revealed that employees' acceptance of this form of deception appears to be critical if the results are to be taken seriously by service personnel and if industrial relations within the organization are not to suffer. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [source]

Front and Back Covers, Volume 24, Number 5.

ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY, Issue 5 2008
June 200
Front & Back cover caption, volume 24 issue 5 Iron Mike (see back cover) represents a generic soldier at Fort Bragg, one of the world's largest military bases, in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Here he appears to patrol streets under martial law, empty and grey. The Pawn Shop Target Practice (see front cover) is also in Fayetteville. At the back of the shop you can buy guns, bullets, jewellery and more, and also take aim at various targets , images of a woman in a bikini, an anonymous silhouette, a deer. Violence is found in Fayetteville as a symbol of protection, as entertainment, and certainly as a commodity. The absence of living people in these photographs underscores a clinical attitude cultivated in the military towards the largely dehumanized adversary other , a long way from the kind of engagement anthropologists seek through participant-observation. It may well be that the military would benefit from being ,anthropologized'. However, given Keenan's and Besteman's experiences in Africa, as described in this issue, what is the guarantee that the African peoples will actually benefit from militarization at this time of US military expansion? MILITARIZING THE DISCIPLINE? US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates approvingly cites Montgomery McFate: ,I'm frequently accused of militarizing anthropology. But we're really anthropologizing the military'.* This issue of ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY draws attention to the launch of two initiatives in October this year, both of which will have an impact on the peoples we work with and on anthropology as a discipline. The first is the launch of Minerva, a new Pentagon initiative to recruit social scientists for research, for which proposals are due this month. As Catherine Lutz argues in her editorial, this programme may soon outspend civilian funds within our discipline, and will thus undoubtedly influence our research agenda and restrict the public sphere in which we work. If the Pentagon wants high-quality research, why not commission this from reputable and experienced civilian research agencies, who should be able to manage peer review at arm's length from the Pentagon? The second initiative is AFRICOM, the newly unified regional US command for Africa. Although presented benignly as supporting development in Africa, it was originally cast in the security discourse of the global ,war on terror', with the aim of securing North America's oil supplies in Africa. In this issue, Africanist anthropologists Jeremy Keenan and Catherine Besteman criticize AFRICOM's destabilizing and militarizing effect on the regions in which they work, which collapses development into military security. Once deployed to the ends of military securitization, can anthropology remain non-partisan? Alf Hornborg, in his editorial, asks if we can continue to rely on the cornucopia of cheap energy, arguing that military intervention to securitize oil supplies, and academic discourse that mystifies the logic of the global system, benefit only a small minority of the world's population. In the light of developments such as Minerva and AFRICOM, can anthropology continue to offer an independent reflexive ,cultural critique' of the socio-political system from which our discipline has sprung? *Montgomery McFate, quoted by Robert M. Gates (,Nonmilitary work essential for long-term peace, Secretary of Defense says'. Manhattan, Kansas State University, Landon Lecture, 26.11.2007), as cited in Rohde, David, ,Army enlists anthropology in war zones' (New York Times, 05.10.2007). [source]

Accessing other people's technology for non,profit research

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, Issue 3 2002
Carol Nottenburg
As patents and other forms of intellectual property become more pervasive in the next generation of biotechnologies, designing policies and practices to ensure sufficient freedom to operate (i.e., the ability to practice or use an innovation) will be crucial for non,profit research agencies, especially those intent on developing technologies destined for commercial release. Are non,profit organisations exempt from intellectual property claims? What constitutes infringement of a patent? How does a non,profit establish its freedom to operate? We address these issues in this paper and evaluate various options for accessing other people's technologies. Options include cross,licensing agreements, research,only or cost,free licences, market segmentation strategies, mergers or joint ventures, and patent pooling or clearinghouse mechanisms. Responding creatively to the new intellectual property environment will have far reaching consequences for the future of non,profit research. [source]