Research Programmes

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 237519 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Nirmala Sikder - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Rhiannon Tudor Edwards - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • paradigms and Research Programmes is it time to move from health care economics to health economics
    Health Economics, 2001
    Co-Authors: Rhiannon Tudor Edwards
    Abstract:

    As an applied subdiscipline of economics, health economics has flourished, defining itself as the study of how scarce health care resources may be used to meet our needs. This evolutionary pathway has led to health economists adopting a very ‘medical’ model of health, in which the predominant production function for health is health care. This paper sets out policy challenges to health economics which have arisen in light of growing recognition by governments of the socioeconomic determinants of health and their stated commitment to tackle inequalities in health. It reviews Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigm shift and Imre Lakatos' theory of scientific Research Programmes in the natural sciences, favouring the latter as an explanation of the evolution of the subdiscipline of health economics. The paper brings together four recently published visions of the future of health economics—visions that are almost exclusively focused on the production, organization and distribution of health care. In contrast to these visions, in Lakatosian terms, this paper challenges the subdiscipline's core ‘positive heuristic’, i.e. the set of imperatives which determines how the Research programme should unfold, how it may be defended, its scope and boundaries. This paper argues that health economics will need to evolve to embrace a more socioeconomic model of health and, to this end, offers for debate an expansion of Williams’ diagrammatic representation of the subdiscipline. It concludes by asking whether the magnitude and the magnetism of health care policy issues will continue to prove too strong to allow health economists, should they wish, to steer their Research and educational Programmes more directly towards ‘health’ rather than ‘health care’ as the relevant social want. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  • paradigms and Research Programmes is it time to move from health care economics to health economics
    Health Economics, 2001
    Co-Authors: Rhiannon Tudor Edwards
    Abstract:

    As an applied subdiscipline of economics, health economics has flourished, defining itself as the study of how scarce health care resources may be used to meet our needs. This evolutionary pathway has led to health economists adopting a very 'medical' model of health, in which the predominant production function for health is health care. This paper sets out policy challenges to health economics which have arisen in light of growing recognition by governments of the socioeconomic determinants of health and their stated commitment to tackle inequalities in health. It reviews Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigm shift and Imre Lakatos' theory of scientific Research Programmes in the natural sciences, favouring the latter as an explanation of the evolution of the subdiscipline of health economics. The paper brings together four recently published visions of the future of health economics-visions that are almost exclusively focused on the production, organization and distribution of health care. In contrast to these visions, in Lakatosian terms, this paper challenges the subdiscipline's core 'positive heuristic', i.e. the set of imperatives which determines how the Research programme should unfold, how it may be defended, its scope and boundaries. This paper argues that health economics will need to evolve to embrace a more socioeconomic model of health and, to this end, offers for debate an expansion of Williams' diagrammatic representation of the subdiscipline. It concludes by asking whether the magnitude and the magnetism of health care policy issues will continue to prove too strong to allow health economists, should they wish, to steer their Research and educational Programmes more directly towards 'health' rather than 'health care' as the relevant social want.

A K Sikder - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Matthew H Todd - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • open source drug discovery a limited tutorial
    Parasitology, 2014
    Co-Authors: Murray N Robertson, Paul M Ylioja, Alice E Williamson, Michael Woelfle, Michael Robins, Katrina A Badiola, Paul Willis, Piero Olliaro, Timothy N C Wells, Matthew H Todd
    Abstract:

    Open science is a new concept for the practice of experimental laboratory-based Research, such as drug discovery. The authors have recently gained experience in how to run such projects and here describe some straightforward steps others may wish to take towards more openness in their own Research Programmes. Existing and inexpensive online tools can solve many challenges, while some psychological barriers to the free sharing of all data and ideas are more substantial.

Edwin Horlings - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • exploring the promises of transdisciplinary Research a quantitative study of two climate Research Programmes
    Research Policy, 2016
    Co-Authors: Stefan P L De Jong, Tjerk Wardenaar, Edwin Horlings
    Abstract:

    Scientists have long since become accustomed to explaining the future value of their work. Nowadays token statements are no longer sufficient. Societal impact must be embedded in the organisation of Research. The call for societal impact is most explicitly expressed in and actively shaped by transdisciplinary Research Programmes. We have examined two questions related to compliance in the principal-agent relation between a programme and its projects. The first question concerns the risk of moral hazard: is societal actor involvement a token activity or a substantial component of the Research process? The second question relates to possible adverse selection: does societal actor involvement produce the expected benefits and, if so, under which conditions? We surveyed members and project leaders of 178 projects in two transdisciplinary climate Research Programmes in The Netherlands. There is no reason to suspect large-scale moral hazard. Projects formally labelled as transdisciplinary have characteristics typically associated with transdisciplinarity but academic projects share those characteristics. Neither is there reason to suspect adverse selection. The archetypical properties of transdisciplinary Research are associated with the expected societal benefits. An important finding is that there are different types of benefit, each of which requires its own approach. Benefit is achieved through informal involvement and a diversity of outputs, and much less by giving societal actors a prominent role or influence in the Research process. Based on our conclusions we recommend customizing the design of climate Research Programmes and projects towards the needs of the specific societal benefits they aim to generate and reconsidering the emphasis on formal involvement of societal actors in funding procedures.

  • how accurately does output reflect the nature and design of transdisciplinary Research Programmes
    Research Evaluation, 2015
    Co-Authors: Elizabeth Koier, Edwin Horlings
    Abstract:

    Many of today’s societal problems are wicked problems that require a new, transdisciplinary approach in which knowledge of scientists and stakeholders from different disciplines is integrated. The evaluation of transdisciplinary science requires a multi-method approach. Bibliometric analysis is consistently among the methods in multi-method evaluations. We analyse the accuracy of bibliometric evidence for the evaluation of transdisciplinary Research by examining two large climate adaptation Research Programmes in the Netherlands. The assessment of accuracy involves a comparison of different approaches to defining and measuring involvement, output, and quality. We draw three conclusions with regard to accuracy. First, scientific output covers a fairly high amount of the scientific activities of the Programmes, though information on funding agencies is not yet sufficiently accurate to reconstruct a programme’s output through the Web of Science (WoS). Second, scientific output does not accurately reflect the nature and design of the Programmes. The WoS appears to underestimate locally oriented and practically oriented Research, non-academic actors rarely co-author scientific publications, and the contributions of non-academic organizations to projects could not be recognized from author affiliations. Third, our exploration of two alternative reproducible metrics (non-scientific output and download statistics) shows that it is too early to introduce such metrics into evaluation practices. The Research agenda for transdisciplinary output metrics should focus on the development of a common definition of transdisciplinary Research output and a typology of non-scientific outputs, as well as a discussion and assessment of the relative value of such outputs for the integration of knowledge.

Related terms

Research Programmes - 15 days free trial to Access Experts & Abstracts