Quality standard evaluation for international co-operation in research
Sticking to international standards of research is undoubtedly important since many research bases take for granted the authenticity of a partner’s project they wish to be a part of This helps to save time and money.
However, the question to be asked is, ‘what if there happens to be a discrepancy in the research to be adopted?’ The obvious answer to this is observed in the form of joint ventures being scrapped, a waste of time as well as a loss of finance put into the venture. It is for reasons like these that international organizations need to be aware and guaranteed that other organizations have abided by standards and developed their technologies according to a minimum requirement However, in order to make sure that research organizations have kept to a minimum standard, there obviously needs to be some method of measuring how authentic research is, regardless of who develops any technology (Scheirer, 1990). Some have supported the idea of following the leader, which means that following the organization or nation that is known to have the highest standards of research. Using their known methods of measuring standards and practices appears to be a good idea. Through their standards and practices adopted, other organizations can at least set themselves a minimum requirement (Hoover, 1995, 14-17).
Quality Control of Evaluation Elements of IUPAC and Concerned Organizations:
It might be added here that the elements of the evaluation system employed by the IUPAC could be subject to quality control. In this case, there would need to be oversight of these elements being employed by the different coordinating bodies. This would be essential in making sure that there is uniformity in their practices, which would in turn guarantee administrators the standard that they look forward to. This further means that there would have to be a panel that would provide this oversight or quality control of evaluation elements (Hoover, 1995, 14-17).
Positive Aspects of Evaluation in IUPAC-based Projects:
After observing the above example, it may be asserted that there are particular points that stand out among others. These points stand out because they aid in evaluating the standard of quality in research. This can be said because there are already established organizations now coordinating with one another in order to obtain the best results possible. This type of coordination reduces discrepancies and saves a great deal of time and finance (Hoover, 1995, 14-17). Though one may be of the opinion that this is just one coordinated effort signaling their desires in a particular field, similar elements for evaluation of standard research appear in other coordinated efforts, such as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and Its Evaluation Elements:
Though the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is a US organization, it cannot be denied that this organization realizes the fact that climatic conditions are not limited or fixed in particular areas. Similarities may be shared in other geographic regions, and so, in order to study other areas that have similar conditions there is need to establish or implement uniform methods of evaluating research in this field. Aside form this in itself being a key similarity to the previous example it must also be asserted that the CCSP believes in using observing systems that could be expanded worldwide.
Aside from the technological mechanism used observation, the more broad-based elements of the CCSP and the IUPAC-that could be implemented in order to evaluate the standard and quality of research would include elements such as data collection methods. For this purpose, organizations like the CCSP has asserted that it remains committed to the use of current international climate change science and technology research as well as assessments. One way of doing this is through aiding scientists in the planning and implementation of international joint ventures.
Like the IUPAC-sponsored projects, the CCSP consults and interacts with important organizations in order to have a standardized team to work with. They include: The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), Earth Science System Partnership (ESS-P), the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), Diversitas, and the International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP).
All these organizations follow the same set of rules in areas such as observation, data collection, assessment, etc. making use of the same technological equipment agreed upon.
Quality Control of Evaluation Elements of the CCSP:
It may be asserted here that the elements of the evaluation system that are employed here need to be subject to quality control. This is because of the fact that there are several organizations asserting their views here. Therefore, there would need for oversight as to how far they are collectively approving of data. This is because some might be following guidelines strictly while others are doing so loosely. This is particularly in the case of CCSP.
Having described briefly the standards used for uniform research in two different fields, evaluation of the research conducted internationally is important as well. One important element in evaluations of research includes peer view principles carried out by a panel of experts. Also, there is need to satisfy an evaluation criterion; every bit of research needs to be looked upon through a microscope of its relevant field. This means that a piece of research would be presented to a panel that is fully aware of the standard procedures of observing and recording data. This further means that there would be a need for analysis of procedures used at the technical level. This is the very reason why there is a panel of experts that would assess how research has been conducted in any field (Budd & Raber, 1996, 217-226).
As an example of the manner in which research proposals are received in different in any country, the following is helpful. The EU is a good example for inviting research proposals, as they are interested in receiving proposals that would be in sync with their expectations. In their guide for applicants for ‘European Research & Technological Development’ programme, they have announced what their expectations are in a general sense. However, they have made it clear, as should be the case with all evaluation of international standard research that a panel of experts will justly evaluate all proposals.
In addition to the expert evaluation at the technical level, the programme for European Research & Technological Development also has set other expectations. These have been laid down in order to provide ethical and fair evaluation in addition to technologically standardized proposals. To some, this might not seem as important. However, in a world where awareness of ethical principles is being given increasing importance, these are also important elements of evaluation procedures. Some of the ethical evaluation elements therefore also include proposals stating, to begin with, what they think are possible ethical implications. Since this particular programme invites proposals that are significant to science and society ethical considerations are most important.
Not only should the European Research & Technological Development programme be considerate towards ethical and other societal consideration, but other organizations for research such as the IUPAC and the CCSP should also follow similar standards. Therefore, their elements for evaluation should also consider societal implications in addition to their technological standards of evaluation.
Quality Control of Evaluation Elements of European Research & Technological Development’ Programme:
The IUPAC and its concerned coordinating organizations as well as the CCSP and its partners have common ground to share with the European Research & Technological Development’ programme. This is because the European Research & Technological Development’ programme also implements evaluation elements that are similar to the IUPAC and the CCSP. However, it also implements ethical considerations and is concerned with society being protected. For these latter elements, there is hardly any need for quality control. The elements that need to be considered though lie in the standard technical evaluation procedures. As a panel is recommended for oversight of IUPAC and CCSP evaluation, a similar setup would aid in quality control for the European Research & Technological Development’ programme.
Tags: authentic research, evaluation system, research organizations, research standards, standards and practices
