Academia Research

There is a widespread idea that in grounded theory (GT) research, the researcher has to delay the literature review until the end of the analysis to avoid contamination – a dictum that might turn educational researchers away from GT. Nevertheless, in this article the author (a) problematizes the dictum of delaying a literature review in classic grounded theory, (b) presents arguments for using extant literature in the substantive field within a constructivist grounded theory, and (c) suggests data sensitizing principles in using literature, which are: theoretical agnosticism, theoretical pluralism, theoretical sampling of literature, staying grounded, theoretical playfulness, memoing extant knowledge associations, and constant reflexivity.

In early 2012, Marco Ceccarelli and James Smith had the opportunity to interview Dr. Kylie Brass, Policy and Projects Manager for the Australian Academy of Humanities. Dr. Brass is involved in many different Humanities- based research and policy tasks as part of her position, and corresponds with a wide range of scholars and policy makers. In this interview, Limina asked Dr. Brass about the Academy, her role and responsibilities, some of the activities that she is currently engaged with and her experience and opinion on a range of research and career based topics.

"Les femmes noires diplômées dans le milieu de travail en France sont un «laboratoire» qui permet de  rendre compte des différences de traitement fondée sur le sexe, la race, l'âge,  la classe , etc....L’une des problématiques centrales de  mon travail que j’ai voulu présenter ici est ma proximité de vécu avec les sujets interrogés. Cette posture questionne ma position d’apprentie chercheure qui cherche à comprendre au niveau empirique les relations sociales de domination, afin dévoiler des rapports sociaux d’ordre théorique (Kergoat 2009). Les théories intersectionnelles  m’aident à « objectiver »  ma démarche et mon terrain, car elles conceptualisent plusieurs des catégories considérées comme également importantes, ainsi que leurs interactions dynamiques  et  leur relations avec  les  facteurs institutionnels (Motmans & Woodward). La race entre en interaction avec d'autres catégories sociales (sexe, âge, classe) et des  marqueurs sociaux (accent, collorisme, coiffure, apparence sociale,…). Il est rare qu’un sujet soit discriminé sur tous les aspects à la fois : la discrimination intervient en fonction des facteurs  qui déterminent le contexte (La Rivière-Zijdel). Ce retour réflexif sur une enquête (2008/09) réalisée  en psychodynamique du travail auprès de 10 femmes noires diplômées sur leur parcours professionnel pose plusieurs questions. Comment le genre s’articule avec d’autres catégories et marqueurs sociaux? Quels outils théoriques pour penser les rapports sociaux ?  Quelle méthodologie pour analyser les données empiriques? (entretiens biographiques, ma propre immersion dans les rapports sociaux que j’étudie, mon rapport à l’objet de recherche) .
Il s'agit d'un  effort de clarification d’une démarche d’enquête et d’une recherche en train de se faire qui cherche à mesurer la valeur heuristique de l’épistémologie du point de vue situé dans  l’enquête de terrain et l’analyse . Il met aussi en évidence les  difficultés méthodologiques que  suscite l’épistémologie du point de vue situé sur le terrain  et dans le contexte sociopolitique français  de production du savoir scientifique où la reconnaissance académique d’un travail de recherche repose sur son objectivité qui est assurée par la « distance » du chercheur  vis-à-vis de son objet. et sa neutralité axiologique.
"

"

The relationship between academic gender bias and female students' agentic self-efficacy expectations was examined. Agentic self-efficacy expectations was defined as an individual's beliefs about her ability to successfully engage in proactive educational and career facilitative behaviors. Participants included 67 full-time junior and senior undergraduate women enrolled in traditional, nontraditional, and gender-neutral majors. Results revealed that perceived academic gender bias was significantly predictive of agentic self-efficacy expectations, above and beyond the contributions of sex role attitudes, gender concentration of major, and race/ethnicity. Implications for women's career development and future research are discussed."

This study examines how tasks of academic research are allocated inside laboratories and how it influences the scientific productivity at the lab level. Drawing on a survey of lab heads in Japanese universities, this study first examines task allocation between a lab head and members (e.g., junior staff, PhD students) and finds a general pattern where a lab head engages primarily in planning tasks (i.e., choosing subjects, formulating hypotheses, and planning experiments) and members in execution tasks (i.e., doing experiments and analyzing results), consistent to the prior assumption. However, in quite a few laboratories, a lab head engages also in execution and members in planning. In addition, a lab head and members are involved in the phase of writing papers to a varying extent. Second, this study examines how this variation in task allocation affects scientific productivity with some contextual factors taken into account. In particular, the results indicate that the effect is contingent on research orientation in terms of being basic vs. applied. In basic laboratories, lab heads’ engagement in execution improves productivity, but not in applied laboratories. In addition, members’ planning and lab heads’ writing show stronger positive effect in basic laboratories than in applied laboratories. These results offer some implications for management of academic laboratories.

Abstract This study examines the sharing of research tools among academic scientists in the life sciences and materials sciences in Japan. First, this study investigates material transfer, or the sharing of research tools, based on individual-level negotiation. Statistical analyses suggest that supplier-side scientists decide whether or not to fulfill requests for material transfer on the basis of: expected return from consumer-side scientists (eg, co-authorship), previous collaborative relationships, and the likelihood of scientific competition.