An official website of the United States government
There is growing recognition of the importance of reciprocity between researchers and those involved in or affected by research, especially in sensitive field contexts such as disaster settings. Minimal applied guidance exists for researchers about how to practice reciprocity, however, resulting in several questions that have yet to be explored: What are the key considerations for practicing reciprocity in research? What potential unintended consequences should researchers be aware of when engaging in reciprocity? What practical strategies can help prepare researchers to engage in reciprocity and address challenges as they arise? Based on a systematic literature review—reflecting the shift of recent conceptions of reciprocity from transactional to more relational approaches—we offer a new, unifying definition of reciprocity as “an ongoing practice of critical reflection, relationship building, and exchange in which researchers are obligated to strive to produce mutual benefits for the people involved in or affected by the research process.” To motivate the practice of reciprocity, we highlight three key benefits: cultivating trust, addressing power imbalances, and improving research relevance. Additionally, through qualitative analysis of 53 research reports, we develop a typology of reciprocity in hazards and disaster research that clarifies six specific forms reciprocity can take, including: (1) centering participants and communities; (2) being empathetic and mindful of participant diversity; (3) sharing research results; (4) improving research and research team processes; (5) supporting learning, career development, or institutions; and (6) offering compensation. Finally, we outline potential challenges to practicing reciprocity and conclude with practical strategies for enhanced ethical grounding and effectiveness.
more »
« less
Solvent and crystallization effects on skin absorption of hydrophilic and lipophilic solutes
This publication was an oral presentation of Ms. Xu's research given at a college research conference on Apr. 1, 2023.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2124495
- PAR ID:
- 10406208
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- James L. Winkle College of Pharmacy Research Forum
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
On June 4-6, 2019, the NSTC NITRD Program, in collaboration with NSTC’s MLAI Subcommittee, held a workshop to assess the research challenges and opportunities at the intersection of cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. The workshop brought together senior members of the government, academic, and industrial communities to discuss the current state of the art and future research needs, and to identify key research gaps.This report is a summary of those discussions,framed around research questions and possible topics for future research directions.more » « less
-
This paper presents a brief overview of the various (related) research the author has been involved with in the area of navigation and wayfinding for people with visual impairments. The first major piece of research presented is that of the building and deployment of a beacon-based indoor navigation and wayfinding system called GuideBeacon for people with visual impairments. The second major piece of research presented is a broader community-based effort called CityGuide to enable various location-based services (including navigation and wayfinding) in both indoor and outdoor environments for people with disabilities. The paper concludes by summarizing a specific challenge in the area that warrant future research attention.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundClimate change presents an imminent threat to almost all biological systems across the globe. In recent years there have been a series of studies showing how changes in climate can impact infectious disease transmission. Many of these publications focus on simulations based on in silico data, shadowing empirical research based on field and laboratory data. A synthesis work of empirical climate change and infectious disease research is still lacking. MethodsWe conducted a systemic review of research from 2015 to 2020 period on climate change and infectious diseases to identify major trends and current gaps of research. Literature was sourced from Web of Science and PubMed literary repositories using a key word search, and was reviewed using a delineated inclusion criteria by a team of reviewers. ResultsOur review revealed that both taxonomic and geographic biases are present in climate and infectious disease research, specifically with regard to types of disease transmission and localities studied. Empirical investigations on vector-borne diseases associated with mosquitoes comprised the majority of research on the climate change and infectious disease literature. Furthermore, demographic trends in the institutions and individuals published revealed research bias towards research conducted across temperate, high-income countries. We also identified key trends in funding sources for most resent literature and a discrepancy in the gender identities of publishing authors which may reflect current systemic inequities in the scientific field. ConclusionsFuture research lines on climate change and infectious diseases should considered diseases of direct transmission (non-vector-borne) and more research effort in the tropics. Inclusion of local research in low- and middle-income countries was generally neglected. Research on climate change and infectious disease has failed to be socially inclusive, geographically balanced, and broad in terms of the disease systems studied, limiting our capacities to better understand the actual effects of climate change on health. Graphical abstractmore » « less
-
There are newer efforts from funding organizations and agencies incentivizing collaborative research. I refer to collaborative research as research that requires the engagement from more than one institution, community, and/or economic sector, for example: participatory research, reciprocal research, convergence science, research-practice partnerships, university-industry partnerships, cross-disciplinary research and more. Compared to more traditional research, the formation of collaborative research ideas, roles of collaborators, and budgets alone take longer to develop before they are ready to present to funders. And if funded, research outcomes are harder to control and predict and the level of communication required across collaborators is higher in terms of keeping the vision forward (e.g., goals, roles, timeline) and in terms of effective research administration (e.g., budgeting, ethical reviews, documentation, compliance).Then, to broaden perspectives and participation in research, newer efforts also encourage non-traditional researchers to engage or lead collaborative research. I refer to a non-traditional researcher as someone who earned a PhD but for whom research is not a part of their current role, and who is at an institution that does not have research enterprise infrastructure to support them in accessing research funding easily or at all (e.g., a grants office). In this paper, I discuss a case study of collaborative research I lead for eight years, involving K-12 teachers, community college faculty, university researchers, and non-academic organizations in terms of the planning and coordination required compared to traditional research. I will also provide suggestions to lower barriers to access funding for and deliver on this type of research.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
