No description available.

This thesis is a phenomenology of understanding in the context of development practice in East Africa. It is framed by stories of my life and work, experiences rooted in European traditions and provoked and expanded in encounter with African traditions. My question began with methods for dealing with poverty and suffering. Even with all my goodwill and education and the might of large institutions behind me, I found myself part of a series of analytical interventions that seemed to make the problem worse. Yet I would like to contribute to a world where people live together well. This thesis is the story of how I laid siege to this conundrum, working on it from various angles until I saw development intervention for the incoherent prejudice that it was. How could something as co-operative as living well with others be achieved by something so domineering as methodical intervention? Western development consciousness has not noticed that other cultures cannot and will not bear such hubris. So I questioned the notion that a good method (or a good institution, analytical technique or moral code) is the first requirement for fair co-existence. Development, I realised, is conversations that we join, not instructions that we give. I asked instead how I and others come to agree, a question that many people in my profession have never asked. In a close examination of the way I have come to understandings in my own life, I draw on the work of German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer. His philosophical hermeneutics bring together multiple aspects of understanding: its consciousness, historicity, eventfulness, and linguistic and conversational nature. With the help of African thinkers, I gain more perspective - I take part in understandings that are held, provoked and renewed in conversation across time, geography and entire societies. Through the journey represented by this thesis I have come to understand that understanding speaks the world, its history, diversity and potential. I have come to know that from understanding comes method, not the other way around. It is an insight that has profound implications for those of us who work in the development field.

No description available.

Yes / Few whole-school physical activity programmes integrate implementation science frameworks within the design, delivery, and evaluation. As a result, knowledge of the key factors that support implementation at scale is lacking. The Creating Active Schools (CAS) programme was co-designed and is underpinned by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (COM-B) model and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The study aims to understand the initial impact and implementation of CAS in Bradford over 9 months using McKay's et al.'s (2019) implementation evaluation roadmap. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with school staff (n = 30, schools = 25), CAS Champions (n = 9), and the CAS strategic lead (n = 1). Qualitative data were analysed both inductively and deductively. The deductive analysis involved coding data into a priori themes based on McKay et al's implementation evaluation roadmap, using a codebook approach to thematic analysis. The inductive analysis included producing initial codes and reviewing themes before finalising. Identified themes aligned into three categories: (i) key ingredients for successful adoption and implementation of CAS, (ii) CAS implementation: challenges and solutions, and (iv) the perceived effectiveness of CAS at the school level. This included the willingness of schools to adopt and implement whole-school approaches when they are perceived as high quality and aligned with current school values. The programme implementation processes were seen as supportive; schools identified and valued the step-change approach to implementing CAS long-term. Formal and informal communities of practice provided "safe spaces" for cross-school support. Conversely, challenges persisted with gaining broader reach within schools, school staff's self-competence and shifting school culture around physical activity. This resulted in varied uptake between and within schools. This study provides novel insights into the implementation of CAS, with outcomes aligning to the adoption, reach, and sustainability. Successful implementation of CAS was underpinned by determinants including acceptability, intervention complexity, school culture and school stakeholders' perceived self-efficacy. The combination of McKay's evaluation roadmap and CFIR establishes a rigorous approach for evaluating activity promotion programmes underpinned by behavioural and implementation science. Resultantly this study offers originality and progression in understanding the implementation and effectiveness of whole-school approaches to physical activity. / Higher Education Innovation Fund (UKRI), Sport England’s Local Delivery Pilot in Bradford, Bradford District Metropolitan Council via the Living Well Programme / Research Development Fund Publication Prize Award winner, Jun 2023.

This thesis is grounded in the introduction of participatory research, development and extension (RDE) to Australian agriculture. The emphasis on participatory processes emerged as the Transfer-of-Technology (ToT) model is no longer considered adequate to deal with complex farming systems and their diverse stakeholders (Packham 2003). However, RDE agencies are introducing participatory processes with a limited understanding of how they may work in Australia's developed agriculture sector (Vanclay 1994). Consequently, the initiation of three participatory Farming Systems RDE projects in Australia's northern grains region provides opportunity to explore and understand participatory approaches and their impact on participants. Three related themes are developed by exploring the nature of participants' diversity across these projects, the characteristics of participation in each project and the subsequent learning of participants: (i) that increased participation implicitly increases diversity in the conduct of RDE; (ii) that participatory RDE provides opportunities to integrate stakeholders' diverse experience and knowledge; and (iii) that participants' learning can improve current farming systems. Participatory action research was used to understand how participatory RDE should be enacted, and to involve project participants to help them also understand and improve their project processes and goals. The research utilised a range of qualitative and quantitative procedures including: participant and nonparticipant observation at project meetings and activities with farmers; focus groups and semi-structured interviews with project teams, their managers, and participating farmers; a team learning survey of team members; and custom-made questionnaires to quantify participants' perceptions of the projects, their processes, and impacts on learning and behaviour. These interventions identified participants' demographic, organisational and informational diversity. They also identified and elaborated their diverse aims, expectations and passions for participatory RDE, revealed individuals' preferred RDE methodologies and suggested their underlying worldviews. Indeed, ToT paradigms and positivist worldviews remained entrenched in most project staff and their managers. The teams consequently used participation to help farmers better understand technical issues, not build interdependent projects with integrated RDE processes. Farmers generally appreciated their increased participation and influence in RDE activities. While their initial consultative and functional participation did not extend to process decisions or project strategy, farmers valued the opportunity to work with the projects and influence the issues addressed. The projects consequently improved farming practices and management of issues that have long-eluded traditional RDE. For example, the widespread use of: (i) zero tillage and controlled traffic systems to control soil erosion; (ii) nitrogen fertilisers to match crop requirements; (iii) ley pastures to address soil fertility in grain and grazing systems; and (iv) new crops to diversifying grain systems away from monocultures. The projects provided farmers with opportunities for increased participation and learning over time. Functional participation developed in on-farm research that addressed issues identified with farmers, and action learning workshops provided proximal opportunities for farmers to understand existing information and use their own farm data in real decisions. In this way, the behaviourist learning of the ToT approach was supplemented by guided learning to integrate new meaning schemes with farmers' experiential knowledge. Some on-farm research and action learning activities extended to reflecting on their processes, and involved farmers in deciding the most appropriate RDE methodology and methods for subsequent activities. This opportunity to reflect on the values and assumptions of different approaches was critical in developing interactive participation and higher level learning for participants. Nevertheless, the initial participation in each project team failed to meet some team members' expectations. The expected task and process conflicts emerged, but small activity groups with shared values and RDE paradigms developed within each team. Team members' process conflict about the 'best' RDE methodologies for specific issues then developed into worldview conflicts about the relevance and rigour of these methodologies. Some smaller groups subsequently worked independently, with damaging relationship conflict developing from unresolved process issues between some individuals. Team members communicated, but their participation remained largely passive and consultative. Factors that shaped participation were identified, and a framework to support opportunities for stakeholders to plan, manage and evaluate RDE was developed. These helped increase participation in the projects. Participation within the projects' constituent activities subsequently fluxed from isolation to interactive participation. Individuals within activities now expected, and usually had, equality in content decisions (i.e. functional participation), which often extended to process decisions (i.e. interactive participation). Yet, the levels of participation between members of different activities varied across the projects. One project remained a series of parallel and relatively independent activities with passive and consultative participation. A second project had functional and interactive participation imposed for some activities, but otherwise used passive and consultative participation. The third project developed to provide functional and interactive participation in major project decisions. It then became apparent that the learning outcomes of each project varied. Individuals continued to learn from their participation in the projects, but the contributions of diverse sources and participation were major shapers of this learning. Participation within the less diverse activity groups produced mainly technical learning through participants' existing meaning schemes. Again, the level of participation between activities with diverse values, RDE paradigms, and worldviews, shaped the nature of learning. Passive and consultative participation produced mostly technical learning through existing meaning schemes. Yet, teams that embraced their diversity, and reflected on the assumptions of their different RDE methodologies, transformed their approach to learning. With high levels of diversity, the level of participation determined the level of learning. Essentially, participation became learning. This thesis confirms the potential of participatory RDE to improve farming practices. Consultation to identify priority issues, and functional participation to develop proximal opportunities for farmers to understand these issues and make their own decisions had a major impact on farming practices. Yet, participatory processes must rise above the prevailing ToT paradigms of RDE agencies to integrate participants' knowledge, and so achieve sustainable development in Australia. Three main process contributions are made to support this development. Firstly, the evaluation framework provides a challenge and structure to encourage the contributions of all participants at each stage of project activities. It provides a checklist for effective participation in Farming Systems RDE. Secondly, a typology of participation in Farming Systems RDE extends that proposed by Pretty (1995). It provides a catalyst and means to better understand and identify the most appropriate levels of participation in RDE projects. The associated checklist for assessing modes of participation allows monitoring of the participation developed in practice. Finally, the re-conceptualisation of a broader continuum of participation in Farming Systems RDE for developed agriculture is proposed. The subsequent development of the Doing successful on-farm research process is a culmination of the understandings developed in this thesis. It facilitates the development of interactive participation within the on-farm research process that is central to these projects. Recognising the technical focus of most current RDE agency staff, it guides their development of participatory on-farm research processes before reflecting on the appropriateness of different research methods to their research issues. The findings here cannot ensure the development of Australia's RDE beyond the ToT paradigm. However, this thesis provides important insights into the nature of diversity, participation, and learning in the Farming Systems projects, and a series of tools to support this development. Conceptually, it proposes that different kinds of participation will be shaped by participants' diversity from their prior experiences and their expectations that are in turn transformed through evidence of improved practice.

"Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in [Program Management] from the Naval Postgraduate School, December 2009." / Advisor(s): Boudreau, Michael. ; Hayes, Kevin. "March 2010." "Joint applied project"--Cover. Description based on title screen as viewed on April 23, 2010. Author(s) subject terms: Organizational Culture, Organizational Change, ARDEC, Organizational Change Guidelines. Includes bibliographical references (p. 67). Also available in print.

As constantes mudanças no Setor Elétrico Brasileiro (SEB) trazem consigo tanto ameaças como oportunidades. A publicação do Manual do Programa de P&D da Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL), em maio de 2008, modificou significativamente o processo de aprovação dos projetos de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento (P&D). A responsabilidade pela avaliação e seleção dos projetos passou a ser das concessionárias de energia elétrica. Considerando esse contexto, a presente pesquisa foi desenvolvida com o objetivo principal de propor um conjunto de critérios que auxiliem na avaliação e seleção de projetos de P&D das concessionárias de energia elétrica, para redução dos riscos de reprovação ou aprovação parcial pela ANEEL. Para atingir o objetivo principal, foram propostos os seguintes objetivos específicos: a) Identificar o impacto das políticas públicas de PD&I no SEB; b) Caracterizar a importância do alinhamento dos projetos de P&D com o planejamento estratégico da organização; c) Identificar os principais métodos e critérios de análise e seleção de projetos de P&D; d) Caracterizar a importância dos comitês e comissões de P&D para análise e seleção prévia de projetos de P&D. Foi utilizada a abordagem quantitativa, com utilização de questionário eletrônico, como instrumento de pesquisa. O questionário foi elaborado com uma lista de perguntas estruturadas, assim distribuídas: 16 questões com aplicação da escala de Likert com graduação de 1 a 4 pontos, conforme o grau de concordância ou discordância; 06 questões em forma de escala de preferência variável de 1 a 5, sendo 1 a mais relevante e 5 a menos; 02 questões de múltipla escolha; e 01 questão aberta com intuito de possibilitar comentários adicionais dos respondentes. A população da pesquisa é composta pelas 214 empresas de energia elétrica com obrigatoriedade de investir em P&D e o critério para seleção da amostra foi a tradição em investimento em P&D antes da publicação da Lei nº 9.991/2000, aliada à representatividade na capacidade instalada do Setor Elétrico Brasileiro (SEB). O resultado da amostra foi a seleção das empresas: Cemig, Copel, e subsidiárias da Eletrobrás (Furnas, Eletronorte, Eletrosul, Chesf e CGTEE), que juntas representam aproximadamente 50% da carga instalada do SEB. Entre os principais resultados estão: 1) A sugestão de criação de dois grupos para avaliação e seleção de projetos: um comitê com a função estratégica e responsável pela priorização dos projetos selecionados pelo segundo grupo, formado por especialistas com a função de avaliar e selecionar os projetos de acordo com critérios técnicos e científicos, incluindo os critérios da ANEEL; 2) Manutenção de um escritório de projetos de P&D com especialistas para acompanhar diretamente os projetos em parceria com universidades e institutos de pesquisa, em período integral, visando à internalização dos resultados e conhecimentos gerados pelas atividades de P&D; 3) Priorização dométodo estratégico e a proposição de um conjunto de critérios complementares aos da ANEEL, para auxílio na avaliação e seleção dos projetos de P&D. / The constant changes in the Brazilian Electric Sector bring both threats and opportunities. The Publication of the R&D Program Manual of the National Agency of Electrical Energy (ANEEL), in May 2008, significantly changed the approval process for projects of Research and Development. The responsibility for evaluating and selecting projects shifted to the electrical energy concessionaries’. Thus, this research was developed with the main objective of proposing a set of criteria to assist in the evaluation and selection of R&D projects of electrical energy concessionaries for reducing the risk of disapproval or partial approval by ANEEL. To achieve the main goal, we proposed the following specific objectives: a) Identify the impact of public policies of Research, Development and Innovation in Brazilian Electric Sector; b) Characterize the importance of alignment of Research, Development and Innovation projects with the strategic planning of the organization; c) Identify the main methods and criteria for project selection and analysis of Research, Development and Innovation; d) Characterize the importance of committees and commissions of Research, Development and Innovation prior to analysis and selection of Research, Development and Innovation projects. As a research tool, the quantitative approach was used, and data collected via an electronic questionnaire. The questionnaire was prepared with a list of structured questions, as follows: 16 questions with application of the Likert scale graded from 1 to 4 according to the degree of agreement or disagreement; 06 issues in order of preference scale ranging from 1 to 5, 1 being the most important and 5 the least, 02 multiple choice questions, and 01 open question with the intention of providing additional comments from respondents. The research population is composed of 214 electric power companies with mandatory investment in Research, Development and Innovation, and the criteria for the sample selection was the tradition of investment in Research, Development and Innovation before the publication of the Law No. 9.991/2000. The result of the sample was the selection of the following companies: Cemig, Copel, Eletrobras and subsidiaries (Furnas, Eletronorte, Eletrosul Chesf and CGTEE) which together represent approximately 50% of the installed load of the Brazilian Electric Sector. Among the key results are: 1) The suggestion for creating two groups for projects evaluation and selection: a committee with an executive function responsible for prioritizing the projects selected by the second group which is formed by experts whose task is to evaluate and select projects according to technical and scientific criteria, including ANEEL’s criteria; 2) To keep an office for Research, Development and Innovation projects with specialists who will directly monitor the projects in partnership with universities and research institutes; it will be available full-time in order to internalize the results and knowledge generated by the Research, Development and Innovation activities; 3) To prioritize the strategic approach and the proposal of a set of additional criteria for ANEEL, in order to aid the evaluation and selection of Research, Development and Innovation projects.

As constantes mudanças no Setor Elétrico Brasileiro (SEB) trazem consigo tanto ameaças como oportunidades. A publicação do Manual do Programa de P&D da Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL), em maio de 2008, modificou significativamente o processo de aprovação dos projetos de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento (P&D). A responsabilidade pela avaliação e seleção dos projetos passou a ser das concessionárias de energia elétrica. Considerando esse contexto, a presente pesquisa foi desenvolvida com o objetivo principal de propor um conjunto de critérios que auxiliem na avaliação e seleção de projetos de P&D das concessionárias de energia elétrica, para redução dos riscos de reprovação ou aprovação parcial pela ANEEL. Para atingir o objetivo principal, foram propostos os seguintes objetivos específicos: a) Identificar o impacto das políticas públicas de PD&I no SEB; b) Caracterizar a importância do alinhamento dos projetos de P&D com o planejamento estratégico da organização; c) Identificar os principais métodos e critérios de análise e seleção de projetos de P&D; d) Caracterizar a importância dos comitês e comissões de P&D para análise e seleção prévia de projetos de P&D. Foi utilizada a abordagem quantitativa, com utilização de questionário eletrônico, como instrumento de pesquisa. O questionário foi elaborado com uma lista de perguntas estruturadas, assim distribuídas: 16 questões com aplicação da escala de Likert com graduação de 1 a 4 pontos, conforme o grau de concordância ou discordância; 06 questões em forma de escala de preferência variável de 1 a 5, sendo 1 a mais relevante e 5 a menos; 02 questões de múltipla escolha; e 01 questão aberta com intuito de possibilitar comentários adicionais dos respondentes. A população da pesquisa é composta pelas 214 empresas de energia elétrica com obrigatoriedade de investir em P&D e o critério para seleção da amostra foi a tradição em investimento em P&D antes da publicação da Lei nº 9.991/2000, aliada à representatividade na capacidade instalada do Setor Elétrico Brasileiro (SEB). O resultado da amostra foi a seleção das empresas: Cemig, Copel, e subsidiárias da Eletrobrás (Furnas, Eletronorte, Eletrosul, Chesf e CGTEE), que juntas representam aproximadamente 50% da carga instalada do SEB. Entre os principais resultados estão: 1) A sugestão de criação de dois grupos para avaliação e seleção de projetos: um comitê com a função estratégica e responsável pela priorização dos projetos selecionados pelo segundo grupo, formado por especialistas com a função de avaliar e selecionar os projetos de acordo com critérios técnicos e científicos, incluindo os critérios da ANEEL; 2) Manutenção de um escritório de projetos de P&D com especialistas para acompanhar diretamente os projetos em parceria com universidades e institutos de pesquisa, em período integral, visando à internalização dos resultados e conhecimentos gerados pelas atividades de P&D; 3) Priorização dométodo estratégico e a proposição de um conjunto de critérios complementares aos da ANEEL, para auxílio na avaliação e seleção dos projetos de P&D. / The constant changes in the Brazilian Electric Sector bring both threats and opportunities. The Publication of the R&D Program Manual of the National Agency of Electrical Energy (ANEEL), in May 2008, significantly changed the approval process for projects of Research and Development. The responsibility for evaluating and selecting projects shifted to the electrical energy concessionaries’. Thus, this research was developed with the main objective of proposing a set of criteria to assist in the evaluation and selection of R&D projects of electrical energy concessionaries for reducing the risk of disapproval or partial approval by ANEEL. To achieve the main goal, we proposed the following specific objectives: a) Identify the impact of public policies of Research, Development and Innovation in Brazilian Electric Sector; b) Characterize the importance of alignment of Research, Development and Innovation projects with the strategic planning of the organization; c) Identify the main methods and criteria for project selection and analysis of Research, Development and Innovation; d) Characterize the importance of committees and commissions of Research, Development and Innovation prior to analysis and selection of Research, Development and Innovation projects. As a research tool, the quantitative approach was used, and data collected via an electronic questionnaire. The questionnaire was prepared with a list of structured questions, as follows: 16 questions with application of the Likert scale graded from 1 to 4 according to the degree of agreement or disagreement; 06 issues in order of preference scale ranging from 1 to 5, 1 being the most important and 5 the least, 02 multiple choice questions, and 01 open question with the intention of providing additional comments from respondents. The research population is composed of 214 electric power companies with mandatory investment in Research, Development and Innovation, and the criteria for the sample selection was the tradition of investment in Research, Development and Innovation before the publication of the Law No. 9.991/2000. The result of the sample was the selection of the following companies: Cemig, Copel, Eletrobras and subsidiaries (Furnas, Eletronorte, Eletrosul Chesf and CGTEE) which together represent approximately 50% of the installed load of the Brazilian Electric Sector. Among the key results are: 1) The suggestion for creating two groups for projects evaluation and selection: a committee with an executive function responsible for prioritizing the projects selected by the second group which is formed by experts whose task is to evaluate and select projects according to technical and scientific criteria, including ANEEL’s criteria; 2) To keep an office for Research, Development and Innovation projects with specialists who will directly monitor the projects in partnership with universities and research institutes; it will be available full-time in order to internalize the results and knowledge generated by the Research, Development and Innovation activities; 3) To prioritize the strategic approach and the proposal of a set of additional criteria for ANEEL, in order to aid the evaluation and selection of Research, Development and Innovation projects.

The diploma thesis concentrates on the area of Structural funds of the European Union and their applications in the field of support in research and innovation in the Czech Republic. The main objective of this thesis is to provide the reader with a complex view of support in the field of research and innovation from the EU Structural funds in the programming period of 2007--2013 and also in the future period of 2014--2020. Partial objective is to evaluate the application of EU Structural funds on the basis of a specific operational programme supporting field of research and innovation. The research question is defined as the meaningfulness of settings of the operational programmes in the field of research and innovation and the evaluation of their effectiveness and sustainability. The first chapter introduces firstly the regional policy of European Union and its main instrument, the EU Structural funds and then concentrates shortly on the field of research and innovation in the Czech Republic. The second chapter focuses on the specific operational programmes which are supporting the field of research and innovation for both programming periods and furthermore evaluates the drawing of EU Structural funds in the Czech Republic. Lastly, the third chapter offers a practical application of the Structural funds of EU on the base of a specific operational programme, the Operational Programme Research and Development for innovation (OP R & DI). The main concentration is devoted to evaluating the sustainability of research and development centers supported by the OP R & DI.

"ANALYSIS OF THE KEY FACTORS AND ACTORS, PLAYING ROLE IN SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (TT) AT THE UNIVERSITIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND NEW APPROACHES TOWARDS EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION STRATEGIES" Author: Mgr. Karolína Řípová Supervisor: Prof. PhDr. František Ochrana, DrSc. Institution: Charles University in Prague Faculty of Social Sciences, Centre for Social and Economic Strategies Research group leader:Prof. PhDr. Martin Potůček, CSc. MSc. Specialistaion: Public and social policy Year of defense: 2014 Abstract The research project focuses on process of technology transfer that normally materializes through incremental changes and adaptation of behavior of its key actors. These incremental adaptations in behavior of the key actors then result into bringing the innovation to the market and the society and in a long term support its sustainable development. In perspective of the public policy therefore the technology transfer and its cultivation represents a public interest of a highly interdisciplinary nature, and that is how it is being studied within the research project. Interdisciplinarity of the research problem is further projected into the selection of research methodology that uses approaches of several disciplines. Interdisciplinarity of the research...