Forum Replies Created
April 25, 2023 at 2:57 pm in reply to: Transcription services #3133
We are unfamiliar with the Gotranscripts service. The projects that our group has been involved lately have not used a transcription service as we have relied on the transcription feature available in meeting platforms (e.g. Google meet, Microsoft teams or Zoom) to transcribe online focus groups and interview. Using automatic transcriptions require careful checks but it shortens the overall transcription time.
Best regardsFebruary 7, 2022 at 9:44 am in reply to: Improving relationships between funders and institutions #1944
Thinking of this: “helping researchers obtain the research (e.g., methods) and/or ‘leadership’ (e.g., grant writing) experience they need to succeed in obtaining funding”
A good topic for a Chatter session: experiences in applying for research funds. I’ll add it to our topics for the year!February 7, 2022 at 9:42 am in reply to: Feedback from the session #1942
I see the three points as interlinked questions that drive activity with a common goal: implementation. Bringing in public contributors to work alongside decision-makers to generate evidence on relevant matters, will support continuous improvement in organisations and drive evidence-based approaches to good research practice.September 25, 2021 at 4:08 pm in reply to: Data sharing between funding organisations #1731
I believe this might be of interest:
Data and analytics research environments
There may be a future where data sharing agreements cover a wider type of data and facilitate secondary research.
What do you think?August 27, 2021 at 8:05 am in reply to: A personal reflection on the relationship between trust and transparency: a blog #1625
Changing practice involves multiple stakeholders and processes, but when it is directed towards increased transparency, the time and effort are an investment in improved organisations. Results of the work at the HRB in the continued practice of research office staff from accredited host institutions to observe panel meetings shows that transparency in funding decision-making processes is beneficial. Learning about the funder focus in reviewing applications supports researchers in writing well-informed proposals, which facilitate the work of decision-makers and increase trust in the research community and the public.