FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1567401095> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1567401095 startingPage "83" @default.
• W1567401095 abstract "Introduction Research grant and contract administrators have a great number of individuals, causes, constituencies, and institutions to which loyalty, accountability, and stewardship are expected. This paper includes a discussion of stratees to assist us strike the balance most likely to satisfy obligations, while recognizing that some stakeholders' interests may be in conflict. Stakeholders, a term in common use for several decades in the United States (US), often refers to those individuals, causes, constituencies, and institutions that are likely to be affected by actions taken on a certain issue. The term also commonly includes those who would, or should, care most about outcomes. For all stakeholders, there are varying degrees of vested interest and levels of risk. For instance, a project director and institution may be staking their reputations as well as human and other resources; a sponsor may be taking a financial risk, while subjects may be staking their good health or very lives on the outcome of a project. Research grant and contract administrators, as frequent administrators of funds in the public interest, have a host of stakeholders associated with every agreement they negotiate and every project their organizations support or choose not to support. In any given year, they encounter a myriad of stakeholders to whom they owe allegiance and accountability, because of their vested interest in the outcomes. A stakeholder situation is comparable to a horse race-there are a number of investors, each with competing interests, and all hoping to gain something from the result, either outright as a win or as a share of the pot. Strategies for Action Several researchers focusing on leadership, decision-making, public policy, public administration in general, and research administration in particular, have studied and proposed strategies to assess stakeholders' interests. In his book Catalytic Leadership: Strategies for an Interconnected World (1998, p. 69), Jeffrey Luke cites J. Bryson and B. Crosby (1992) and W. R. King (1984) as denning stakeholders as: (a) those most likely to be affected by the issue (or outcome), (b) those who have expressed interests or opinions, (c) those who may be in a position to apply positive or negative pressure on the issue, and (d) those who ought to care, whether or not this has been expressed. Luke points out (p. 70) one drawback to stakeholder analyses, which focus solely on these usual subjects. he says that two important groups of individuals who add valuable insights and energy to the effort may be overlooked, knowledge-holders and ripple-effect stakeholders. Many RAs have a clear appreciation for knowledge-holder stakeholders, such as academic researchers, think-tank analysts, and institutional and policy planners, who may or may not be affected directly by the causes or consequences of a given issue or decision. Luke sees four roles played by such knowledge-holders: 1. Aid those discussing issues and making decisions in presenting concerns and options in more informed ways and with greater technical sophistication. 2. Help individuals to gain knowledge and insights to more clearly communicate interests. 3. Raise current, foreseen or taboo issues which others may be fearful to publicly address. 4. Fuel a broader analysis of what may become recognized as an interconnected problem. Such knowledge experts should be consulted by RAs early in the process, or it may be necessary to do so later when corrective action is more difficult. Knowledge-holder stakeholders can enlighten and positively influence goals, objectives, methods, budget, or evaluation, and help to persuade others to give resources. They may be found in fields beyond the project director's or RA's areas of expertise. On the other hand, knowledge-holders may introduce damaging or conflicting information and raise questions as to the legitimacy of a group or its decisions; they can also prevent approval by key organizations, legislators, or others needed to implement or sustain action (Wood and Gray, 1991 as cited in Luke 1998, p. …" @default.
• W1567401095 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1567401095 creator A5064437062 @default.
• W1567401095 creator A5078230117 @default.
• W1567401095 date "2002-01-01" @default.
• W1567401095 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1567401095 title "Consider the Stakeholders in Research Administration" @default.
• W1567401095 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W1567401095 type Work @default.
• W1567401095 sameAs 1567401095 @default.
• W1567401095 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1567401095 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1567401095 hasAuthorship W1567401095A5064437062 @default.
• W1567401095 hasAuthorship W1567401095A5078230117 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C199776023 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C201305675 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C2776007630 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C2776351663 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C2776967331 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C2777950569 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C2780510313 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C144133560 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C162853370 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C17744445 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C199539241 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C199776023 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C201305675 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C2776007630 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C2776351663 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C2776967331 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C2777950569 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C2780510313 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C3116431 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C39549134 @default.
• W1567401095 hasConceptScore W1567401095C94625758 @default.
• W1567401095 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1567401095 hasLocation W15674010951 @default.
• W1567401095 hasOpenAccess W1567401095 @default.
• W1567401095 hasPrimaryLocation W15674010951 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W127142615 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W187643727 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W1988080514 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W2008714990 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W2022396606 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W2049120624 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W205945827 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W2060459464 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W2077001981 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W2102792350 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W2118389367 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W213598091 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W2478160371 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W3149363479 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W343271844 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W426249234 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W89620544 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W98125952 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W170129231 @default.
• W1567401095 hasRelatedWork W2183507463 @default.
• W1567401095 hasVolume "33" @default.
• W1567401095 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1567401095 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1567401095 magId "1567401095" @default.
• W1567401095 workType "article" @default.