Sida’s global research programmes
Expenditures by supported activities
Yüklə 7,6 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 5.2.2 Students in supported activities
- 5.2.3 Dissemination by supported activities
5.2.1 Expenditures by supported activitiesDistribution of Expenditures Research groups (Table 8) accounted for 56% and scientific networks (Table 9) for 44% of the total Sida-funded expenditures, using 89% of the financial resources available (including balances brought forward from 2013, making up 6% of available funding). Nominally, 11% of the funding available to groups and networks was carried forward to 2015, but only 10% was carried forward to groups’ and networks’ accounts, following a notification procedure by groups and networks and decision by the ISP board. The carry-over is finally adjusted for incurred costs after closure of the accounts at the end of each fiscal year. IPICS partners accounted for 35% of the total expenditures, 68% of that by research groups and 32% by networks; IPMS partners accounted for 18% of the total expenditures, 22% of that by research groups and 78% by networks; and IPPS partners accounted for 47% of the total expenditures, 60% of that by research groups and 40% by networks (Figure 1). In all, the supported activities in Africa accounted for 69% of the expenditures, those in Asia for 18%, and those in Latin America for 13% (Figure 2). The research groups in Africa accounted for 73%, and those in Asia for 27% of the total research group expenditures (Figure 3; there were no research groups supported in Latin America). The scientific networks in Africa accounted for 65%, those in Asia for 6% and those in Latin America for 29% of the total network expenditures (Figure 4). Management of Expenditures In previous years’ reports, expenditures were attributed to four different kinds of categories of activities: Exchange, Development, Regional, and Training (see the ISP Annual Report 2013). In the current Sida agreement period, another approach is adopted; to distinguish between expenditures locally, after transfer of funds to supported groups and networks, and expenditures by payments requested to be made by ISP. Each group and network has a yearly allocation, decided by the ISP board after an application and assessment procedure involving the programs’ scientific reference groups. The use of the allocation is the responsibility of the accountable group leader or network coordinator, who, besides reporting, has to make a yearly budget subject to approval by ISP. The allocation may partly or in full be transferred for local use, that is, the management of funds is carried out locally at the partner university. It may also partly or in full remain at ISP, and accessed by the group or network partner by formal requests of payments, to be carried out by ISP. Funds transferred for local use may not always be spent directly, and are to be accounted for each year. Whether it is feasible or not to manage funds locally depends on the local financial management system and the administrative competence of the local staff. In both IPICS and IPPS research groups, totally 38% of the expenditures were managed locally, and 62% were executed by ISP payments (Figure 5). In the IPMS research groups, totally 65% of expenditures were managed locally, and 35% of expenditures were executed by ISP payments. In networks, those supported by IPICS spent in total 85% locally, and 15% by requesting ISP to carry out payments; those supported by IPMS spent in total 40% locally, and 60% by requesting ISP to carry out payments; and those supported by IPPS spent in total 7% locally, and 93% by requesting ISP to carry out payments (Figure 6). Table 8. Research groups in chemistry (IPICS), mathematics (IPMS), and physics (IPPS) 2014; start of support, balances brought forward, allocations, expenditures (incl. transfer for local use), and balances carried forward. New groups having their first year of support in 2014 are highlighted. (Alloc. – allocation; BBF – balance brough forward from 2013; BCF – Balance carried forward to 2015; RG – research group)
*BCF is here not necessary the difference between BBF+allocation and expenditures. Larger amounts can be brought forward only after prior notification and board decision; smaller amounts may be adjusted by each program director. ** In 2014, IPICS, IPMS and IPPS LAO:01 groups were exclusively supported by Stockholm Univ. funding. Table 9. Networks in chemistry (IPICS), mathematics (IPMS), and physics (IPPS) 2014; start of support, allocations and expenditures 2014. New networks having their first year of support in 2014 are highlighted. (Alloc. – allocation; BBF – balance brought forward from 2013; BCF – Balance carried forward to 2015; NW – scientific network)
*BCF is here not necessary the difference between BBF+allocation and expenditures. Larger amounts can be brought forward only after prior notification and board decision; smaller amounts may be adjusted by each program director. **IPICS ANEC, IPICS RAFPE, and IPPS LAM had no allocation in 2014; any activities were financed by using local funds brought forward from 2013. Figure 1. Distribution by program of total expenditures (%) of research groups and scientific network. Figure 2. Distribution by region of the total expenditures (%) of research groups and scientific networks. Figure 3. Distribution by program and region of research groups’ expenditures (%). Figure 4. Distribution by program and region of scientific networks’ expenditures (%). Figure 5. Distribution of expenditures by research groups between local use and payments by ISP (kSEK). Figure 6. Distribution of expenditures by networks between local use and payments by ISP (kSEK). Considering regions, African research groups managed 39% of expenditures locally, and 61% were managed by ISP (Figure 7). Networks in Africa managed 47% locally, and 53% were managed by ISP. In Asia, research groups managed 42% of expenditures locally, and 58% were managed by ISP, which is quite similar to the case in Africa. Networks in Asia (only IPICS) managed 78% locally, and 22% were managed by ISP. Figure 7. Distribution by region of expenditures by research groups and networks between local use and payments by ISP (kSEK). In Latin America, IPICS-supported LANBIO managed all funds locally, making up 7% of the total expenditures by networks in that region, while ISP managed all expenditures of IPPS-supported NADMICA, making up 93% of the total expenditures by networks in that region. The latter is explained by the fact that all NADMICA expenditures regard students being trained in Sweden. Considering support in Africa only, the share of expenditures managed locally is similar in IPICS and IPPS research groups, and in IPMS networks, 34%, 38% and 40%, respectively (Figure 8). IPICS networks, and the single IPMS research group managed 86% and 79% of the expenditures locally, respectively, and IPPS networks 19%. Figure 8. Distribution by program of expenditures by African research groups and networks, between local use and payments by ISP (kSEK). (RG – research groups, NW – scientific networks) Expenditures in relation to Swedish Focus Countries Research groups in Swedish focus countries (see Section 5.1.1) spent 87% of the total research group expenditures, and research groups in those Swedish focus countries that do not yet have a Sida bilateral agreement on research development cooperation spent 60% (Table 10). Research groups in non-focus countries (Laos and Zimbabwe) accounted for 13% of the total research group expenditures. Those in Laos were financed by Stockholm University funding. The expenditures of chemistry research group in focus countries amounted to 87% of the total chemistry research group expenditures, and 52% was spent by groups in countries not yet having a Sida bilateral program (Figure 9). The expenditures of physics research groups in focus countries amounted to 94% of the total physics research group expenditures, and 72% was spent by groups in countries not yet having a Sida bilateral program. The expenditures of mathematics research groups in focus countries amounted to 87%, and 65% of that was spent by groups in countries having a Sida bilateral program. Figure 9. Distribution by program of expenditures by research groups in Swedish focus countries with Sida bilateral support (FC with Sida Bilat.), focus countries without Sida bilateral support (FC w/o Sida Bilat.), and other countries (kSEK). (RG – research groups, NW – scientific networks) Table 10. Distribution of Research Group total expenditures (kSEK and %) in 2014, in Swedish focus countries (FC) with or without Sida bilateral research development programs (Bil.Prg.), and to other countries, for IPICS, IPMS and IPPS.
5.2.2 Students in supported activitiesIn 2014, totally 827 postgraduate students were reported to be active in research groups and networks, benefitting directly or indirectly from ISP support (Table 7). Students may to various degrees enjoy ISP-funded support, or may be supported from other sources. Still, the ISP groups and networks make up the platform for the students’ training, and all reported students are accounted for here. Female students made up 29% of all reported students; and 28% of those in Africa, 26% of those in Asia, and 61% of those in Latin America (Table 7). There were 277 PhD students, including graduates (23% of which female; Table 7). Of these, 107 (39%) trained on a “sandwich” basis (24% of them female). IPICS groups and networks reported 98 PhD students (of which 37% female), 29 on sandwich programs (38% female), and 69 on local programs (36% female). IPMS groups and networks reported 93 PhD students (of which 14% female), 41 on sandwich programs (10% female), and 52 on local programs (17% female). IPPS groups and networks reported 86 PhD students (of which 16% female), 37 on sandwich programs (16% female), and 49 on local programs (16% female) (Figure 10). Figure 10. Female and male sandwich (sandw.) and local PhD students, by program. During the year 36 PhD students graduated. Of these, 16 were on sandwich programs (2 of them female), and 20 were on local programs (6 of them female) (See Section 5.5). On average, the students needed 4,3 years to graduation (Table 11), independent whether on local or on sandwich programs. Regarding the PhD graduates 2014, female students took about 17% longer time to finish PhD studies than male students. (Completion time is calculated as “graduating year minus starting year”, and is therefore an approximation of the duration of study). Table 11. Average time (years), and range of years, needed to finish PhD degree for students graduating 2014. (For six students the starting date is not know, they are omitted from the completion results given)
The total number of students on Master level (including MPhil and Licentiate students), including graduates, was 550 (31% of which were female; Table 7). In all, only 24 (5%) was training on a “sandwich” basis (54% of which female). During the year 148 MSc (etc.) students graduated. Of these, 5 were on sandwich programs (3 of them female), and 143 were on local programs (38 of them female, 27%). (See Section 5.5) The proportion of female students was higher in the chemistry program than in the mathematics and physics programs (Figure 10, Table 12), and close to gender balance in all categories and regions, except for PhD students in Latin America, where the single one reported is male.
5.2.3 Dissemination by supported activitiesPublications In 2014, 44% of the 231 publications in scientific journals (Table 7) were in journals listed with Thomson Reuter impact factors (Figure 11). In addition, 21 publications were book chapters, etc. (see Section 5.4). ISP was acknowledged in about 40% of all chemistry papers reported, in about 13% of all mathematics papers (but in none of the “listed” ones and in 20% of the “unlisted” ones), and in about 31% of all physics papers (40% in the “listed” ones and 23% in “unlisted” ones). See further Sections 5.4.1 (chemistry), 5.4.2 (mathematics,), and 5.4.3 (physics).
Besides publications, results were disseminated in 234 contributions to scientific conferences, 105 by IPICS, 16 by IPMS, and 113 by IPPS groups and networks (Figure 12a).8 The contributions were given to 50% at the international level (68% oral contributions), 35% at the regional level (81% oral), and 15% at the national level (91% oral) (Figure 12a & 12b). Totally 24 contributions to international meetings were given in Africa (21%, in three count-ries), 51 in Asia (44%, in five countries), 32 in Europe (28%, in eleven countries), and nine in the Americas (8%, in two countries) (Figure 12b). Totally 64 contributions to regional meetings were given in Africa (77%, in eleven countries), 16 in Asia (19%, in three countries), two in Europe (2%, one in each of two countries), and one in Colombia in South America (1%). Totally 15 contributions to national and local meetings were given in Africa (43%, in three countries), 19 in Asia (54%, in three countries), and one in Spain, Europe (3%) (See Section 6.4.1).
Considering the programs together (Table 12c), groups and networks in Africa gave 64 presentations at international conferences (66% oral), 71 regionally (80% oral), and 16 nationally (75% oral). Groups and networks in Asia gave 44 presentations at international conferences (91% oral), 16 regionally (87% oral), and 19 nationally (all oral). Networks in Latin America gave 9 presentations at international conferences (one of them oral; 11%), and one oral presentation at a regional conference. Arranged meetings In addition, 78 scientific meetings were arranged, gathering close to 7,600 participants (Figure 13, Section 6.4.2). In Africa, 57 meetings were arranged in 11 countries, gathering close to 5,700 participants. In Asia, 17 meetings were arranged in three countries, gathering close to 1,700 participants. In Latin America, four meetings were arranged, all in Bolivia, gathering 185 participants. Figure 13. Number of arranged meetings by IPICS, IPMS, and IPPS, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Lat.Am.) Yüklə 7,6 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||