IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/eurjdr/v30y2018i5d10.1057_s41287-018-0138-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors Affecting the Relative Success of Collaborative Forestry Research Projects in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony G. Bartlett

    (The Australian National University, ACIAR)

Abstract

The success of research for development projects is of keen interest to project funders and participating researchers, and underpins project impact. This paper reports a qualitative investigation of factors identified by project researchers as affecting relative success in ten collaborative forestry research projects in Indonesia. Interviews with 33 project participants identified 30 factors that influence project success. The most frequently identified factors were scientists’ commitment and collaboration; collaborative scoping and design; funding and equipment; effective communications and networks; implementation flexibility, monitoring and review; and skills mix and time allocations. The relative success of projects was evaluated through an analysis of project records, and examination of three projects of different relative success provided evidence of relationships between relative success and the identified success factors. As most of the success factors relate to project design or implementation, this knowledge can assist funders, research managers and project staff to improve project success.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony G. Bartlett, 2018. "Factors Affecting the Relative Success of Collaborative Forestry Research Projects in Indonesia," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 30(5), pages 892-913, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:30:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1057_s41287-018-0138-3
    DOI: 10.1057/s41287-018-0138-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41287-018-0138-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41287-018-0138-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lawrence Haddad, 2012. "Five Assumptions of Dominant Thinking in International Development," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 55(1), pages 34-44, March.
    2. Sam Garrett-Jones, 2011. "Cross-sector research collaboration in Australia: the Cooperative Research Centres Program at the crossroads," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 87-97, March.
    3. Martin Buxton, 2011. "The payback of ‘Payback’: challenges in assessing research impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 259-260, September.
    4. Raitzer, David A. & Kelley, Timothy G., 2008. "Benefit-cost meta-analysis of investment in the International Agricultural Research Centers of the CGIAR," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 108-123, March.
    5. Erik Arnold, 2012. "Understanding long-term impacts of R&D funding: The EU framework programme," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(5), pages 332-343, October.
    6. Stefan Schröder & Florian Welter & Ingo Leisten & Anja Richert & Sabina Jeschke, 2014. "Research performance and evaluation—Empirical results from collaborative research centers and clusters of excellence in Germany," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 221-232.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Agata Klaus-Rosińska & Joanna Iwko, 2023. "Success of research projects. Prediction and assessment from the point of view of project stakeholders thereby taking into account a sustainability approach," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 33(4), pages 97-118.
    2. A. Fleming & S. Agrawal & Dinomika & Y. Fransisca & L. Graham & S. Lestari & D. Mendham & D. O’Connell & B. Paul & M. Po & A. Rawluk & N. Sakuntaladewi & B. Winarno & T. W. Yuwati, 2021. "Reflections on integrated research from community engagement in peatland restoration," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emily Costan & Gamaliel Gonzales & Roselyn Gonzales & Lynne Enriquez & Felix Costan & Decem Suladay & Nadine May Atibing & Joerabell Lourdes Aro & Samantha Shane Evangelista & Fatima Maturan & Egberto, 2021. "Education 4.0 in Developing Economies: A Systematic Literature Review of Implementation Barriers and Future Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Zhen, Wei & Qin, Quande & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2017. "Spatio-temporal patterns of energy consumption-related GHG emissions in China's crop production systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 274-284.
    3. Raitzer, David A., 2010. "Assessing the Impact of Policy-Oriented Research: The Case of CIFOR's Influence on the Indonesian Pulp and Paper Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1506-1518, October.
    4. Alona Zharova & Janine Tellinger-Rice & Wolfgang Karl Härdle, 2018. "How to measure the performance of a Collaborative Research Center," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1023-1040, November.
    5. Tariq Ahmad & Ghulam-Muhammad Shah & Farid Ahmad & Uma Partap & Sajjad Ahmad, 2017. "Impact of Apiculture on the Household Income of Rural Poor in Mountains of Chitral District in Pakistan," Journal of Social Sciences (COES&RJ-JSS), , vol. 6(3), pages 518-531, July.
    6. Maredia, Mywish K. & Raitzer, David A., 2012. "Review and analysis of documented patterns of agricultural research impacts in Southeast Asia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 46-58.
    7. Thornton, PK & Schuetz, T & Förch, W & Cramer, L & Abreu, D & Vermeulen, S & Campbell, BM, 2017. "Responding to global change: A theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 145-153.
    8. Renkow, Mitch & Byerlee, Derek, 2010. "The impacts of CGIAR research: A review of recent evidence," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 391-402, October.
    9. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    10. Maredia, Mywish K., 2009. "Improving the proof: Evolution of and emerging trends in impact assessment methods and approaches in agricultural development," IFPRI discussion papers 929, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Griffin, Terry Wayne & Zapata, Samuel D., 2015. "Optimal Cotton Insecticide Application Termination Timing: A Meta-Analysis," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196815, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. Csizmadia, Péter & Kosztyán, Zsolt Tibor & Fehérvölgyi, Beáta & Hausz, Frigyes, 2024. "Intézményi koncentráció és az innovációs hálózatok vizsgálata [Institutional concentration and innovation networks]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1351-1380.
    13. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2018-001 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Peter Weißhuhn & Katharina Helming & Johanna Ferretti, 2018. "Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 36-42.
    15. Pemsl, Diemuth E. & Staver, Charles & Hareau, Guy & Alene, Arega D. & Abdoulaye, Tahirou & Kleinwechter, Ulrich & Labarta, Ricardo & Thiele, Graham, 2022. "Prioritizing international agricultural research investments: lessons from a global multi-crop assessment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    16. Adriana Bin & Sergio Salles-Filho & Luiza Maria Capanema & Fernando Antonio Basile Colugnati, 2015. "What difference does it make? Impact of peer-reviewed scholarships on scientific production," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1167-1188, February.
    17. Beliyou Haile & Carlo Azzarri & Cleo Roberts & David J. Spielman, 2017. "Targeting, bias, and expected impact of complex innovations on developing-country agriculture: evidence from Malawi," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 317-326, May.
    18. Kamanda, Josey & Birner, Regina & Bantilan, Cynthia, 2017. "The “efficient boundaries” of international agricultural research: A conceptual framework with empirical illustrations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 78-85.
    19. Melinda Smale & Nelissa Jamora, 2020. "Valuing genebanks," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(5), pages 905-918, October.
    20. Andy Sumner, 2016. "The world's two new middles Growth, precarity, structural change, and the limitations of the special case," WIDER Working Paper Series 034, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    21. Douglas Gollin & Casper Worm Hansen & Asger Mose Wingender, 2021. "Two Blades of Grass: The Impact of the Green Revolution," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(8), pages 2344-2384.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:30:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1057_s41287-018-0138-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.