Oficial al Universitatii Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iasi, in directa legatura cu studentii si cu mediul privat! La BZI LIVE, alaturi de prorectorul prof. univ. dr. Mihaela Onofrei
Marti, 2 iulie 2019, de la ora 15.00 in lumina reflectoarelor Studioului BZI LIVE este programata o noua reintalnire – dialog speciala, eleganta, riguroasa si plina de prospetime alaturi de prof. univ. dr. Mihaela Onofrei, prorectorul in relatia cu studentii si cu mediul de afaceri a celei mai vechi institutii de invatamant superiordin Romania – Alexandru Ioan Cuza (UAIC) din Iasi!
Astfel, IN DIRECT si in EXCLUSIVITATE, alaturi de domnia sa vor fi prezentate si detaliate o serie de date, informatii si noutati din viata prestigioasei institutii educationale! Concret, despre proiectele didactice, educationale, de cercetare si ce vizeaza resursa umana, cele dedicate dezvoltarii institutionale, a infrastructurii, modernizarea diverselor spatii de invatare vor fi puncte importante ale editiei ce o va avea in prim-plan pe universitarul Onofrei!
Toti cei care au intrebari le pot adresa la rubrica de comentarii, pe BZI.RO sau in direct, accesand pagina de Facebook.
Publicație : Bună Ziua Iași
Proiect regional pentru idei de afaceri, derulat la Universitatea „Cuza”
Agentia pentru Dezvoltare Regionala Nord-Est (ADRNE) organizeaza în cursul zilei de astazi, între orele 10:30 si 13:30, în Sala Senatului a Universitatii „Al. I. Cuza„, o conferinta internationala legata de turismul cultural si promovarea patrimoniului rural, despre cum se dezvolta un produs turistic si o afacere de succes la tara.
În cadrul conferintei se vor prezenta modele de afaceri si initiative publice de la nivel international, dezvoltate în mediul rural, care utilizeaza patrimoniul cultural ca principal element de unicitate în dezvoltarea unui produs turistic eficient.
La acest eveniment vor fi invitati ca lectori, specialisti din mediul academic, de afaceri si de formare profesionala în turism, parteneri ai proiectului din Irlanda (Momentum), Marea Britanie (Universitatea Greenwich si Exponential Training&Asessment), Olanda (Business Development Friesland), Danemarca (European E-learning Institute), Spania (REDEX), conform agendei atasate. Lectorii vor reliefa in prezentarile lor modalitati de identificare a elementelor de patrimoniu cultural cu potential turistic, de implementare, dezvoltare si promovare a turismului, de fundamentare a unei strategii, precum si de creare a parteneriatelor si retelelor în turismul cultural rural.
Evenimentul reprezinta conferinta finala a proiectului privind instruirea IMM-urilor din turism privind turismul cultural si promovarea patrimoniului rural, finantat prin Programul ERASMUS+ si va contine, pe lânga modele de bune practici, si prezentarea materialelor educationale rezultate prin proiect, materiale care au fost testate de catre beneficiari în cadrul unui eveniment dedicat, organizat în perioada 21 – 22 iunie 2019, cu participarea actualilor si viitorilor antreprenori în turism din comunitatea de la Dolhesti, judetul Suceava.
„Aceasta actiune face parte din eforturile constante ale ADR Nord-Est, centrate pe identificarea atuurilor regiunii noastre si sprijinirea demersurilor menite sa contribuie la dezvoltarea regionala. În plus, proiectul transnational ROOTS ofera mijloacele necesare pentru închegarea si reactivarea unei comunitati rurale, în jurul unui obiectiv comun, acela de a se sustine prin antreprenoriat în turism – iar aceasta poate constitui o solutie pentru dezvoltarea mediului rural”, a mentionat Vasile Asandei, directorul Agentiei pentru Dezvoltare Regionala Nord-Est.
Publicație : Bună Ziua Iași
Carta Universităţii „Cuza“, aprobată în sfârşit, la opt luni de la prima trimitere către MEC
Ministerul Educaţiei a avut obiecţii, printre altele, la o prevedere referitoare la demiterea rectorului „pentru încălcarea normelor de etică academică sau pentru afectarea imaginii universităţii“.
Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza“ din Iaşi a primit aprobarea pentru noua variantă de Cartă Universitară după mai bine de opt luni de când a trimis o primă variantă a documentului către Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale pentru avizare.
Ministerul a respins însă varianta de la UAIC, trimiţând în octombrie 2018 o adresă cu mai multe modificări care ar fi readus documentul în legalitate.
Una dintre prevederile de atunci ale Cartei conţinea, suplimentar faţă de Legea Educaţiei Naţionale, un articol ce prevederea posibilitatea ca rectorul să fie demis „pentru încălcarea normelor de etică academică sau pentru afectarea imaginii universităţii“.
În lege se specifică faptul că rectorul poate fi demis „în condiţiile specificate de contractul de management“, deci, practic, pentru management defectuos.
În momentul de faţă, varianta actualizată a Cartei este disponibilă pe site-ul universităţii, şi nu mai conţine prevederi suplimentare de demitere a rectorului.
La momentul respectiv, Direcţia Juridică de la Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale a făcut însă o serie de precizări ce părea a fi lipsite de fundament în respingerea Cartei şi care conţineau elemente procedurale foarte stricte şi în unele cazuri care nu se regăsesc în realitate.
În primul rând, Direcţia Juridică susţinea că documentul nu a fost supus dezbaterii comunităţii academice, deşi proiectul Cartei a stat pe site de pe 23 iulie până pe 7 septembrie 2018.
Ulterior, Direcţia Juridică reclama că documentaţia trimisă la minister făcea referire la o anexă ce nu a fost înaintată, în timp ce reprezentanţii conducerii UAIC spun că Anexa trimisă a fost tocmai Carta avizată de Senat.
A treia chichiţă legislativă şi procedurală pentru care a fost respinsă Carta Universităţii spune că nu a fost trimis la minister actul de delegare a persoanei care a semnat documentele în locul rectorului, în acest caz prof.dr. Mihaela Onofrei, însă ministerul este cel care eliberează astfel de acte de delegare şi decizia de numire ca Ordonator de credite a acesteia din urmă a fost emisă de către minister.
Odată cu Carta a fost actualizat şi Codul de Etică, ce nu mai fusese adus la zi după publicarea Legii Educaţiei Naţionale 1/2011.
Publicație : Ziarul de Iași
Rectorul Universitatii Tehnice din Iasi, profesorul Dan Cascaval a prezentat elemente si detalii proaspete, despre viata institutiei la BZI
Luni, 1 iulie 2019, incepand cu ora 15.00 a fost cea de-a 335-a editie, un dialog pe zona educationala, culturala, artistica, muzicala, istorica, religioasa si a ideilor respectiv schimbarii mentalitatilor. Prezent in Studioul BZI LIVE a fost rectorul Universitatii Tehnice (TUIASI) Gheorghe Asachi – prof. univ. dr. ing. Dan Cascaval. Universitarul a prezentat detalii importante ce tin de institutia de invatamant superior pe care o administreaza, despre cele mai noi proiecte in care Universitatea este implicata, investitii in infrastructura, promovarea resursei umane, cercetare• Emisiunea cu invitatul de astazi poate fi urmarita AICI
Luni, 1 iulie 2019, incepand cu ora 15.00, in Platoul Studioului BZI LIVE a fost invitat rectorul Universitatii Tehnice (TUIASI) Gheorghe Asachi – prof. univ. dr. ing. Dan Cascaval. Alaturi de acesta au fost abordate subiecte ce tin de universitatea pe care o administreaza, respectiv strategii pentru imbunatatirea sistemului de invatamant universitar, precum si relatia cu studentii. De asemenea s-a adus in discutie detalii ce tin de Admiterea 2019 la Politehnica ieseana, activitati de recredibilizare a invatamantului superior ingineresc, actiunile de promovare nationala si de internationalizare ale TUIASI, realitati din mediul universitar romanesc, tehnici si strategii de imbunatatire a politicilor publice in Educatie. Emisiunea cu invitatul de astazi poate fi urmarita AICI
Publicație : Bună Ziua Iași
University vice-chancellor given £270k payoff after resigning
Dominic Shellard left De Montfort before investigation that found governance failings
The vice-chancellor of De Montfort University, who resigned earlier this year in advance of an investigation that has since identified “significant and systemic” failings in governance, was awarded £270,000 on his departure, it has been confirmed.
Dominic Shellard left his £350,000-a-year post in February, just before the universities regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), launched a formal investigation into the Leicester institution.
Revealing its decision on Monday, the OfS said: “We found weaknesses and failings in the university’s management and governance arrangements which were significant and systemic.
“Given the university’s cooperation with the investigation, the action it has already taken to address our concerns and its clear plan for future actions, we have not made any formal findings on this occasion.”
It added: “We have now closed our investigation. We will continue to monitor the university’s progress to deliver the commitments in its action plan.”
De Montfort later confirmed the £270,000 payment to Shellard, 53, but refused to comment further.
However, in a statement posted on the university’s website, it acknowledged its governance had been “inadequate” and “the governing body did not provide sufficient and robust oversight of the university’s leadership, in particular the vice-chancellor”.
An email to staff from the the interim vice-chancellor, Andy Collop, seen by the Guardian, confirmed the payment to Shellard.
It said: “There have been a number of inquiries about the remuneration of the former vice-chancellor. Given the prevailing circumstances, public interest and desire for increased transparency, we believe it is important that we make this information known well in advance of publication in our annual accounts in December.
“The board of governors approved a payment in line with the former vice-chancellor’s contractual entitlement, which stipulated a notice period of nine months. This equates to a payment of £270,000.”
The University and College Union (UCU), which represents university workers, expressed astonishment at the payment.
“It is astounding that despite serious failures of leadership and governance by Professor Shellard, De Montfort University’s governors still saw fit to award him a whopping £270,000 after his departure,” said the union’s acting general secretary, Paul Cottrell.
“UCU has repeatedly warned that a lack of accountability on senior pay and perks is damaging confidence in our universities. Institutions cannot continue to plead poverty on staff pay while rewarding their leaders so handsomely and with so little scrutiny.”
The OfS published a 39-point action plan for the university following its investigation, which required the departure of a number of governors related to the investigation, a revised and more robust recruitment process for future governors and a more rigorous process to identify conflicts of interest.
De Montfort said it had agreed a number of key areas where the university’s governance required improvement, including oversight of international travel by members of the governing body, management of whistleblowing allegations and the independence and rigour of remuneration decisions.
A number of De Montfort’s governors have already left and been replaced. “This is the start of a process designed to transform the culture and ethos of the university to one of greater openness, transparency and genuine engagement,” the university said.
Susan Lapworth, the director of competition and the register at the OfS, said: “It is in the interests of students and taxpayers that universities and colleges are well-run and the OfS will use the full range of our enforcement powers where necessary to investigate and resolve similar compliance concerns in other universities and other higher education providers.”
Nick Hillman, the director of the Higher Education Policy Institute thinktank, said: “It is good that this issue has now been gripped and that the university has admitted its shortcomings on governance.
“It would be unfair if, in this case, the affair was allowed to damage the reputation of De Montfort University which in general delivers a great education to its many students.”
Publicație : The Guardian
Not sure about how to structure your university? Ask 700 pizza-fuelled volunteers
Crowdsourcing a new configuration for the University of South Australia boosted brainpower and perhaps even institutional loyalty, says David Lloyd
There is no right or wrong way to structure a university, but there may yet be some novel ways.
For most of the University of South Australia’s 28 years of existence, it has had a fairly industry-standard academic structure comprising four divisions (which some might equate to faculties) overarching a variable number of schools, currently standing at 14 (with one college thrown in for good measure).
Universities have embraced such configurations since the notion of academic disciplines gained traction in the 19th century, as the classical curriculum began to give way to greater specialisation. It facilitates academic cloistering around discrete subject matters – and some might say that it also allows the disconnection of academic allegiance from the goals of the wider university.
The curriculum has evolved over time, with debate around generalisation versus specialisation, hard versus soft skills, T- and Key-shaped graduates and, increasingly, teamworking and interdisciplinarity. But it is not clear to me that the sector has yet optimised its preparation of students for a future in which business and society are transformed by technology. And success will go to those institutions that quickly embrace the required change, regardless of tradition and reputation.
One obvious starting point is that silos cannot have primacy in a connected world. The interesting stuff happens at the interfaces between cognate or even orthogonal interests. So reducing or removing silos should be front of mind, even if it flies in the face of established practice.
We should also accept that “product” is not a dirty word. The primary product of universities is the degree (or, in Aussie parlance, the programme). This naturally contemporary academic unit is the obvious building block for a structure that encompasses both education and research (the best institutions have a strong teaching/research nexus, after all).
But how should such a structure be devised? In his book, Too Big To Know, David Weinberger, a researcher at Harvard’s Berkman Centre for the Internet and Society, cites many examples where crowdsourcing found answers to problems that had eluded small groups of geniuses. I had already seen some of this potential for myself. In 2013, UniSA became the first university in the world to use IBM’s Innovation Jam online technology to engage the organisation at every level to discuss core business challenges. Almost 8,000 people from 56 countries registered for what we called Unijam, initiating more than 1,300 threads of conversation across 38 hours concerning issues as diverse as how much should students be learning online and how we could develop campus community gardens. This input directly informed our strategic action plan for the next five years and, midway through its implementation, in 2016, we launched the audaciously named Unijam2 to check our progress and further refine the shape of the institution as it grew.
While there was a temptation to move ahead with Unijam3 to explore new organisational structures, we decided to eschew technological trappings when dealing with something so fundamental and ingrained. Instead, we put out an open call for volunteers to come together physically.
More than 700 people responded: professional and academic staff from all levels and functions in the organisation, as well as a healthy inclusion of students. We gave them sticky notes, sheets of butcher’s paper and things to play with: Rubik’s cubes and programme-focused playing cards that they could use to rapidly prototype any number of possible compositions of academic units.
Setting 700 pizza-fuelled volunteers loose on the foundations of academic interaction: what could possibly go wrong? But the chaos was artfully held at bay by overarching principles. One was that the structure had to be built from a combination of extant degree programmes, which reflect UniSA’s distinct identity as a careers-focused university of enterprise. Another was that the recommended changes should have the minimum possible impact on the maximum number of people. And we imposed a goldilocks clause, such that any new structure couldn’t be too big (as that would be unwieldy from a management standpoint) or too small (as that wouldn’t remove enough silos). We were looking for a sweet spot that was “just right”.
It took about 100 iterations, but the convergence was impressive. From 88 random groups of people, we saw the emergence of programme combinations that made sense, mapping to future careers rather than disciplinary traditions. It turns out that seven is the preferred number of things. I say “things” as our current thinking is that these combinations will not be named departments, schools, divisions, colleges or faculties. We will have academic units just as we have professional units, and their precise nomenclature will ultimately derive from what they do.
The changes, which have just been approved by our council, will result in a unique academic structure geared for the future and self-determined by the wisdom of the crowd. Our crowd. And if that reinvigorates our particular crowd’s allegiance to the goals of the institution and instils a sense of working for the university and not just in it then all the better.
Publicație : The Times
Three job interview types you’ll encounter as a PhD
And tips on what to do in each from Alfredo Cumerma
If you’re at the end of your PhD and on the job hunt like I am, you’ve probably read articles on keeping yourself organised or how to improve your professional etiquette. You may even have completed mock interviews for various industries.
Regardless of your status, it is important to remember that applying for and interviewing for jobs is a learning process. There is no substitute for experience; no replacement for the real anxiety of selling yourself before an unknown audience; and no consolation for your detailed study of an organisation, only to find out that the questions asked are more behavioural in tone.
Nevertheless, there are three types of job interview techniques you may encounter during your search. Each one has telltale signs which, when you identify them, can help you adapt in the moment. Here are some tips to bear in mind.
The open-ended “ask”
At first, I thought these were interviews conducted by people who did not know what they were doing. They consist of very broad questions such as “So, how would you do X or Y job?”.
The answers to these must show your knowledge not only of the organisation’s programme or division, but the current state of that programme in its evolution. Where does it need to improve? In what areas is it deficient? Does it have too many resources allocated to any one of its activities?
In these questions, the employer is not probing your skill set, but rather, your value proposition (the two are different). They want to know how you would pick up the activities left pending by their previous employee, and if there is a benefit to hiring another in that given division.
Companies are constantly trying to cut costs and become more efficient, so each time an employee moves on, there is a period of questioning the very position itself. I have found that these types of interviews are most common when organisations are contemplating an expansion or contraction, which are excellent moments to make an entry.
Study the programme that you’re applying to beforehand and identify its strengths and weaknesses. Pose questions to the interviewers: are they meeting their numbers? Do they struggle with certain elements?
The “wheel alignment”
These interviews revolve around specific tasks such as writing reports, planning an event, managing a budget, performing outreach or establishing partnerships. The idea is to measure to what depth each candidate has worked in such areas. In this way, the most aligned candidate can be made an offer.
If the job is mid-level, you will need to elaborate on work tasks that you have performed beyond their basic stages. For example, not just creating social media or web content, but devising a long-term plan for its evolution; not just reconciling company expenses, but establishing guidelines for such expenses across divisions.
In my experience, the best preparation for these interviews comes from applying to state or federal jobs. Wheel alignment interviews tend to occur for positions that have well-defined responsibilities, specific work items and cyclical deadlines. They often consist of prompts such as: “Explain in detail the extent to which you have used X, Y or Z skill.”
Be prepared to write some online essays for these kinds of jobs. Indeed, alignment questions are some of the most reflective you will find. But they are also some of the most useful, since answering them equips you with a deeper narrative for each one of your particular skills. You can later use these narratives across all interview types.
The “one-two punch”
Usually, this comes in the form of two interviews: one with a representative from human resources, another with the person(s) with whom you will be working or to whom you will report.
The HR chat will be about “getting to know you better,” which translates into giving a biographical portrait about how your previous positions motivated you to take your next step with their organisation. They are the most emotion-based interviews you will experience, and they are often associated with very mission-driven institutions, where there must be a sort of culmination in the new hire’s skill development.
On your part, you must show how you have evolved, how your prior employment has fostered certain skills, and how this new employment will continue to develop them or cultivate new skills.
For these, try to focus on connections. Link your skills from previous jobs and think about how the new position will challenge them. Reveal some of your frustrations or desire to try new things that weren’t possible in previous jobs.
Coming from academia, I often highlight how the project-based workflow there repeats itself in the new organisation, while adding the benefit of greater team collaboration. A favourite is to mention how I have leadership and motivational skills that would go to waste in a lone professorship.
But beware of demeaning prior jobs. Always follow up by returning to the connections: the autonomy, public speaking and research expected of a PhD also make you an adept self-starter and a “quick study” in new environments.
In a word, you are adaptable – and adaptability is perhaps the number one skill you will develop in both your job search and the new position that is waiting for you.
Publicație : The Times
Professor: give non-graduates ‘dignity’ to heal societal divide
Populism scholar Matthew Goodwin discusses political side-effects of higher education expansion and academic debate about ‘grievances’ fuelling movements
The gulf between graduates and non-graduates “is probably the most important divide within our electoral politics” across the West, and resolving it will involve giving more “dignity and recognition” to non-graduates, according to a prominent researcher on populism.
Matthew Goodwin, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Kent, spoke to Times Higher Education prior to giving the Academy of Social Sciences’ annual lecture, on Brexit and populism.
Professor Goodwin, co-author of National Populism: The Revolt against Liberal Democracy, explored in his lecture how the rise of populism in the UK has driven shifts in support for the established parties – with the educational divide a key factor.
“The educational divide now is probably the most important divide within our electoral politics,” he told THE. “After Trump and Brexit, we’ve had a vigorous international debate about [the key factor in support for populism]: is it income, is it poverty, is it the Rust Belt, is it a ‘whitelash’?”
But studies showed a “pretty consistent story” that support for “national populist parties and movements” and for Brexit was “stronger among people without degrees”, said Professor Goodwin.
National Populism argues that “the expansion of higher education potentially has a negative corollary”, with “another form of left-behind…created among the rest” who do not go on to university.
Professor Goodwin said: “Can we…begin to have a discussion about a new social settlement that gives as much esteem and dignity and recognition to non-graduates as it does to graduates? Can we invest more heavily in apprenticeships and technical education while also investing heavily in university programmes?”
In the UK, the Conservatives’ sudden interest in further education – manifested in the Augar review – is driven by its new electoral strategy of appealing to working-class Leave voters, some suggest.
Professor Goodwin added: “If you look at the Conservative Party, it’s now far more dependent on non-degree holders; [whereas] Labour’s gains [have been] among degree holders – we’ve never really seen Labour having these numbers that they have now among university graduates and [in] university towns. So British politics, too, is gradually being polarised along this educational dimension.”
More broadly, he said: “If we don’t actually begin to resolve this educational divide, the bottom line is none of this stuff [political polarisation] is going to go away. Across Europe, we can see political systems being restructured around the educational divide.”
While social scientists studying Brexit and Donald Trump’s election win have often highlighted the electoral significance of the divide between graduates and non-graduates, there has been relatively little research on why this divide has political resonance. What is it about the experience of going to university, and not going to university, that shapes people’s social or political perspectives?
“That’s exactly where the research now has to be for the next five years,” said Professor Goodwin, with “still a lot of work in social science to be done” on the educational divide.
But he suggested that existing research “shows the powerful socialisation effect that university has; that it is about socialising and mingling with people who tend to hold more liberal outlooks. We know that self-selection is probably at work: that people from more secure, affluent…backgrounds tend to self-select into higher education.”
A review of National Populism in The Guardian describes the book as being “unstinting in its generosity to right-wing populist leaders, and unfailingly compassionate to their supporters”.
Professor Goodwin said “there’s a debate within academia about what is driving public support for populism”, which includes questions about whether the “grievances” driving that support are “legitimate or not”.
He added: “In particular in its earlier years, the [academic] literature was very quick to buy into the idea that all of this political churn and change is essentially about fascism and extremism and racism – and ignored or overlooked the possibility that there might be some legitimate grievances among supporters of these movements.”
Professor Goodwin argued that in addressing questions “about what can we do about societal discord, what can we do about polarisation, what can we do about fragmentation and populism, it strikes me as pretty obvious that we need to objectively look at what these grievances are and how we might think about responding to them and replying to them”.
He continued: “I feel like after 30 years of social science [research on populism], we’ve got a pretty good handle on the fact that, for example, people who hold racist beliefs tend to vote for national populist parties, but not everybody who votes for national populist parties holds those beliefs.”
Publicație : The Times
More than a fifth of research uncited in half of G20 nations
In Russia and Indonesia, more than a third of research produced without international collaboration fails to gain single citation
More than a fifth of research is going completely uncited in half of the countries in the G20 group of nations, a new report suggests.
In Russia and Indonesia, more than a third of research produced domestically – without international collaboration – fails to gain a citation.
The figures were revealed in the Annual G20 Scorecard report from Institute for Scientific Information.
It shows that Russia has the highest level of total research output going uncited at about 30 per cent of papers indexed over a 10-year period in the Web of Science bibliometric database.
Turkey has a total uncited rate of about 25 per cent, while eight other countries – South Korea, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Indonesia, India, China, Brazil – lie between 20 per cent and a quarter.
In Indonesia, the amount of domestic research going uncited is more than 40 per cent, although a higher citation rate for its international collaborations manages to pull its overall figure down.
Jonathan Adams, director of the ISI and co-author of the scorecard, said part of the problem for Russia was that the Russian Academy of Sciences “has insisted on publications in Russian, which makes their material less accessible”.
But he also noted that the Russian science budget had been “starved” of investment, with the country’s 1.1 per cent spending on research and development as a share of gross domestic product being “very low”, and much of that going on research in industries like oil and gas, not academia.
For the UK, Professor Adams noted that its level of uncited research had fallen to under 15 per cent compared with a similar analysis about 12 years ago that found 22 per cent of papers from a 10-year period going uncited.
“This [change] is possibly driven by research assessment and greater consciousness of citation patterns, but I believe it is also because greater selectivity means that work that is unlikely to have impact is rarely funded and so less often reaches publication,” he said.
However, he noted that other developed research nations like France, Germany, Australia and the US all now had an uncited rate of around 15 per cent “so maybe that is the ‘new norm’”.
Elsewhere, the report from the ISI – part of Clarivate Analytics, which owns Web of Science – provides detailed information on the research performance of different G20 countries in recent years.
It reveals how research productivity – the amount of papers being produced per researcher – has been climbing in some G20 countries, most notably Australia and Mexico.
However, in some other nations like France, Germany and South Korea, research productivity appears to have stalled and in Turkey it has noticeably fallen over the past decade to below the G20 average.
The scorecard also carries statistics on gender balance among researchers in the G20 countries, with only 16 per cent of the researcher population in Japan being female. This contrasts with the UK, where the proportion is nearly 40 per cent, and South Africa, where it is 45 per cent.
Publicație : The Times