Research Management Guidelines

March 20, 2017

DEPED ORDER NO. 016-17

RESEARCH MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

 

1. In support of the Department's policy development process, research agenda, and policy and program development and implementation, the Department of Education (DepEd) continues to promote and strengthen the culture of research in basic education. DepEd hereby establishes the Research Management Guidelines (RMG) to provide guidance in managing research initiatives in the national, regional, schools division, and school levels. The enclosed policy also improves support mechanisms for research such as funding, partnerships, and capacity building. HTcADC

2. This policy which is built on the gains in evidence-based decision-making from various education reforms or initiatives shall strengthen the culture of research in the Department. In addition, it improves the fund-sourcing mechanisms, and reinforces the link of research to education processes through research dissemination, utilization, and advocacy.

3. This issuance repeals DepEd Order (DO) No. 43, s. 2015 and DO 4, s. 2016 and other issuances, rules and regulations, and provisions which are inconsistent with this policy. These provisions shall be rescinded or modified accordingly.

4. Immediate dissemination of and strict compliance with this Order is directed.

(SGD.) ATTY. ALBERTO T. MUYOTUndersecretaryOfficer-in-Charge

(Enclosure to DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017)

RESEARCH MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

I. RATIONALE

The Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001 (RA 9155) mandates that the Department of Education enact policies and mechanisms through which the delivery of quality basic education may be continuously improved. Chapter 1, Section 7 (5) includes among the responsibilities of DepEd across all governance levels the undertaking of "educational research and studies" that will serve as one of the bases for necessary reforms and policy development.

To promote an environment of evidence-based decision-making, DepEd has made strides in instituting research and its utilization in policy and program development. DO No. 13, s. 2015 established a systematic policy development process in the Department, promoting evidence-based policy formulation supported by research studies. To provide financial support to the conduct of research in the field, DO No. 43, s. 2015 and DO No. 4, s. 2016 set guidelines on the use of the Basic Education Research Fund (BERF). This policy outlined a clear framework for the implementation of a grant-awarding facility that had been underutilized since the issuance of DO No. 24, s. 2010 which originally made such grants available. To put focus on these research initiatives, DO No. 39, s. 2016 promulgated the Basic Education Research Agenda, which makes known the research priorities of the Department across four themes (Teaching and Learning, Child Protection, Human Resource Development, and Governance) and three cross-cutting themes (Gender and Development, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management, and Inclusive Education).

Implementation of the said policies brought about a renewed vigor in the conduct of research, solidifying the Department's thrust towards evidence-informed policies and programs. While there are marked changes in the perception of research, implementation challenges also surfaced from regular feedback and the conduct of policy review of the BERF Guidelines. Apart from issues arising from availing of and implementing the BERF, concerns primarily centered on improving research management at every governance level.

As we strengthen the culture of research in the Department, this policy seeks to build on the gains from the abovementioned reforms by establishing a framework for the management of research initiatives at all levels of governance. The said framework intends to improve the grants management process for BERF and other possible fund sources, and reinforces the link of research to education processes through research dissemination, utilization, and advocacy.

II. SCOPE OF THE POLICY

The Research Management Guidelines (RMG) provide guidance in the management and conduct of research initiatives at the national, regional, schools division, and school levels to further promote and strengthen the culture of research in basic education. This policy also covers instructions for eligible DepEd employees in availing of research funds. aScITE

III. DEFINITION OF TERMS

For clarity and consistency, the following frequently used terms and phrases in this document will be construed as follows:

1. Action Research — is a process of systematic, reflective inquiry to improve educational practices or resolve problems in any operating unit (i.e., school, classroom, office)

2. Basic Education Research Fund (BERF) — is a grant provided by the Department of Education to support education research in aid of evidence-based policy formulation.

3. Conflict of interest — refers to situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise a researcher or research manager's professional judgment in evaluating, conducting, or reporting research. 1

4. Cost Sharing — refers to funding a portion of the estimated through another fund source

5. Culture of Research — is the regular exercise of systematic inquiry to improve program and policy development and implementation

6. Education Research — is the "scientific field of study that examines education and learning processes and the human attributes, interactions, organization, and institutions that shape educational outcomes"2

7. Fraud — is a deliberate form of deception intended to result in financial or personal gain

8. Grant — an amount provided by DepEd or any organization/government agency for the purpose of conducting research

9. Grantee — refers to an individual or group who has received a research grant and is conducting a research project

10. Lead Proponent — refers to an individual who will directly coordinate with the secretariat on administrative and financial matters of the approved research

11. Plagiarism — is intellectual theft, i.e., presenting and/or claiming another's work as your own without appropriate recognition by way of referencing and citation.

12. Proponent/s — refers to an individual or group that submitted a proposal for a research grant

13. Referencing — is citing the authors or documents used in the research proposal and research report

14. Research Manager/s — is an individual/office that oversees research initiatives (i.e., call for proposals, evaluation, tracking of progress) at their respective governance levels

15. Research Proposal — is a document which provides the details of a proposed study (i.e., research purpose and methodology, estimated cost, work plan)

IV. POLICY STATEMENT

DepEd hereby establishes the Research Management Guidelines to provide guidance on the research management processes, and the roles and responsibilities of research managers in the central, regional, schools division offices, and schools. This policy also further improves the mechanisms in availing of and utilizing available resources for research, as well as related initiatives with external stakeholders.

V. RESEARCH MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

A. RESEARCH COMMITTEES

Research Committees will be set up at each governance level to provide guidance on research directions, particularly in aligning such initiatives with the national and local Basic Education Research Agenda. The Committees will spearhead the call for proposals, evaluation, approval, and grant of available funds for research proposals, partnerships, and dissemination of results. Below are the composition, roles, and responsibilities of the committees per governance level.

i. NATIONAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE (NRC)

The National Research Committee (NRC), established through DepEd Order 43, s. 2015, will continue to assume oversight responsibilities over research management at the Central Office. Specific responsibilities of the NRC are the following: HEITAD

1. Provide guidance in the development, review, evaluation, and updating of the Basic Education Research Agenda;

2. Approve research proposals from bureaus, services, and those endorsed by the Regional Research Committee (RRCS) which cover at least two regions;

3. Approve proposed research initiatives and research-related activities in the Department;

4. Forge partnerships with academic and research institutions on education research initiatives and projects;

5. Resolve emerging issues on the management and conduct of education research;

6. Recommend the release of research funds based on monitoring and evaluation reports, including but not limited to the BERF;

7. Ensure that cost estimates fall under the existing accounting and auditing rules and regulations; and

8. Provide feedback to the Executive Committee (ExeCom) on research initiatives.

The composition of the NRC will be as follows:

Chair: Undersecretary for Planning and Field Operations

Director, Finance Service — Budgeting and MonitoringFor invitation: Director of concerned bureau or service

Secretariat: Policy Research and Development Division, Planning

To facilitate the evaluation and approval of research proposals, Committee members may designate permanent alternates to represent them during NRC meetings, in case of unavailability.

The NRC Secretariat will deliver the following:

1. Organize, coordinate, and document meetings of the committee;

2. Conduct initial screening of submitted proposals for compliance with submission guidelines;

3. Aid NRC members in recommending proposals for approval as per the criteria and scoring template (Annex 4);

4. Liaise with academic and research institutions in the conduct of the research;

5. Provide technical assistance to researchers on the conduct of their studies; and

6. Prepare complete staff work in support of the committees' functions as needed.

ii. REGIONAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE (RRC)

The Regional Research Committee (RRC), established through DepEd Order 43, s. 2015, will continue to manage research initiatives at the regional level.

The RRC has the following roles and responsibilities:

1. Provide directions on research initiatives through the national and local Basic Education Research Agenda, and other identified priority research areas in the region;

2. Evaluate and approve research proposals and other related research initiatives from the region and schools divisions, in particular, proposals to be funded under BERF or any other fund source lodged in the region;

3. Confirm school research proposals endorsed by the Schools Division Research Committee (SDRC) unless the committee finds major issue(s) in the SDRC-approved research proposals (i.e., finance/cost estimates, among others)

4. Forge partnerships with academic and research institutions on education research initiatives and projects;

5. Resolve emerging issues on the management and conduct of research; ATICcS

6. Recommend release of regional research funds;

7. Provide feedback to the Regional Executive Committee on approved, ongoing, and completed research;

8. Ensure that cost estimates fall under the existing accounting and auditing rules and regulations; and

9. Endorse appropriate research proposals for consideration as national level proposals to the NRC.

 The RRC will be composed of the following:

Chair: Assistant Regional Director (ARD)

Adviser: Regional Director

Chief of Human Resource Development DivisionBy invitation: Legal officer and/or focal person of

 To facilitate the evaluation and approval of research proposals, Committee members may designate permanent alternates to represent them during RRC meetings, in case of unavailability. In addition, the region may form a Technical Working Committee (TWC) which will conduct initial technical evaluation of proposals prior to the RRC evaluation.

 The RRC Secretariat will deliver the following:

1. Organize, facilitate, and document meetings of the Committee;

2. Conduct initial screening of submitted proposals for compliance with submission guidelines;

3. Aid RRC members in recommending proposals for approval as per the criteria and scoring template provided in Annex 4;

4. Liaise with academic and research institutions in the conduct of the research;

5. Provide technical assistance to researchers on the conduct of their studies;

6. Conduct periodic monitoring on research initiatives in the schools divisions, and schools within the region;

7. Prepare periodic reports on accomplishments related to regional research initiatives and fund utilization; and

8. Prepare complete staff work in support of the Committee's functions as needed.

iii. SCHOOLS DIVISION RESEARCH COMMITTEE (SDRC)

The Schools Division Research Committee (SDRC) will assume the responsibilities of research management at the schools division level. The SDRC will have the following roles and responsibilities:

1. Provide directions on research initiatives through the national and local Basic Education Research Agenda, and other identified priority research areas in the division;

2. Evaluate and approve research proposals and other related research initiatives from the schools and community learning centers (CLCs) to be funded under BERF;

3. Evaluate and approve research proposals and other related research initiatives within the schools division to be funded by other fund sources; TIADCc

4. Forge partnerships with academic and research institutions, government agencies, and other DepEd offices on education research initiatives and projects;

5. Prepare and submit reports to the RRC on all research initiatives conducted in the division from all fund sources;

6. Resolve emerging issues on the management and conduct of research

7. Ensure that cost estimates fall under the existing accounting and auditing rules and regulations; and

8. Endorse approved school level proposals to the Regional Office for confirmation and release of funds under BERF.

The composition of the SDRC is as follows:

Chair: Assistant Schools Division Superintendent (ASDS)

Co-Chairs: Chief, School Governance and Operations Division

Chief, Curriculum Implementation Division

Adviser: Schools Division Superintendent (SDS)

Members: SEPS, Planning and Research

CID Representative/s based on requirement for the

Representative from Finance Unit

By invitation: Focal person of concerned division/learning area/section/program

Secretariat: School Operations and Governance Division (SGOD)

To facilitate the evaluation and approval of research proposals, Committee members may designate permanent alternates to represent them during SDRC meetings, in case of unavailability.

The SDRC Secretariat will deliver the following:

1. Organize, coordinate, and document meetings of the Committee;

2. Conduct initial screening of submitted proposals for compliance with submission guidelines;

3. Aid SDRC members in recommending proposals for approval as per the criteria and scoring template provided in Annex 4;

4. Liaise with academic and research institutions government agencies, and other DepEd offices in the conduct of the research;

5. Provide technical assistance to researchers on the conduct of their studies;

6. Conduct periodic monitoring on research initiatives in schools and community learning centers (CLCs) within the division;

7. Prepare periodic report on accomplishments related to division research initiatives; and

8. Prepare complete staff work in support of the Committee's functions as needed.

B. RESEARCH MANAGEMENT CYCLE

i. CALL FOR RESEARCH PROPOSALS

 The National and Regional Research Committees will spearhead the periodic call for research proposals in their respective areas at least once a year, or as deemed necessary by the committee and/or the funding source. Calls for proposals will be made in view of maximizing the efficiency of the process, and use of the funds. The SDRC, in coordination with the RRC, will assist in wide dissemination of the call for proposals in schools. The Secretariat at all levels will conduct dissemination and capacity building activities on the preparation of research proposals and funding opportunities.

 Proponents will be given one (1) month after the posting of call for proposals to submit the intended study. The research proposal will be submitted in either hard or electronic copies to the appropriate research committee. The requirements are as follows:

1. Application form and endorsement of immediate supervisor of the proponent (Annex 1); AIDSTE

2. Research proposal (Annex 2); and

3. Anti-plagiarism and absence of conflict of interest declaration (Annex 3)

ii. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

a. INITIAL SCREENING

 The respective Secretariats will conduct initial screening of submitted proposals against the eligibility requirements. Proposals falling under the following conditions will not be further evaluated, and will immediately be returned, with technical inputs, to the proponents:

1. Incomplete documentary requirements as prescribed during the call for proposals;

2. Conflict of interest in personal and professional aspects, which may influence the impartiality of the parties concerned, whether the proponent or the research manager;

3. Non-conformance to research ethics;

4. Exceeding the maximum amount of research grant with no provision for cost-sharing;

5. Non-alignment of research topic with the national and local Basic Education Research Agenda; and

6. Cost estimates not within the existing accounting and auditing rules and regulations

 The Secretariat will duly inform the proponent of the results from the initial screening. The proponents who passed the initial screening shall then be endorsed to the respective research committees for a more rigorous evaluation.

 For researches that will involve Indigenous Peoples (IP) learners, Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs), Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs), and Indigenous Learning Systems (ILSs), the Secretariat shall conduct a discussion with the recognized community representatives or elders in IPEd implementation from the community/ies to be involved in the research to validate the proposal's compliance with the ethical requirements discussed in Section VI.C of this document.

b. COMMITTEE EVALUATION

 The secretariat shall prepare the completed staff work for the research committees prior to the evaluation of the proposals.

 The research committee shall evaluate the proposals using the criteria and scoring template as attached in Annex 4. At any point in the evaluation process, the committee may contact the proponent for clarifications through the most cost-efficient means.

 For researches that will involve IP learners, ICCs, IKSPs, and ILSs, the committee may contact recognized community representatives or elders from the communities to be involved in the research to clarify any concerns related to the conduct of the research.

 To qualify for approval, the proponent must have a minimum score of 70%. The research committee shall provide comments, if any, to the proposals, for consideration of the proponent prior to the implementation of the research.

 The RRC may endorse a research proposal to the NRC if the study covers more than one region, and is relevant to policy formulation at the national level.

iii. NOTIFICATION OF RESULTS

 Once the research committee has evaluated the proposal, the secretariat will send a notification letter of the results (Annex 5) to the proponent.

 For approved proposals, the secretariat will conduct an orientation to brief the proponents on the requirements, roles, and responsibilities of both the researcher and the concerned committees.

 For disapproved proposals, proponents are encouraged to resubmit their proposals for consideration once they incorporate the comments from the previous evaluation. Technical assistance may be provided by the secretariat. AaCTcI

iv. PROGRESS MONITORING

 The Secretariat shall track the progress of all approved researches based on the approved work plan, and provide technical assistance as needed. As research managers, the NRC, RRC, and SDRC will conduct random visits to the locations of research, and discuss with the researchers the status of their studies.

 School heads and Division ALS coordinators will track the progress of approved researches in their respective schools and CLCs.

v. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

 Technical assistance will be provided by the research managers to the researchers based on the feedback from the progress monitoring. PRD-PS, PPRD-RO, and the SGOD will assist the researchers, if needed or as requested, at any point during the research implementation.

vi. PROVISION ON CHANGES AND EXTENSION

 Request for Changes in the Research — Any deviation from the original and approved research proposal must immediately be communicated to the Secretariat.

 For modifications on the research design of the same research topic, the researcher must write a letter to the relevant research committee detailing the changes made. The research committee will evaluate the changes for their approval. The approved research topic cannot be changed by the researcher at any point during the study.

 Cost implications due to changes will not be granted with additional DepEd funds, unless another funding source is available for this purpose. Cost sharing arrangements, if applicable, should be explicitly indicated in the proposal (Annex 1).

 Request for Extension — In the event that the grantee sees the need for an extension, a letter of request for extension with justification must be submitted to the chair of the relevant research committee. Valid reasons for extension such as, but not limited to, illness of the researcher, occurrence of disasters, and other extenuating circumstances will be decided by the Committee. The request for extension will be approved, provided there will be no additional cost to DepEd. The researcher will be allowed only one request for extension. The duration of the extension will be assessed and decided by the Research Committee. Granted extensions will not exceed one (1) year.

 In cases where unforeseen circumstances force the cessation of the implementation of the research, the researcher shall write a letter to the Research Committee with justification and documentary support.

vii. SUBMISSION AND ACCEPTANCE

 Completed research (Annex 6) must be submitted to the research committees. The Secretariat will conduct technical evaluation to determine the acceptability of the output. Submitted outputs with additional requirements, comments, and recommendations will be returned for revision. This will be outside the research work plan.

 In addition, for accountability and reproducibility of research, researchers will submit an executive data set in an accessible file format (i.e., Microsoft Excel file). Final approved outputs will be submitted in soft (PDF copy) and hard copies to the committee secretariats.

viii. DISSEMINATION AND UTILIZATION

 Dissemination and utilization of research results are crucial in the achievement of learning outcomes, and improve teaching-learning and governance processes in schools, SDOs, ROs, and CO. Research managers, in collaboration with the researchers, will take measures to ensure the dissemination and utilization of research results in various settings across governance levels. Further, researchers will disseminate and discuss their research results and recommendations in the area/office/governance level where the study was conducted, preferably attended by the respondents. Research managers will provide a venue to actively disseminate results from completed research studies, and encourage everyone to analyze, consider, and incorporate these results in their practices.

 The region and division may organize research conferences, research forums, and policy forums to gather education researchers to share their research findings, gather new inputs and research ideas, and discuss policy options based on research results. Further, research managers may also publish research journals and bulletins for wider dissemination, and as a potential archival mechanism for completed research.

 In addition, the region and division may utilize completed researches to improve learning outcomes and governance processes in their respective areas. Evidence should be heavily used in the development of policies, frameworks, programs, and projects; strategic, operational, and mid-term plans; training programs; and instructional materials, to mention a few governance strategies.

 With full support of school heads, teachers will disseminate and utilize their research through existing mechanisms such as, but not limited to, the following venues: EcTCAD

• Learning Action Cells (LACs). The LAC sessions may be maximized by sharing the results of ongoing and/or completed research. These may serve as input for teachers in their respective teaching-learning strategies.

• In-Service Training (INSET). The training design may include discussions on research results and how these can be utilized.

• School Governing Council (SGC). Research results and proposed actions can be presented during school planning and monitoring activities.

• Enhanced School Improvement Plan (eSIP)/Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) — Research results may be incorporated in the SIP. School planning activities may bring forth possible research topics. These may also be plotted as research initiatives in the SIP and AIP.

• School Report Card (SRC). Interventions made as a result of action results may be included in the SRC.

ix. ARCHIVAL

 PRD-PS, in close collaboration with PPRD-RO and SGOD, will set up mechanisms to archive all completed education researches, along with other relevant documents, such as the data sets used during the study.

x. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

 Apart from the progress monitoring of the researches being conducted, PRD-PS, PPRD-RO, and the SGOD shall conduct monitoring and evaluation of the entire research management cycle within their respective areas to continuously improve the management of research. Feedback will be communicated through M&E platforms in their respective governance levels.

C. FUND SOURCES

i. BASIC EDUCATION RESEARCH FUND (BERF)

 This fund will support education research initiatives in the Department such as, but not limited to, funding for approved education research proposals of DepEd employees, capacity building, research dissemination and utilization, policy development, technical support, and monitoring and evaluation.

1. Allocation

 All regions will be provided with funds to support the approved proposals and conduct of related activities. BERF will be managed by the PPRD-RO.

 Seventy-five percent (75%) of the allocation will be exclusively used to fund research proposals from the region, schools division, and schools. The remaining twenty-five percent (25%) will be used for research-related expenses such as, but not limited to, capacity building, research dissemination activities, and representation fees for research conferences, among others.

 Depending on fund availability, additional funds will be released to regions which have utilized eighty percent (80%) of the initial allocation, as reflected in the region's utilization report.

2. Scope and Allocation of Research Proposals

 Research proposals must be in line with the Basic Education Research Agenda (DO 39, s. 2016). Other research topics not covered in the agenda but are deemed a priority in the region, schools division, or school may also be considered. The table below outlines the maximum amount of grants per research proposal, depending on the scope of the research.

SCOPE

MAXIMUM AMOUNT

DURATION OF RESEARCH

National	Research that is nationwide in scope or covering at least two regions	Not more than PhP 500,000.00 per research	Maximum of 1 year
Region	Research that is region-wide or covering at least two divisions/division-wide.	Not more than PhP150,000.00 per research
Division	Research that is division-wide, district-wide, or covering at least two schools.
Schools/CLCs	(Action) Research that is classroom-based or school/CLC-wide in scope.	Not more than PhP 30,000.00 per research	Maximum of 6 months

 Personnel from the school, schools division, and region may submit a research proposal that is nationwide in scope, provided that the conduct of research will not interfere with their regular functions in their respective schools and offices.

Offices may also submit action research proposals which aim to improve office operations. The amount and duration of these researches will be similar to that of school/CLC-level researches. HSAcaE

3. Eligibility of Proponents

 All regular/permanent employees, teaching, teaching-related, and non-teaching personnel of the DepEd National Office, regions, schools divisions, and schools are eligible to avail of the research fund, provided they meet the following eligibility criteria:

a. proponents are regular/permanent teaching or non-teaching personnel of the Department of Education;

b. proponent/s have no pending administrative case;

c. proponent/s have not yet availed of the grant for the given year; and

d. there is a maximum of three (3) research team members for group proposals;

 While members are treated equally in the proposal, lead proponents will be appointed to liaise with the secretariat on administrative and financial matters.

4. Eligible and Non-Eligible Activities and Expenditures

 The research committees shall ensure that the expenses detailed in the research proposal are appropriate and necessary in the conduct of research. Measures must be taken to ensure that the funds are maximized so more proposals will be covered.

 For BERF grantees, the research fund will be utilized for the following activities:

a. Expenses related to the implementation of the approved research proposals which include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Supplies and materials;

• Domestic travel expenses;

• Communication expenses;

• Reproduction, printing, and binding costs;

• Food and other incurred expenses during conduct of research (surveys, FGDs); and

• Other expenses related to the conduct of research not listed in the non-eligible expenditures.

b. Expenses related to research dissemination

 Specifically, the research fund will not be used for the following expenses:

a. Equipment;

b. Software;

c. Salary, overtime pay or honorarium for resource persons, statisticians, and other service providers

d. Utilities;

e. Office rental; and HESIcT

f. All overseas travel and all items not included in the approved research proposal

 Research funds to be managed by the Central and Regional Office may also be utilized for the following:

a. Capacity building of the evaluators of research proposals and fund managers from the national, regional, and schools division offices;

b. Development of database system for education research;

c. Representation fees of research grantees for research conferences;

d. Progress and results monitoring of research implementation;

e. Development and publication of research journals and bulletins of DepEd-initiated research;

f. Other initiatives and activities related to research which are deemed appropriate by the National and Regional Research Committees;

 Use of the 25% research support fund lodged at the RO should prioritize capacity-building and local dissemination of research results.

5. Release and Liquidation of Funds

 BERF is output-based. The release and liquidation of funds are dependent on the submission and acceptance of the grantee's deliverables. Once the deliverables are accepted by the research committees and submitted to the Budget and Accounting Divisions, the approved amount will be released to the grantee. The Secretariat will inform the grantee when the funds are released. The allotted amount will be released to the grantee through the most cost-efficient means.

 Submission of the deliverables as indicated in the table below will serve as liquidation documents.

Scope	Tranche	Percentage	Deliverables and Documentary Attachments
National	First Tranche (Mobilization Fund)	40%	•Inception Report •Data collection instruments •Certificate of Acceptance for the deliverables •Copy of MOA
Second Tranche	40%	•Data collection activities •Data analysis •Initial findings •Certificate of Acceptance for the deliverables •Copy of MOA
Last Tranche	20%	•Final Report •Certificate of Acceptance from the National or Regional Research Committees •Copy of MOA

 

Scope	Tranche	Percentage	Deliverables
Region/Division	First Tranche (Mobilization Fund)	40%	•Inception Report or Work Plan •Data collection instruments •Certificate of Acceptance for the deliverables •Copy of MOA
Second Tranche	40%	•Data collection activities •Data analysis •Initial findings •Certificate of Acceptance for the deliverables •Copy of MOA
Last Tranche	20%	•Final Report •Certificate of Acceptance from the National or Regional Research Committees •Copy of MOA

 

Scope	Tranche	Percentage	Deliverables
Schools/CLCs	First Tranche	80%	•Work Plan •Certificate of Acceptance for the deliverables •Copy of MOA
	Last Tranche	20%	•Final Report •Certificate of Acceptance from the National or Regional Research Committees •Copy of MOA

 Tranches only apply for proposals costing PhP5,000.00 and above. The approved full amount will be released to the grantee upon submission of the Work Plan and the MOA.

6. Submission of Deliverables

 To facilitate the release of funds, grantee/s will submit their deliverables to the secretariat as indicated in their approved work plan. The secretariat will review the submitted documents, and send completed staff work to the concerned research committee for the issuance of the letter of acceptance.

ii. OTHER FUND SOURCES

 Research initiatives using other fund sources will follow the research management procedures in evaluating and approving research proposals. This will follow the usual government accounting and auditing rules and regulations. Other fund sources include, but are not limited to, local funds and the Special Education Fund (SEF), as stipulated in Section 4.1.4.1 of the Joint Circular (JC) No. 1, s. 2017 of DepEd, DBM, and DILG. caITAC

 For fund sources outside the SEF and BERF, special concerns and provisions may arise depending on the stipulations in the agreement between DepEd and the funding institution.

VI. SPECIAL PROVISIONS

A. EXECUTION OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

To ensure accountability, all researches receiving funding from DepEd or other sources must execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which contains the conditions and details of the grant as agreed between the grantee and the funding source/s. Annex 7 is a sample template of the MOA. The costs for travel for such appearances may be charged to the approved budget for the research proposal.

The research must commence within five working days upon the signing of the MOA.

B. OWNERSHIP AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE RESEARCH PAPER

The grantee/s will be the sole author of the research. However, the study funded under BERF will be co-owned by the author/s and DepEd. Written permission from the National and Regional Research Committees is required if the research will be presented in research conferences, forums, and other related events, or be published in research journals and bulletins. Also, in these presentations or publications, the researchers must duly acknowledge the funding source/s for the study.

C. RESEARCH ETHICS

Conducting research often requires interaction with various people and communities. Education research in particular heavily focuses on learners and their immediate environment. Thus, researchers shall observe the highest ethical standards. Similarly, research managers shall uphold ethical principles in evaluating and implementing research proposals to protect our learners and communities. This includes ensuring confidentiality in handling data of respondents and providing consent forms where necessary. Further, anyone found to have violated research ethics will be blacklisted from availing of any other research grant mechanism in the Department.

In support of this, the Department will establish a Research Ethics Committee (REC) and issue a corresponding policy on evaluating compliance to research ethics. This is to ensure protection of respondents to basic education research.

In the interim, researchers will refer to the DepEd Child Protection Policy (DO 40, s. 2012) as reference for interacting with learners. Further, for researches that will involve IP learners, ICCs, IKSPs, and ILSs, researchers will adhere to the rights-based approach and the principles of inclusion, participation, and empowerment as stipulated in the National IPEd Policy Framework (DO No. 62, s. 2011). Should the research directly discuss or focus on the IP community's IKSPs and ILS with information directly generated from the community, the study shall properly recognize the community/ies where the research was undertaken as co-author and co-owner of the research. Permission from the concerned community, through its recognized community representatives or elders involved in IPEd implementation, needs to be sought if the research will be presented in research conferences, forums, and other related events, or be published in research journals and bulletins. A copy of the study and subsequent publications featuring the study shall be given to the said community representatives.

The principles of free, prior and informed consent, and the recognition and protection of communal intellectual and cultural property rights (Annex 9) will also be meaningfully considered and adhered to throughout the research process.

D. PLAGIARISM AND FRAUD

The research proponents are required to observe the highest standard of ethics during the preparation and implementation of the research proposals. They will ensure that the research proposal and final report submitted are original works. Appropriate referencing and citation must be included in the research proposal and final report. ICHDca

The proponent is required to submit an anti-plagiarism declaration (Annex 2) attesting to the originality of the research study. Any act of fraud and plagiarism will be dealt with accordingly. Further, anyone found to have committed plagiarism will be blacklisted from availing of any other research grant mechanism in the Department.

E. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The letter of approval and MOA will include a provision that, in the event that the research proponent/s fail to complete and submit the deliverables, the research proponent/s will be required to return the total amount of the research grant s/he received during the course of the implementation.

VII. RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS

To engage external stakeholders in promoting and strengthening the culture of research in the Department, the NRC, RRC, and SDRC will collaborate with research and academic institutions on various research initiatives. It is ensured that mutual benefit and reinforced collaboration shall arise from these partnerships.

A. POTENTIAL RESEARCH PARTNERS

The NRC, RRC, and SDRC may partner with the following institutions:

i. State universities/colleges and other academic institutions — Universities and colleges which would want to work with the Department may be tapped for potential collaborations and research activities. Advantages of these partnerships include access of the institution to our researchers, as well as a deep understanding of the context of the region or the division by the academic institution.

ii. Development partners — Most development partners with focus on the basic education sector have research arms that are willing to assist DepEd researchers. Tapping them to cooperate on research initiatives will give researchers different perspectives based on experiences from the field and the development sector.

iii. Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) — NGOs and CSOs in the basic education sector are also involved in research initiatives to appropriately target their interventions in schools. DepEd may harvest relevant practices and experiences upon entering into a partnership with them.

iv. Other Government Agencies/Local Government Units (LGUs) — Some government agencies and LGUs have established mechanisms and facilities in promoting research within their sector. Forging partnerships with these agencies may help develop best practices on research management and implementation.

v. Partnerships with Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs). — The National IPEd Policy Framework (DO 62, s. 2011) encourages ICCs to take the lead in doing research that will inform and guide IPEd implementation (e.g., researches on IKSPs, ILSs, community history).

B. AREAS FOR PARTNERSHIPS

i. Capacity building — DepEd may partner with institutions in providing technical assistance and capacity-building activities for research committees, education managers, school heads, teachers, and other DepEd personnel. This may be done through formal training or through apprenticeship in the research projects of the institution. DepEd may also share best practices with partner institutions.

ii. Resource sharing — DepEd and the partner institution may share resources from their respective databases which may help DepEd researchers in completing their research. Research partners may also utilize the researches owned by the Department.

iii. Research grants and funding — Partnerships may also explore the possibility of providing grants for DepEd researchers. This will expand the opportunities of DepEd to conduct research with funding support from external sources. TCAScE

iv. Research collaboration — DepEd and partner institutions may embark on research projects together, with team members coming from both DepEd and the partner institution. This will also serve as capacity building for DepEd personnel. Further, cost sharing may be explored in the conduct of research by both institutions.

C. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH PARTNERS

To officially engage the identified partner institutions, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be drafted detailing the terms and conditions of the partnerships, as well as the roles and responsibilities of involved parties. The DepEd Secretary, Regional Director, and the School Divisions' Superintendent, as head of their respective levels, will be the signatory of the MOA, together with the head of the partner institution.

Complete staff work will be prepared by the secretariats of the research committees to ensure that the concerned parties are committed to achieving the goals of the partnership.

VIII. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

PS-PRD, PPRD-RO in close collaboration with the Quality Assurance Division (QAD) in the Regional Office, and the SGOD at the division level will conduct structured monitoring of the research management processes and research initiatives at the national, regional, division, and school level. They will provide feedback for the improvement of the whole policy.

Further, PRD-PS with PPRD-RO will conduct an annual review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy in achieving its objectives. After three (3) years, PRD-PS will conduct a policy review for the revision of this policy. Feedback from the M&E will be reported during the Program Implementation Review (PIR).

IX. EFFECTIVITY/TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

All current available funds will be under the Research Management Guidelines. Under the Program Expenditure Classification (PrExC), BERF will be sourced from the Policy and Research Program (PRP) of the Department beginning 2018. Immediate dissemination and compliance with this Order is directed.

X. REFERENCES

• DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2015, Establishment of a Policy Development Process at the Department of Education

• DepEd Order No. 43, s. 2015, Revised Guidelines for the Basic Education Research Fund (BERF)

• DepEd Order No. 4, s. 2016, Amendment to DepEd Order No. 43, s. 2015

• DepEd Order No. 39, s. 2016, Adoption of the Basic Education Research Agenda

• DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012, DepEd Child Protection Policy

• DepEd Order No. 62, s. 2011, Adopting the National Indigenous Peoples (IP) Education Policy Framework

• American Educational Research Association, retrieved from http://www.aera.net/About-AERA/What-is-Education-Research

• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.) New York, NY: Routledge

• Office of Ethics and Compliance, University of California, San Francisco, retrieved from http://coi.ucsf.edu/

ANNEX 1

Research Proposal Application Form and Endorsement of Immediate Supervisor

A. RESEARCH INFORMATION

B. PROPONENT INFORMATION

LEAD PROPONENT/ INDIVIDUAL PROPONENT

PROPONENT 2

PROPONENT 3

IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR'S CONFORME

I hereby endorse the attached research proposal. I certify that the proponent/s has/have the capacity to implement a research study without compromising his/her office functions. cTDaEH

_____________________________________

Position/Designation: ___________________

Date: ___________________

_____________________________________

Position/Designation: ___________________

Date: ___________________

_____________________________________

Position/Designation: ___________________

Date: ___________________

ANNEX 2

Minimum Requirements of the Research Proposal

A. BASIC RESEARCH PROPOSAL TEMPLATE

I. Introduction and Rationale

II. Literature Review

III. Research Questions

IV. Scope and Limitation

V. Research Methodology

a. Sampling

b. Data Collection

c. Ethical Issues

d. Plan for Data Analysis

VI. Timetable/Gantt Chart

VII. Cost Estimates

VIII. Plans for Dissemination and Advocacy

IX. References

B. ACTION RESEARCH TEMPLATE

I. Context and Rationale

II. Action Research Questions

III. Proposed Innovation, Intervention, and Strategy

IV. Action Research Methods

a. Participants and/or other Sources of Data and Information

b. Data Gathering Methods

c. Data Analysis Plan

V. Action Research Work Plan and Timelines

VI. Cost Estimates

VII. Plans for Dissemination and Utilization

VIII. References

ANNEX 3

Declaration of Anti-Plagiarism and Absence of Conflict of Interest

DECLARATION OF ANTI-PLAGIARISM

1. I, ___________________, understand that plagiarism is the act of taking and using another's ideas and works and passing them off as one's own. This includes explicitly copying the whole work of another person and/or using some parts of their work without proper acknowledgment and referencing.

2. I hereby attest to the originality of this research proposal and has cited properly all the references used. I further commit that all deliverables and the final research study emanating from this proposal shall be of original content. I shall use appropriate citations in referencing other works from various sources.

3. I understand that violation from this declaration and commitment shall be subject to consequences and shall be dealt with accordingly by the Department of Education and (insert grant mechanism).

PROPONENT: ___________________

SIGNATURE: ___________________

DATE: ___________________

PROPONENT: ___________________

SIGNATURE: ___________________

DATE: ___________________

PROPONENT: ___________________

SIGNATURE: ___________________

DATE: ___________________

DECLARATION OF ABSENCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

1. I, ___________________, understand that conflict of interest refers to situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise my judgment in evaluating, conducting, or reporting research. 1

2. I hereby declare that I do not have any personal conflict of interest that may arise from my application and submission of my research proposal. I understand that my research proposal may be returned to me if found out that there is conflict of interest during the initial screening as per (insert RMG provision). cSaATC

3. Further, in case of any form of conflict of interest (possible or actual) which may inadvertently emerge during the conduct of my research, I will duly report it to the research committee for immediate action.

4. I understand that I may be held accountable by the Department of Education and (insert grant mechanism) for any conflict of interest which I have intentionally concealed.

PROPONENT: ___________________

SIGNATURE: ___________________

DATE: ___________________

PROPONENT: ___________________

SIGNATURE: ___________________

DATE: ___________________

PROPONENT: ___________________

SIGNATURE: ___________________

DATE: ___________________

ANNEX 4.a

GUIDE FOR APPRAISING BASIC RESEARCH PROPOSALS

ANNEX 4.b

GUIDE FOR APPRAISING ACTION RESEARCH PROPOSALS

 

ANNEX 5.A

Sample Letter of Approval

[insert date]

Mr./Ms. ______________

Dear Mr./Ms. ______________:

Greetings!

This refers to the research proposal you submitted to the [insert governance level] for possible funding under [insert fund source].

The Research Committee has carefully evaluated the final research proposal entitled ________________________________________________________ based on the criteria prescribed in the Research Management Guidelines and we are pleased to inform you that the said research proposal was approved for implementation.

In this regard, may we invite you to the [insert name of office/venue of orientation] on [insert orientation date] for an orientation regarding the implementation of your research proposal. Further, this will also be a venue for the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which will contain the details of your engagement.

For clarifications and any concerns, kindly contact [insert contact office, focal person, and contact details].

We look forward to the successful implementation of your research. Thank you very much!

Very truly yours,

RESEARCH COMMITTEE CHAIR

ANNEX 5.B

Sample Letter of Disapproval

[insert date]

Mr./Ms. ______________

Dear Mr./Ms. ______________:

Greetings!

This refers to the research proposal you submitted to the [insert governance level] for possible funding under [insert fund source].

The Research Committee has carefully evaluated the final research proposal entitled ________________________________________________________ based on the criteria prescribed in the Research Management Guidelines. We regret to inform you that the said research proposal did not pass the evaluation due to the following reasons:

______________________________________________________________________

We thank you for your interest in availing of the [insert research fund]. Kindly take note that you can still resubmit this research proposal once all the comments and recommendations are incorporated. cHDAIS

For clarifications and any concerns, kindly contact [insert contact office, focal person, and contact details].

We look forward to future collaborations with you. Thank you very much!

Very truly yours,

RESEARCH COMMITTEE CHAIR

ANNEX 6

Minimum Requirements of Completed Research Report

A. COMPLETED BASIC RESEARCH TEMPLATE

I. Title Page

II. Abstract

III. Acknowledgment

IV. Introduction of the Research

V. Literature Review

VI. Research Questions

VII. Scope and Limitation

VIII. Research Methodology

a. Sampling

b. Data Collection

IX. Discussion of Results and Recommendations

X. Dissemination and Advocacy Plans

XI. References

XII. Financial Report

B. COMPLETED ACTION RESEARCH

I. Title Page

II. Abstract

III. Acknowledgment

IV. Context and Rationale

V. Innovation, Intervention, and Strategy

VI. Action Research Questions

VII. Action Research Methods

a. Participants and/or other Sources of Data and Information

b. Data Gathering Methods

VIII. Discussion of Results and Reflection

IX. Action Plan

X. References

XI. Financial Report

ANNEX 7

Sample Template for Memorandum of Agreement 1

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is entered into in the [insert location], Philippines by and between:

[NAME OF GRANTEE] of [SCHOOL/OFFICE/DIVISION/REGION] from [ADDRESS], hereinafter referred to as GRANTEE.

and

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [INSERT GOVERNANCE LEVEL] with office address at [INSERT OFFICE ADDRESS], represented by the chairman of the Research Committee, [INSERT NAME AND POSITION OF RESEARCH COMMITTEE CHAIR], hereinafter referred to as DEPED [INSERT GOVERNANCE LEVEL].

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS, DEPED aims to promote an environment conducive to the ideal of evidence-based decision-making through the conduct of various research initiatives across all governance levels;

WHEREAS, DEPED has instituted the Basic Education Research Fund (BERF) as a funding facility for potential research studies to be conducted by eligible DepEd personnel;

WHEREAS, DEPED has evaluated and approved all submitted research proposals to ensure the quality and relevance of potential research studies and has informed the research proponents of the results of the evaluation;

WHEREAS, the research proponent, now known as the "GRANTEE", has been oriented on the systems and processes of the BERF facility.

NOW, THEREFORE, DEPED AND the GRANTEE (collectively known as the PARTIES) agree as follows:

ARTICLE I

SCOPE AND DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT

Section 1.1. All the activities in the approved research proposal to be conducted will be [national/regional/division/district/school] in scope. The work plan of the approved research proposal is attached as Annex 1 of this agreement.

Section 1.2. The implementation of the research study will last for [insert six months to one year depending on the scope and the approved timeline] as approved.

Section 1.3. Any deviation from the original and approved research proposal will be immediately communicated to the [insert Research Committee] by the GRANTEE. All major changes warrant the approval of the Research Committee. The approved research topic cannot be changed by the GRANTEE at any point during the study.

Section 1.4. In the event that the GRANTEE sees the need for an extension, a letter of request for extension with justification will be submitted to the [insert research committee]. Valid reasons for extension which will be decided by the [insert research committee] include illness of the grantee, calamities, disasters, and other extenuating circumstances. The request of extension will be approved provided there will be no additional cost to DEPED. The GRANTEE will be allowed [insert maximum period of extension as per Research Management Guidelines].

Section 1.5. In cases where unforeseen circumstances force the cessation of the implementation of the research, the GRANTEE shall write a letter to the Research Committee with justification and documentary support. ISHCcT

ARTICLE II

OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES

Section 2.1. The total cost of the approved research proposal is [insert total cost of research proposal]. DEPED will release payment to the GRANTEE in [insert number] tranches provided that the GRANTEE will submit all the expected outputs. The table of deliverables per tranches is outline in Annex ___ of this MOA.

Section 2.2. The GRANTEE will be responsible for the following:

(a) conduct the research as approved in his/her research proposal;

(b) submit all the required outputs to DEPED as per approved timeline;

(c) ensure that the conduct of research will follow the highest standards of ethics to protect our learners and the community;

(d) disclose any conflict of interest (possible or actual) that may arise during the conduct of the research;

(e) ensure that all funds provided will be spent as per approved cost estimates; and

(f) disseminate completed research on appropriate venues.

Section 2.3. DEPED will be responsible for the following:

(a) ensure the timely release of research funds for the GRANTEE;

(b) evaluate thoroughly the submitted deliverables of the GRANTEE;

(c) provide technical assistance to the GRANTEE as per monitoring and evaluation results and as requested by the GRANTEE;

(d) monitor the progress of the research proposal;

(e) conduct due diligence in evaluating and approving deliverables; and

(f) assist in providing venues for dissemination of the completed research.

ARTICLE III

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

Section 3.1. Authorship and Ownership. The GRANTEE will be the sole author of the research. (The study funded under BERF will be co-owned by the author/s and DepEd.) Written permission from the [insert Research Committee] is required when the research will be presented in research conferences, forums, and other related events, or be published in research journals and bulletins. Also, in these presentations or publications, the GRANTEE must duly acknowledge the funding source/s for the study.

Section 3.2. Plagiarism, Fraud, and Conflict of Interest. The GRANTEE will ensure that the research proposal and final report submitted are original works. Appropriate referencing and citation must be included in the submitted deliverables. Further, the GRANTEE will ensure that there will be no conflict of interest during the conduct of the research. The GRANTEE has submitted declarations of anti-plagiarism and absence of conflict of interest (please see attached).

Any act of fraud and plagiarism will be dealt with accordingly. Further, if the GRANTEE committed plagiarism or any form of fraud, s/he will be blacklisted from availing any other research grant mechanism in the Department.

Section 3.3. Failure to Complete Research Proposal. In the event that the GRANTEE failed to complete and submit the deliverables, the research proponent will be required to return the total amount of research fund s/he has received during the course of the implementation.

Section 3.4 Effectivity and Termination of MOA. The MOA will take effect on the date of signature of both the GRANTEE and DEPED and will end upon the submission of all deliverables and release of the funds. This MOA shall also be terminated under sections 1.5, 3.2, and 3.3 or any circumstances that will lead to the non-completion of the research.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signatures on [insert date] at [insert location]

GRANTEE DEPED

__________________________	__________________________
[position of the grantee]	[Research Committee Chair]
WITNESSED BY:	WITNESSED BY:
__________________________	__________________________
[Secretariat member]	[any Research Committee member]

 

ANNEX 8

Research Management Cycle Flowchart

ANNEX 9

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent and Recognition and Protection of Communal Intellectual and Cultural Property Rights for ICCs and IPs

1. Free, prior and informed consent

Recognizing the right of ICCs and indigenous peoples to exercise free, prior and informed consent, researchers shall conduct the needed consent-seeking process in the ICCs or communities to be involved in the research prior to the planning of the research. Consent-seeking shall be undertaken in accordance with the community's customary governance processes. Should such a process not be possible in its customary expression (e.g., those involved in the study are only several households outside their traditional ancestral domain or migrants in another area), the families or communities involved shall be consulted regarding the appropriate process to be undertaken for consent-seeking purposes. CAacTH

Consultations for consent-seeking shall be conducted in a manner free of coercion, nor should favors, benefits or profit be implied in exchange for the community's approval of the research. The coverage of the discussions for the consent-seeking process shall be determined with the community and shall include, but not limited to, the following:

• rationale and purpose of the research in relation to IPEd implementation;

• research's relevance for all parties involved;

• impact on the community including possible risks and unintended adverse effects;

• proposed research processes and tools to be used;

• an analysis based on the rights-based approach (i.e., evaluation of the research based on the rights-based principles of participation, accountability, non-discrimination, transparency, human dignity, empowerment, and rule of law);

• benefit sharing;

• expected role and contribution of the community to the research; and

• concerns related to authorship and ownership of the research.

The expression or form of consent-giving shall be determined by the community. The giving of consent for the research shall not imply consent for any other activities to be done by the requesting party/ies.

While consent may have been given by the community, this does not preclude succeeding consultations that may be conducted for the refinement of the research process and tools. At any time that the community feels its rights are being violated, the consent for the research may be revoked and the researchers shall abide by the community's decision for the research to be discontinued.

2. Recognition and protection of communal intellectual and cultural property rights

DepEd commits to uphold and protect the intellectual and cultural property rights of ICCs, as stipulated in DO No. 62, s. 2011. In line with this commitment, the Department recognizes that the IKSPs and ILS and its elements (e.g., practices, technologies, artifacts, beliefs) including innovations on these which may be included or may be the main object or focus in the research shall remain as the communal property of the ICCs and shall not be owned or patented by the researchers or the Department of Education.

 

Footnotes

1. Office of Ethics and Compliance, University of California, San Francisco, retrieved from http://coi.ucsf.edu/.

2. American Educational Research Association, retrieved from http://www.aera.net/About-AERA/What-is-Education-Research.

ANNEX 3

1. Office of Ethics and Compliance, University of California, San Francisco, retrieved from http://coi.ucsf.edu/.

ANNEX 7

1. This is just a sample MOA. The NRC and RRC may customize this MOA based on agreements between the GRANTEE and DEPED or standards on MOA execution within the office.