Search

This paper analyses the effects that mobility restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic have had on different types of co-presence, which the existing literature considers to be central for science and innovation. Drawing on a regional analysis of COVID-19 restrictions in Germany, it links specific mobility restrictions to concrete impacts on co-presence, differentiating between co-presence in organizations, dynamic temporary co-presence, and the local ‘buzz’. It highlights that co-presence at workplaces and conferences was resilient to restrictions but that the detrimental effects on the ‘local buzz’ may have been substantial and long-lasting. In conclusion, it cautions against the severe effects of placing restrictions on the education system. Subsequently, the discussion links the reported disruptions of co-presence to the potential effects of the pandemic on preconditions for innovative processes and economic recovery.

Qiongqiong Chen (2017) Globalization and Transnational Academic Mobility: The Experiences of Chinese Academic Returnees Singapore: Springer, 143 pp., ISBN 9789812878847 Brian Caterino (2016) The Practical Import of Political Inquiry London: Palgrave Macmillan, 117 pp., ISBN 973319324425 Morten Levin and Davydd J. Greenwood (2016) Creating a New Public University and Reviving Democracy: Action Research in Higher Education New York: Berghahn Books, 220 pp., ISBN 9781785333217

This paper presents a framework to understand the impact of scientific knowledge on the policy-making process, focusing on the conceptual impact. We note the continuing dissatisfaction with the quality and effects of science-policy interactions in both theory and practice. We critique the current literature’s emphasis on the efforts of scientists to generate policy impact, because it neglects the role of ‘user’ policymaking organisations. The framework offered in the paper develops an argument about the essential role of institutional conditions of policy ‘users’ for scientific knowledge to achieve impact. The framework is informed by the reflexive institutionalist and the neo-institutionalist theoretical approaches. Its main contribution is in outlining the intra- and inter-organisational conditions of policymaking organisations, along with personal characteristics of individual policy officials that influence the likelihood of scientific knowledge to generate conceptual impact. We also offer an operationalisation of the framework. The wider relevance of the paper is in moving the focus from the activities of scientists and the incentive structure in scientific organisations to the policy user side.

We study how differing social and intellectual organisation of research fields (Nedeva, 2013) affect research processes and performance. Citations are most often used as a proxy of intellectual influence, yet underperform in research fields with unconventional publishing or citing behaviours. We address this challenge using an indicative example of heavy flavour physics (HFP), a research field in particle physics organised around very large, frequently publishing collaborations with stable groupings of hundreds of alphabetically listed authors. The apparent intellectual contribution or influence of assumed authorship order would be affected significantly if bibliometrics were used to study HFP (Birnholtz, 2006; Manganote et al., 2016). Instead we re-purpose a form of co-nomination analysis, and snowball sampling, previously used to map expert networks in foresight, R&D evaluation and innovation studies (Fagerberg and Verspagen, 2009; Nedeva et al., 1996). Our results allow us to study attribution of intellectual influence at the individual level for a sizeable case, the global HFP knowledge network. In the presentation, we juxtapose co-nomination based mapping with author co-citation based mapping of the field and reflect about advantages and challenges of using co-nomination approach

This research paper proposes a novel method to identify ethnic or national heritage of authors based on the morphology of their surnames. Ethnic approximation of authors in publication and patenting databases has received some attention in recent years, especially with the purpose to investigate ethnic patenting and publishing, and explore effects of immigration on innovative development (Kerr and Lincoln, 2010).

This paper investigates interactions between institutional adaptation and the transformation of science and innovation systems by analysing change and adjustment in post-socialist science academies. Two leading examples are examined: the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). A heuristic framework of institutional change markers is applied to the analysis of nanotechnology research in both countries. We draw on bibliometric sources, interviews and secondary sources. We find that while the two Academies share a common past as the dominant research agents in their respective systems, their current positions and trajectories now differ. The nanotechnology case shows that CAS has adapted to China's modernisation, engaged in central government policy initiatives, and interacted with other research performers. CAS remains central to the Chinese research system, and has rejuvenated and expanded its resource base. RAS, on the contrary, has taken a protectionist stance: it still dominates the Russian research system and has a strong nanotechnology position, enforced by its gatekeeper control over journal publication. Nevertheless, RAS has faced difficulties in internal modernisation, leading to the external imposition of reforms and further role diminishment. The paper offers comparative insights into processes of institutional adaptation and highlights how key institutions can influence system transition.