Suchergebnisse

Forschungsagenden von Wissenschaften, ihre institutionalisierten Netzwerke und gemeinsamen Grundannahmen werden durch das jeweilige soziale und politische Umfeld geprägt. Dieses Umfeld wird im Falle der Forstwissenschaften zunehmend durch inter- und transnationale Politikprozesse (wie bspw. zur Biodiversität oder zum Klimawandel) geprägt. Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, auf welche Art und Weise und wie intensiv eine solche "globale Governance des Waldes" die deutschen Forstwissenschaften beeinflusst. Er beschreibt eine signifikante Verschiebung im Umfeld der Forstwissenschaften von der lokalen bzw. nationalen in Richtung der inter- und transnationalen Ebene. Dies wird zum einen anhand von Veränderungen in den Akteurskonstellationen deutlich (Entstehung einflussreicher nichtforstlicher Akteure wie NGOs, zwischenstaatliche Bürokratien und epistemische Gemeinschaften). Zum anderen scheint sich der politische Diskurs zu verändern (von einem lokalen Forst zu einem globalen Walddiskurs). Beide Veränderungen haben Konsequenzen: Es wird deutlich, dass die Forstwissenschaften innerhalb dieser globalen Prozesse lediglich eine Randstellung einnehmen. Interessanterweise werden innerhalb der Gemeinschaft der deutschen Forstwissenschaften diese Veränderungen (noch) nicht als signifikant für die Forstpolitik im Allgemeinen und die Wissenschaft im Besonderen wahrgenommen. Dies zeigt sich anhand der Auswertung einer Umfrage in der deutschen Forstwissenschaftsgemeinschaft und von Interviews mit in der internationalen Waldpolitik involvierten politischen Akteuren. Der Beitrag schließt mit Vorschlägen für eine engere Einbeziehung forstwissenschaftlichen Wissens in die globale Wald-Governance. ; Societal and political environments determine research agendas, networks and epistemic identities within the scientific and academic realm. In the case of forestry, it is argued, these environments are increasingly negotiated and discussed (" framed") within inter- and transnational environmental politics (such as biodiversity, climate change). This paper explores in which way and to what extent processes of "global forest governance" impair German forestry sciences. It describes shifts of forestry issues from the local and national towards inter- and transnational levels by focussing on changing actor constellations (emergence of powerful non-forestry actors like NGOs, transgovernmental bureaucracies and epistemic communities) on the one hand and changing political discourses (from local to global forest discourses) on the other. This paper shows that forestry sciences seem to be marginalized in global forest governance processes. Furthermore, data from questionnaires and interviews indicate that within the German forestry sciences community, these shifts are not yet fully acknowledged as significant processes for forest politics in general and for the scientific community in particular. Finally, it proposes strategies to facilitate the lock-in of forestry-related scientific knowledge for the global governance of forests.

In this policy perspective, we outline several conditions to support effective science–policy interaction, with a particular emphasis on improving water governance in transboundary basins. Key conditions include (1) recognizing that science is a crucial but bounded input into water resource decision-making processes; (2) establishing conditions for collaboration and shared commitment among actors; (3) understanding that social or group-learning processes linked to science–policy interaction are enhanced through greater collaboration; (4) accepting that the collaborative production of knowledge about hydrological issues and associated socioeconomic change and institutional responses is essential to build legitimate decision-making processes; and (5) engaging boundary organizations and informal networks of scientists, policy makers, and civil society. We elaborate on these conditions with a diverse set of international examples drawn from a synthesis of our collective experiences in assessing the opportunities and constraints (including the role of power relations) related to governance for water in transboundary settings.

AbstractWhen participants share data to a central entity, those who have taken on the responsibility of accepting the data and handling its management may also have control of decisions about the data, including its use, re‐use, accessibility, and more. Such concentrated control of data is often a default practice across many forms of participatory sciences, which can be extractive in some contexts and a way to protect participants in other contexts. To avoid extractive practices and related harms, projects can adopt structures so that those who make decisions about the data set and/or each datum are different from those responsible for executing the subsequent decisions about data management. We propose two alternative models for improving equity in data governance, each model representing a spectrum of options. With an individualized control model, each participant can place their data in a central repository while still retaining control of it, such as through simple opt‐in or opt‐out features or through blockchain technology. With a shared control model, representatives of salient participant groups, such as through participant advisory boards, collectively make decisions on behalf of their constituents. These equitable models are relevant to all participatory science systems, and particularly necessary in contexts where dominant‐culture institutions engage marginalized peoples.

"Dieses WZB Discussion paper umfasst Beiträge, die sich mit aktuellen Veränderungen im Verhältnis zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik und deren Konsequenzen für Governance-Ansätze der Wissenschaftspolitik beschäftigen. Dietmar Braun analysiert in seinem Beitrag internationale Entwicklungen in öffentlich finanzierten Forschungssystemen. Er diagnostiziert die Herausbildung eines Modells von 'Netzwerk Governance' - ein Politikansatz, der auf dem Management der Interdependenzen von unabhängigen öffentlichen (und privaten) Einrichtungen in horizontalen Beziehungen beruht. Daniel Barben untersucht in einer international komparativen und transnationalen Perspektive Veränderungen im Wissenschafts- und im Politikregime sowie die Interaktionen zwischen beiden. Sein Beitrag unterstreicht den Wert des Regimekonzepts für die Analyse komplexer und interdependenter Transformationen in Wissenschaft und Politik. Henry Etzkowitz diskutiert sein 'Triple Helix'-Modell, das zum Verständnis der wechselseitigen Innovationsprozesse von Wissenschaft, Industrie und Staat entwickelt wurde. Ein spezielles Augenmerk gilt den Folgen von Triple-Helix-Innovationsprozessen für die Politik, wie sie sich etwa in der Wirtschaftspolitik oder auf regionalpolitischer Ebene manifestieren. Peter Weingart schließlich kritisiert die zahlreichen nicht-intendierten Nebenfolgen von Evaluationsverfahren und biliometrischen Messtechniken auf das Wissenschaftssystem. Er fordert eine kritische Reflexion und Reform des Peer-review-Systems zur Verbesserung der Evaluations- und Qualitätssicherungsinstrumente in der Wissenschaft. Die hier versammelten Beiträge stehen für ein viel versprechendes und wachsendes Forschungsfeld, das Ansätze der Science Policy Studies mit solchen der Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung verbindet." (Autorenreferat). Inhaltsverzeichnis: Martin Lengwiler, Dagmar Simon: Shifting boundaries between science and politics - recent work on new governance arrangements in science policy (5-10); Dietmar Braun: How to govern research in the "Age of Innovation": compatibilities and incompatibilities of policy rationales (11-38); Daniel Barben: Changing regimes of science and politics: comparative and transnational perspectives for a world in transition (39-64); Henry Etzkowitz: Meta-Innovation: the optimum role of the state in the Triple Helix (65-80); Peter Weingart: Das Ritual der Evaluierung und die Verführung der Zahlen (81-99).

AbstractBig Science communities have been remarkably effective in evolving complex processes and mechanisms to enable international collaborations. Major powers such as the People's Republic of China, Russia and the USA, who are fierce rivals in other domains, form lasting alliances. Three of the most relevant case examples are the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (CERN) community, the International Thermonuclear Experiential Reactor (ITER) nuclear fusion project community and the International Space Station (ISS) community. Beyond Gridlock theory identifies eight pathways through and beyond gridlock and their mechanisms. It is through the combination of these pathways that international collaborations can be initiated, maintained and delivered. Extensive field work in each of the three case study communities reveal winning combinations of pathways for Big Science collaborations. Shifts in major powers' core interests and multiple, diverse organisations and institutions coalescing around common goals emerge as the two core pathways. They are supported in their implementation by two enabling pathways: innovative leadership and innovative funding. The relationship between all four provides clues on mechanisms that can be used to good effect in other international relations domains that are caught up in the debilitating global gridlock phenomenon.

Scholarship in international law aims at addressing global forest governance comprehensively. This article reviews the recent contribution Global Forest Governance - Legal Concepts and Policy Trends by Rowena Maguire and puts it into the perspective of recent political and policy science research on global forests. While finding Maguire's volume being a very timely and valuable contribution to the interdisciplinary discussions on international forest governance, we identify some weaknesses which are mostly rooted in methodological critique and a lack of a systematic framework for analysis.

As a member of the Delta Science Program's Science Advisory Committe, I'm currently engaged in a planning process called the "Science Needs Assessment" (SNA).

This report summarizes the results from a survey of California Bay-Delta science enterprise stakeholders conducted in 2021 by researchers from the University of California-Davis, University of Colorado-Denver, and University of Arizona.  You can download the full report here.

Commercial and academic communities use private rules to regulate everything from labor conditions to biological weapons. This self-governance is vital in the twenty-first century, where private science and technology networks cross so many borders that traditional regulation and treaty solutions are often impractical. Self-Governance in Science analyzes the history of private regulation, identifies the specific market factors that make private standards stable and enforceable, explains what governments can do to encourage responsible self-regulation, and asks when private power might be legitimate. Unlike previous books which stress sociology or political science perspectives, Maurer emphasizes the economic roots of private power to deliver a coherent and comprehensive account of recent scholarship. Individual chapters present a detailed history of past self-government initiatives, describe the economics and politics of private power, and extract detailed lessons for law, legitimacy theory, and public policy

Transaction Byte Analysis (TBA) is introduced as a basis to ground corporate governance in the science of information and control described as cybernetics. TBA provides fundamental criteria for evaluating the governance integrity of any type of organisation because all individuals possess physiological and neurological limits to receive, store, manipulate and transmit information measured in bytes. Cybernetics laws of requisite variety in com"munication channels, decision–making centres and control agents provide strategies for overcoming human variations and their limitations in managing complexity. The paper identifies the cybernetic advantages of compound boards and concludes that a unitary board cannot reliably govern complex firms.

This governance roadmap aims to guide people and organizations that wish to create or strengthen a network. It is a proposal for providing a structured framework for instituting governance arrangements. It is made up of a governance -process, roadmap and decision tree- with options to be explored and assessed based on the purpose, needs, and capacities of each network. It addresses aspects such as the definition of organizational approach, operational structure, communication channels, decision-making model and financial sustainability. It was built from the analysis of existing governance models and literature review and has guided the implementation of governance models of three regional networks in Iberoamerica. ; Want to contribute? Help us to improve the governance roadmap! Share your comments using: Forum: https://foro.cienciaparticipativa.net/t/hoja-de-ruta-de-gobernanza-para-redes-de-ciencia-de-ciudadana/219 Email: governanceroadmap@outlook.com Twitter @adrisoacha The description of the roadmap will be available in the article (in prep.): Governance roadmap for citizen science networks, a proposal for guiding the process.

This WZB discussion paper is a collection of five papers dealing with current shifts in the boundaries between science and politics and their consequences on governance arrangements in science policy. In his article, Dietmar Braun analyses international developments in publicly funded research systems, diagnosing a currently emerging model of "network governance" – a policy approach based upon the management of interdependence of autonomous public (and private) agencies in horizontal relations. Daniel Barben takes an internationally comparative and transnational perspective and examines changes in science and policy regimes together with the interaction between them. His article stresses the value of the "regime" concept to analyse complex and interdependent transformations in science and politics. Henry Etzkowitz discusses his "triple helix" model developed to understand the joint innovation processes of science, industry and the state. His article specifically points out the implications of triple helix innovation processes for the state, manifest for example in economic policies and on the regional policy level. Peter Weingart criticises the often inadvertent consequences of assessment procedures and bibliometrical measurement on the science system. He argues for a critical reflection and reform of the peer review system in order to improve the instruments for research evaluation and quality assurance in science. These articles represent a promising and growing field of scholarship combining approaches of science policy studies with those of science and technology studies. ; Dieses WZB Discussion paper umfasst Beiträge, die sich mit aktuellen Veränderungen im Verhältnis zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik und deren Konsequenzen für Governance-Ansätze der Wissenschaftspolitik beschäftigen. Dietmar Braun analysiert in seinem Beitrag internationale Entwicklungen in öffentlich finanzierten Forschungssystemen. Er diagnostiziert die Herausbildung eines Modells von "Netzwerk Governance" – ein Politikansatz, der auf dem Management der Interdependenzen von unabhängigen öffentlichen (und privaten) Einrichtungen in horizontalen Beziehungen beruht. Daniel Barben untersucht in einer international komparativen und transnationalen Perspektive Veränderungen im Wissenschafts- und im Politikregime sowie die Interaktionen zwischen beiden. Sein Beitrag unterstreicht den Wert des Regimekonzepts für die Analyse komplexer und interdependenter Transformationen in Wissenschaft und Politik. Henry Etzkowitz diskutiert sein "Triple Helix"-Modell, das zum Verständnis der wechselseitigen Innovationsprozesse von Wissenschaft, Industrie und Staat entwickelt wurde. Ein spezielles Augenmerk gilt den Folgen von Triple-Helix-Innovationsprozessen für die Politik, wie sie sich etwa in der Wirtschaftspolitik oder auf regionalpolitischer Ebene manifestieren. Peter Weingart schließlich kritisiert die zahlreichen nicht-intendierten Nebenfolgen von Evaluationsverfahren und biliometrischen Messtechniken auf das Wissenschaftssystem. Er fordert eine kritische Reflexion und Reform des Peer-review-Systems zur Verbesserung der Evaluations- und Qualitätssicherungsinstrumente in der Wissenschaft. Die hier versammelten Beiträge stehen für ein viel versprechendes und wachsendes Forschungsfeld, das Ansätze der Science Policy Studies mit solchen der Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung verbindet.