Joshua B Cohen, Anne M C Loeber, ilse Marschalek, Michael J Bernstein, Vincent Blok, Raúl Tabarés, Robert Gianni, Erich Griessler
Many researchers experiment with participatory settings to increase public engagement in research and innovation (R&I). Because of their temporary nature, it often remains unclear how such participatory experiments can contribute to structural change. This paper empirically explores options for bridging this gap. It analyzes how participants can be supported to act as institutional entrepreneurs to actively promote public engagement in R&I. To draw lessons, we analyze empirical material gathered on nineteen Social Labs which were set up to promote the uptake of Responsible Research and Innovation in a European R&I funding program (Horizon 2020). Involvement of motivated participants, insight in their institutional context, and specific methods and management choices that enhance a sense of agency are identified as essential for organizing change. These findings and the resulting framework of interventions may prove valuable for further (action) research into the institutionalization of public engagement in R&I.
{"title":"From experimentation to structural change: fostering institutional entrepreneurship for public engagement in research and innovation","authors":"Joshua B Cohen, Anne M C Loeber, ilse Marschalek, Michael J Bernstein, Vincent Blok, Raúl Tabarés, Robert Gianni, Erich Griessler","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad065","url":null,"abstract":"Many researchers experiment with participatory settings to increase public engagement in research and innovation (R&I). Because of their temporary nature, it often remains unclear how such participatory experiments can contribute to structural change. This paper empirically explores options for bridging this gap. It analyzes how participants can be supported to act as institutional entrepreneurs to actively promote public engagement in R&I. To draw lessons, we analyze empirical material gathered on nineteen Social Labs which were set up to promote the uptake of Responsible Research and Innovation in a European R&I funding program (Horizon 2020). Involvement of motivated participants, insight in their institutional context, and specific methods and management choices that enhance a sense of agency are identified as essential for organizing change. These findings and the resulting framework of interventions may prove valuable for further (action) research into the institutionalization of public engagement in R&I.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138514042","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Guillermo Orjuela-Ramirez, Julio Cesar Zuluaga-Jimenez, David Urbano
How do eco-innovators protect and profit from their innovations so they have the incentive to undertake an innovation in the first place? The double externality nature of environmental innovations intricates this appropriability problem, as competitors and society might also benefit from the value created by eco-innovation. Based on David Teece’s Profiting from innovation framework, we argue that firms combine appropriability strategies such as patents, industrial secrecy, and complex design with the development of complementary assets to incentivize and secure rent appropriation from eco-innovation. We estimate that formal appropriability mechanisms increase the probability of developing an eco-innovation by 6 per cent, while informal mechanisms increase it by about 15 per cent. Our panel data regression model demonstrates that marketing capability enhances the effect of appropriability mechanisms by differentiating eco-innovation from other technologies. However, this complementarity differs as a firm increases marketing investments, especially in small and Research and Development R&D publicly financed firms.
{"title":"Drivers of eco-innovation: the role of appropriability strategies and complementary assets","authors":"Guillermo Orjuela-Ramirez, Julio Cesar Zuluaga-Jimenez, David Urbano","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad072","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad072","url":null,"abstract":"How do eco-innovators protect and profit from their innovations so they have the incentive to undertake an innovation in the first place? The double externality nature of environmental innovations intricates this appropriability problem, as competitors and society might also benefit from the value created by eco-innovation. Based on David Teece’s Profiting from innovation framework, we argue that firms combine appropriability strategies such as patents, industrial secrecy, and complex design with the development of complementary assets to incentivize and secure rent appropriation from eco-innovation. We estimate that formal appropriability mechanisms increase the probability of developing an eco-innovation by 6 per cent, while informal mechanisms increase it by about 15 per cent. Our panel data regression model demonstrates that marketing capability enhances the effect of appropriability mechanisms by differentiating eco-innovation from other technologies. However, this complementarity differs as a firm increases marketing investments, especially in small and Research and Development R&D publicly financed firms.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138514068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Precarity is often interpreted as a neoliberal management strategy to maximize profits in private companies through the endorsement of insecure jobs, inadequate wages, and limited rights for workers. This interpretation, however, is unsuitable to analyse situations where the State endorses precarity in non-profit public organizations, for example, State-sponsored universities. We hypothesize that in these situations, the ‘precarity paradox’ is particularly prone to manifest. Such a paradox can be defined as the endorsement of precarity to induce organizational productivity and flexibility that, instead, leads to overwhelming inefficiencies and productivity losses. To test this hypothesis, we conducted empirical research at the faculty of engineering of a Portuguese public university where precarious contracts are dominant among researchers. Based on the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data collected, it is concluded that productivity- and flexibility-oriented precarities reduce the productivity of researchers while jeopardizing the capacity of the faculty to rationally employ its human resources.
{"title":"The precarity paradox: the precarity-driven inefficiencies of research at a public university","authors":"António Ferreira, João Quesado Delgado","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad075","url":null,"abstract":"Precarity is often interpreted as a neoliberal management strategy to maximize profits in private companies through the endorsement of insecure jobs, inadequate wages, and limited rights for workers. This interpretation, however, is unsuitable to analyse situations where the State endorses precarity in non-profit public organizations, for example, State-sponsored universities. We hypothesize that in these situations, the ‘precarity paradox’ is particularly prone to manifest. Such a paradox can be defined as the endorsement of precarity to induce organizational productivity and flexibility that, instead, leads to overwhelming inefficiencies and productivity losses. To test this hypothesis, we conducted empirical research at the faculty of engineering of a Portuguese public university where precarious contracts are dominant among researchers. Based on the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data collected, it is concluded that productivity- and flexibility-oriented precarities reduce the productivity of researchers while jeopardizing the capacity of the faculty to rationally employ its human resources.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138514072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Despite several policies aimed at igniting digital transformation, many regions lag behind. We investigate this discrepancy by postulating that the political consensus on accelerating Industry 4.0 adoption among micro-, small- and mid-sized enterprises (MSMEs) needs to consider the heterogeneity of entrepreneurial and social fabrics. Best practices in policy-making exist, but their deployment requires adaptations. The present paper delves into such adaptations and on the mechanics behind how a ‘model’ is modified locally. We do so by illustrating the results of action research on a regional policy initiative. Our findings point to one important set of factors and mechanisms conducive to the adaptation of a policy model to the peculiarities of a locale via the alignment of different cognitive frames: co-design processes. We elaborate on the role of different actors, the relevance of ‘hybrid’ actors, and the nature of universities as platforms
{"title":"Bridging conflicting frames in policies for digital transformation","authors":"Nunzia Coco, Cinzia Colapinto, Vladi Finotto","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad068","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite several policies aimed at igniting digital transformation, many regions lag behind. We investigate this discrepancy by postulating that the political consensus on accelerating Industry 4.0 adoption among micro-, small- and mid-sized enterprises (MSMEs) needs to consider the heterogeneity of entrepreneurial and social fabrics. Best practices in policy-making exist, but their deployment requires adaptations. The present paper delves into such adaptations and on the mechanics behind how a ‘model’ is modified locally. We do so by illustrating the results of action research on a regional policy initiative. Our findings point to one important set of factors and mechanisms conducive to the adaptation of a policy model to the peculiarities of a locale via the alignment of different cognitive frames: co-design processes. We elaborate on the role of different actors, the relevance of ‘hybrid’ actors, and the nature of universities as platforms","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135186502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract By deciding to condition the access of research organizations to its €95.5 billion Horizon Europe funding programme (2021–7) on providing evidence of a gender equality plan, the European Commission has made the challenge of certifying the gender equality performance of research organizations extremely urgent, not least to avoid the risk that such plans become a mere formality (‘box-ticking’). This challenge should not be underestimated, considering the extremely complex nature of the dynamics surrounding gender equality. In this article, we analyse the feasibility of establishing a European certification scheme that would assess gender equality policies and outcomes of research organizations, and present four alternative scenarios for its set-up, co-created with a wide range of stakeholders in a participatory step-by-step process. The results of the two-stage validation process of the four scenarios are also presented, providing policy implications and recommendations to support the effective roll-out of the certification schemes.
{"title":"Certifying complexity? The case of a European gender equality certification scheme for research-performing organizations","authors":"Marina Cacace, Francesca Pugliese, Charikleia Tzanakou, Jörg Müller, Alain Denis, Maria Sangiuliano","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad069","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad069","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract By deciding to condition the access of research organizations to its €95.5 billion Horizon Europe funding programme (2021–7) on providing evidence of a gender equality plan, the European Commission has made the challenge of certifying the gender equality performance of research organizations extremely urgent, not least to avoid the risk that such plans become a mere formality (‘box-ticking’). This challenge should not be underestimated, considering the extremely complex nature of the dynamics surrounding gender equality. In this article, we analyse the feasibility of establishing a European certification scheme that would assess gender equality policies and outcomes of research organizations, and present four alternative scenarios for its set-up, co-created with a wide range of stakeholders in a participatory step-by-step process. The results of the two-stage validation process of the four scenarios are also presented, providing policy implications and recommendations to support the effective roll-out of the certification schemes.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135774830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Biometric technology encompasses a proliferating array of data forms, applications, and stakeholders but has raised numerous social and ethical concerns. This article examines contending perceptions of biometrics by developing a three-way framework of science–society orderings, drawn from social studies of biometrics and wider science studies literature. By analysing documentary sources and participant observation data through this framework, the article identifies a series of distinct normative interpretations or imaginaries of biometrics. It is argued that these imaginaries, described, respectively, as ‘public good’, ‘collective control’, and ‘societal risks’, project contending normative framings of science–society relations. These imaginaries were also however found to reflexively encompass perceived challenges, giving rise to practices that I term imaginative politics. These findings raise the need for science policy studies to consider the distinction between imagining and realizing in greater depth and to consider more profoundly the politics of science–society co-production.
{"title":"Biometrics, presents, futures: the imaginative politics of science–society orderings","authors":"Christopher Lawless","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad071","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Biometric technology encompasses a proliferating array of data forms, applications, and stakeholders but has raised numerous social and ethical concerns. This article examines contending perceptions of biometrics by developing a three-way framework of science–society orderings, drawn from social studies of biometrics and wider science studies literature. By analysing documentary sources and participant observation data through this framework, the article identifies a series of distinct normative interpretations or imaginaries of biometrics. It is argued that these imaginaries, described, respectively, as ‘public good’, ‘collective control’, and ‘societal risks’, project contending normative framings of science–society relations. These imaginaries were also however found to reflexively encompass perceived challenges, giving rise to practices that I term imaginative politics. These findings raise the need for science policy studies to consider the distinction between imagining and realizing in greater depth and to consider more profoundly the politics of science–society co-production.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135775848","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper investigates gender bias (if any) when teams are formed. We use data from the European Science Foundation to estimate if female scientists have the same opportunities as their male colleagues to join a team when applying for funds. To assess gender bias, we construct a control group of scientists with the competencies for being invited to join the team but who do not join. By comparing the proportion of female scientists in the control group with the one in the observed teams, we find a gender bias against female scientists. Exploring heterogeneity across teams, we find that gender bias is less pronounced in teams led by women, junior scientists, and in more recently formed teams. We also observe differences across disciplines.
{"title":"Gender bias in team formation: the case of the European Science Foundation’s grants","authors":"Michele Pezzoni, Fabiana Visentin","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad058","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper investigates gender bias (if any) when teams are formed. We use data from the European Science Foundation to estimate if female scientists have the same opportunities as their male colleagues to join a team when applying for funds. To assess gender bias, we construct a control group of scientists with the competencies for being invited to join the team but who do not join. By comparing the proportion of female scientists in the control group with the one in the observed teams, we find a gender bias against female scientists. Exploring heterogeneity across teams, we find that gender bias is less pronounced in teams led by women, junior scientists, and in more recently formed teams. We also observe differences across disciplines.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136233362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Émilien Schultz, Jeremy K Ward, Laëtitia Atlani-Duault
Abstract During the Covid-19 pandemic, many governments have resorted to scientific advisory bodies to aid in public health decision-making. What then has been the public’s perception of those new structures of scientific advice? In this article, we draw on a survey conducted in November 2020 among a representative sample of the French adult population (n = 1,004) designed specifically to explore public perceptions of the dedicated Covid-19 Scientific Council created in March 2020 and of scientific advice in general. After only 8 months, three-quarters of French people said they had heard of it, but only a quarter had a positive opinion about its usefulness. Despite the diversity of perceptions of what scientific advice is and should be, it appeared that scientific advice bodies are perceived as useful mainly by a public already largely supportive of the delegation of the management of public life to the government and public institutions.
{"title":"Public perception of scientific advisory bodies: the case of France’s Covid-19 Scientific Council","authors":"Émilien Schultz, Jeremy K Ward, Laëtitia Atlani-Duault","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad067","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract During the Covid-19 pandemic, many governments have resorted to scientific advisory bodies to aid in public health decision-making. What then has been the public’s perception of those new structures of scientific advice? In this article, we draw on a survey conducted in November 2020 among a representative sample of the French adult population (n = 1,004) designed specifically to explore public perceptions of the dedicated Covid-19 Scientific Council created in March 2020 and of scientific advice in general. After only 8 months, three-quarters of French people said they had heard of it, but only a quarter had a positive opinion about its usefulness. Despite the diversity of perceptions of what scientific advice is and should be, it appeared that scientific advice bodies are perceived as useful mainly by a public already largely supportive of the delegation of the management of public life to the government and public institutions.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134907604","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Research and Development (R&D) grants are one of the most commonly employed programmes by regional, national, and European governments to promote innovation at the firm level. This study contributes to the existing literature on innovation policy mix by investigating whether combinations of the three funding sources can yield positive effects on various measurements of innovation outcomes. Using a panel of 10,045 Spanish firms from 2004 to 2016 and a flexible conditional difference-in-differences approach, our findings reveal that R&D grants funded by European sources exert the most substantial positive impact on firms’ product and process innovations. Conversely, national funding demonstrates this impact on new-to-market innovations and patent applications. Notably, the positive effect on innovation outcomes is evident only when considering the combination of all three distinct funding schemes and the amalgamation of regional and national R&D grants. These results reject the possibility of substitutive effects among different funding schemes, particularly between regional and national institutions.
{"title":"Multilevel innovation policy mix: impact of regional, national, and European R&D grants","authors":"Enrique Acebo, José-Ángel Miguel-Dávila","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad057","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Research and Development (R&D) grants are one of the most commonly employed programmes by regional, national, and European governments to promote innovation at the firm level. This study contributes to the existing literature on innovation policy mix by investigating whether combinations of the three funding sources can yield positive effects on various measurements of innovation outcomes. Using a panel of 10,045 Spanish firms from 2004 to 2016 and a flexible conditional difference-in-differences approach, our findings reveal that R&D grants funded by European sources exert the most substantial positive impact on firms’ product and process innovations. Conversely, national funding demonstrates this impact on new-to-market innovations and patent applications. Notably, the positive effect on innovation outcomes is evident only when considering the combination of all three distinct funding schemes and the amalgamation of regional and national R&D grants. These results reject the possibility of substitutive effects among different funding schemes, particularly between regional and national institutions.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135218256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper aims to trace how the meaning of ethics in the research and innovation (R&I) sector is discursively and procedurally revised within two consecutive modes of legitimizing public policies in the European Union (EU), namely, good governance and better regulation. The text draws insight from Ernesto Laclau’s work on discursivity, contingency, and hegemony and Chantal Mouffe’s critique of consensual political theories. It shows that with the policy transition from responsible innovation to breakthrough and disruptive innovation, the possibilities to employ ethics in interrogating the ambiguous nature of science and technology advancement become very limited. Ethics is currently construed as a means for unclogging the innovation process and embracing the collective production of risks. The paper demonstrates that the recent emptying of ethics within EU R&I is an expected effect of hegemonization practices and discursive configurations promoting and stabilizing the science–market alliance in science and policy relations.
{"title":"From responsibility to risk: ethics in the Bermuda Triangle of EU research and innovation policy","authors":"Blagovesta I Nikolova","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad066","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper aims to trace how the meaning of ethics in the research and innovation (R&I) sector is discursively and procedurally revised within two consecutive modes of legitimizing public policies in the European Union (EU), namely, good governance and better regulation. The text draws insight from Ernesto Laclau’s work on discursivity, contingency, and hegemony and Chantal Mouffe’s critique of consensual political theories. It shows that with the policy transition from responsible innovation to breakthrough and disruptive innovation, the possibilities to employ ethics in interrogating the ambiguous nature of science and technology advancement become very limited. Ethics is currently construed as a means for unclogging the innovation process and embracing the collective production of risks. The paper demonstrates that the recent emptying of ethics within EU R&I is an expected effect of hegemonization practices and discursive configurations promoting and stabilizing the science–market alliance in science and policy relations.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135265991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：