The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of government subsidies and private research and development (R&D) on global value chains position (GVCP) and the moderating role of task complexity in China. It utilizes regional data from official Chinese statistics and the Trade in Value Added 2018 database from the period of 2005–2016. The results indicate that different sources of R&D funds have different effects on GVCP. In particular, government subsidies promote GVCP, while private R&D impedes GVCP. Furthermore, the results indicate that task complexity positively moderates the relationship between private R&D and GVCP, and it negatively moderates the relationship between government subsidies and GVCP. Therefore, this study highlights the importance of task complexity for regional enterprises seeking to enhance their GVCP and provides policymakers with new insights into their subsidy policies.
{"title":"Government subsidies, private R&D, and global value chains position: the moderating role of task complexity","authors":"Furong Qian","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad042","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of government subsidies and private research and development (R&D) on global value chains position (GVCP) and the moderating role of task complexity in China. It utilizes regional data from official Chinese statistics and the Trade in Value Added 2018 database from the period of 2005–2016. The results indicate that different sources of R&D funds have different effects on GVCP. In particular, government subsidies promote GVCP, while private R&D impedes GVCP. Furthermore, the results indicate that task complexity positively moderates the relationship between private R&D and GVCP, and it negatively moderates the relationship between government subsidies and GVCP. Therefore, this study highlights the importance of task complexity for regional enterprises seeking to enhance their GVCP and provides policymakers with new insights into their subsidy policies.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139355287","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}
China’s government uses a variety of diplomatic tools to pursue its foreign policy aims including negotiating and signing formal bilateral science and technology agreements (STAs). These agreements have been signed with at least fifty-two countries. We identified agreements with an additional sixty-four countries with science and technology (S&T), among other topics such as education, as subjects for cooperation. The Ministry of Science and Technology reports having signed 115 intergovernmental science and technology agreements (STAs) and established ties with 161 countries and regions, although we were not able to identify all these agreements. The earliest of China’s STAs were signed in the 1950s with communist countries, but, in the late 1970s, China began signing agreements with scientifically-advanced nations, which opened opportunities for S&T cooperation. More recently, China has negotiated and signed scientific and technological cooperation agreements with dozens of middle- and lower-income countries, possibly to establish political goodwill. While building political ties clearly remains an important Chinese objective, access to the latest know-how in S&T has become a critical part of China’s priorities in establishing formal relationships.
{"title":"China’s use of formal science and technology agreements as a tool of diplomacy","authors":"C. Wagner, D. Simon","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 China’s government uses a variety of diplomatic tools to pursue its foreign policy aims including negotiating and signing formal bilateral science and technology agreements (STAs). These agreements have been signed with at least fifty-two countries. We identified agreements with an additional sixty-four countries with science and technology (S&T), among other topics such as education, as subjects for cooperation. The Ministry of Science and Technology reports having signed 115 intergovernmental science and technology agreements (STAs) and established ties with 161 countries and regions, although we were not able to identify all these agreements. The earliest of China’s STAs were signed in the 1950s with communist countries, but, in the late 1970s, China began signing agreements with scientifically-advanced nations, which opened opportunities for S&T cooperation. More recently, China has negotiated and signed scientific and technological cooperation agreements with dozens of middle- and lower-income countries, possibly to establish political goodwill. While building political ties clearly remains an important Chinese objective, access to the latest know-how in S&T has become a critical part of China’s priorities in establishing formal relationships.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49313426","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}
E. MacKillop, A. Connell, James Downe, Hannah Durrant
Knowledge-brokering organisations (KBOs) have multiplied in the evidence–policy landscape worldwide, changing how decision-makers are accessing evidence. Yet, we still know little about their emergence and roles. This research helps to understand KBOs and their place in evidence-based policymaking by highlighting the varied work that they do, the relationships they cultivate with policymakers, the complex knowledge-brokering processes they negotiate, and how they establish their credibility in different ways. We build on boundary organisation theory and the concept of policy entrepreneur (PE) (drawn from the multiple streams analysis) to develop a better understanding of KBOs who play multiple roles. By using the PE concept, we bring a greater focus on the politics of brokering. This duality involves them in seeking to provide ‘objective’ evidence while simultaneously determining what counts as evidence for policy and making recommendations for political decisions.
{"title":"Making sense of knowledge-brokering organisations: boundary organisations or policy entrepreneurs?","authors":"E. MacKillop, A. Connell, James Downe, Hannah Durrant","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Knowledge-brokering organisations (KBOs) have multiplied in the evidence–policy landscape worldwide, changing how decision-makers are accessing evidence. Yet, we still know little about their emergence and roles. This research helps to understand KBOs and their place in evidence-based policymaking by highlighting the varied work that they do, the relationships they cultivate with policymakers, the complex knowledge-brokering processes they negotiate, and how they establish their credibility in different ways. We build on boundary organisation theory and the concept of policy entrepreneur (PE) (drawn from the multiple streams analysis) to develop a better understanding of KBOs who play multiple roles. By using the PE concept, we bring a greater focus on the politics of brokering. This duality involves them in seeking to provide ‘objective’ evidence while simultaneously determining what counts as evidence for policy and making recommendations for political decisions.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46344009","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}
Scientific evidence is just one of many sources of information for policymakers. Neglecting this evidence is, however, an important feature of unsuccessful policy-making. Recent UK governments’ ambitions to improve the nation’s health and tackle climate change are—to varying degrees—off course. These include halving childhood obesity by 2030 and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Evidence on the interventions most likely to achieve these is well summarised but largely neglected in the policies supporting these ambitions. Two sets of factors contribute to this neglect: first, incentive structures for politicians that favour setting ambitious policy goals while disfavouring the effective policies needed to achieve them; second, political ideologies and interests that conflict with effective policies. Two changes could mitigate these factors: first, engaging citizens more in policy-making so that their interests dominate; second, increasing the accountability of politicians through legally binding systems for all stages of policy-making.
{"title":"Evidence-neglect: addressing a barrier to UK health and climate policy ambitions","authors":"T. Marteau","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Scientific evidence is just one of many sources of information for policymakers. Neglecting this evidence is, however, an important feature of unsuccessful policy-making. Recent UK governments’ ambitions to improve the nation’s health and tackle climate change are—to varying degrees—off course. These include halving childhood obesity by 2030 and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Evidence on the interventions most likely to achieve these is well summarised but largely neglected in the policies supporting these ambitions. Two sets of factors contribute to this neglect: first, incentive structures for politicians that favour setting ambitious policy goals while disfavouring the effective policies needed to achieve them; second, political ideologies and interests that conflict with effective policies. Two changes could mitigate these factors: first, engaging citizens more in policy-making so that their interests dominate; second, increasing the accountability of politicians through legally binding systems for all stages of policy-making.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47343859","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}
The offset agreement (OA) of the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) is a demand-side policy aiming to improve innovative capacities. However, it may be constrained by companies’ absorptive capacities, relationship features, and sectoral specificities. This study examines these issues in a small but representative sample of domestic beneficiary firms from the FAB’s OA. The model in the study by Zahra and George, along with contingent factors such as power relationship and social integration mechanisms, inspired the design of the research tools. The results point to similar and high firms’ absorptive capacities, regardless of the origins of capital. However, results show distinct benefit perceptions given by contingent factors, companies’ strategies, and sectoral specificities, which may denote distinct possibilities on cumulativeness and appropriability from technology transfer. We expect that these findings may improve the planning, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustments of this demand-side policy, attracting attention to new studies on the theme.
{"title":"Brazilian Air Force acquisition policies: observing absorptive capacity and contingent factors in aeronautical beneficiary companies","authors":"T. Caliari, M. Bovo, L. Urbina, R. Scarpel","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad035","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The offset agreement (OA) of the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) is a demand-side policy aiming to improve innovative capacities. However, it may be constrained by companies’ absorptive capacities, relationship features, and sectoral specificities. This study examines these issues in a small but representative sample of domestic beneficiary firms from the FAB’s OA. The model in the study by Zahra and George, along with contingent factors such as power relationship and social integration mechanisms, inspired the design of the research tools. The results point to similar and high firms’ absorptive capacities, regardless of the origins of capital. However, results show distinct benefit perceptions given by contingent factors, companies’ strategies, and sectoral specificities, which may denote distinct possibilities on cumulativeness and appropriability from technology transfer. We expect that these findings may improve the planning, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustments of this demand-side policy, attracting attention to new studies on the theme.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43018799","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}
North–South research funding dynamics have been progressively marked by the rise of project-based funding responding to agencies’ predefined research topics. Still, Southern researchers’ behaviour to cope with Northern agencies’ project frameworks remains an understudied question. This article addresses this gap by examining Southern applicants’ practices when preparing proposals for collaborative research for development projects in the social sciences, in particular their strategies to appropriate Northern donors’ frameworks. Findings single out that the appropriation process leads to the co-creation of a new cognitive framework accommodating both researchers’ and funders’ interests expressed in different agendas. This article also contributes to shedding light on Southern researchers’ active role in the face of asymmetric relationships. Finally, findings inform research management about the importance of defining relatively large frameworks that include applicants’ knowledge, competences, and contextual features to enhance local relevance while contributing to the policy debate on project-based funding impact on contemporary research.
{"title":"North–South research funding dynamics of collaborative projects: researchers’ appropriation strategies of agencies’ project frameworks","authors":"Montserrat Alom Bartrolí","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad036","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 North–South research funding dynamics have been progressively marked by the rise of project-based funding responding to agencies’ predefined research topics. Still, Southern researchers’ behaviour to cope with Northern agencies’ project frameworks remains an understudied question. This article addresses this gap by examining Southern applicants’ practices when preparing proposals for collaborative research for development projects in the social sciences, in particular their strategies to appropriate Northern donors’ frameworks. Findings single out that the appropriation process leads to the co-creation of a new cognitive framework accommodating both researchers’ and funders’ interests expressed in different agendas. This article also contributes to shedding light on Southern researchers’ active role in the face of asymmetric relationships. Finally, findings inform research management about the importance of defining relatively large frameworks that include applicants’ knowledge, competences, and contextual features to enhance local relevance while contributing to the policy debate on project-based funding impact on contemporary research.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61476519","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}
Jianfeng Guo, Xuemei Zhang, Fu Gu, Jiannan Zhu, Chao Deng, Xinze Zhao, Xiaohan Yang
Abstract Governments have proposed various policy responses to contain the spread of coronavirus disease 2019, but there is little available knowledge about how these policies are formulated. Here we quantify the herding effect in the pandemic containment policies issued by governments of different regions during the period of 18 January 2020 to 29 May 2020, using a modified Lakonishok–Shleifer–Vishny approach. The results show that all the policies exhibit some degree of herding, and the policy herding in the USA is significantly stronger than that of China but weaker than that of the rest of the world. Specifically, the overall herding intensity in the policy responses of the Northern China is greater than that of the Southern China. We believe that policy herding is linked with risk aversion, which is triggered by perceived uncertainty associated with significant risk events. This work highlights the significance of resource sufficiency and preparedness.
{"title":"Herding in policy responses to coronavirus disease 2019","authors":"Jianfeng Guo, Xuemei Zhang, Fu Gu, Jiannan Zhu, Chao Deng, Xinze Zhao, Xiaohan Yang","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad033","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Governments have proposed various policy responses to contain the spread of coronavirus disease 2019, but there is little available knowledge about how these policies are formulated. Here we quantify the herding effect in the pandemic containment policies issued by governments of different regions during the period of 18 January 2020 to 29 May 2020, using a modified Lakonishok–Shleifer–Vishny approach. The results show that all the policies exhibit some degree of herding, and the policy herding in the USA is significantly stronger than that of China but weaker than that of the rest of the world. Specifically, the overall herding intensity in the policy responses of the Northern China is greater than that of the Southern China. We believe that policy herding is linked with risk aversion, which is triggered by perceived uncertainty associated with significant risk events. This work highlights the significance of resource sufficiency and preparedness.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135471064","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 As an emerging agenda in science and public policy discourse, the open science (OS) movement has affected university–industry research collaboration (UIRC) including normative changes concerning actors’ value and belief systems. Thus, the following questions have become pertinent: what are the norms and beliefs of key actors engaged in UIRC regarding OS practices? How have the norms and beliefs led to tensions in UIRC and dynamics facilitating or impeding OS? This study explores these questions through two case studies by applying institutional logics theory as an analytical lens. Through analysing case studies concerning UIRC in Finland, a pioneer in the global OS movement, six institutional logics that are either pro- or contra-OS practices were identified: the state, market, corporation, profession, traditional trust–based community and sustainability-based community logics. The strongest tensions are between the state and market logics and between the profession and market logics. In the end of the study, recommendations are solicited for OS policymakers and practitioners based on the research findings.
{"title":"Institutional logics in the open science practices of university–industry research collaboration","authors":"Annina Lattu, Yuzhuo Cai","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad037","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As an emerging agenda in science and public policy discourse, the open science (OS) movement has affected university–industry research collaboration (UIRC) including normative changes concerning actors’ value and belief systems. Thus, the following questions have become pertinent: what are the norms and beliefs of key actors engaged in UIRC regarding OS practices? How have the norms and beliefs led to tensions in UIRC and dynamics facilitating or impeding OS? This study explores these questions through two case studies by applying institutional logics theory as an analytical lens. Through analysing case studies concerning UIRC in Finland, a pioneer in the global OS movement, six institutional logics that are either pro- or contra-OS practices were identified: the state, market, corporation, profession, traditional trust–based community and sustainability-based community logics. The strongest tensions are between the state and market logics and between the profession and market logics. In the end of the study, recommendations are solicited for OS policymakers and practitioners based on the research findings.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135524943","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}
The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for policymakers and scientific experts charged with preventing the spread of the virus. In upending the usual mechanisms for political deliberation, the pandemic offers a window into the co-production of governmental policy decisions and scientific evidence. Taking the German state of Bavaria as a case study, this article draws on expert interviews with individuals directly involved in high-level pandemic decision-making to explore the changing relationships between policymakers and scientific experts. The challenges that emerged in the Bavarian context illustrate that while uncertainty has long been understood as constitutive of scientific knowledge, it became a stumbling block for policymakers due to newfound degrees of urgency and implications of decision-making in relation to the pandemic. In order to better address the emergent, evolving problems posed by public health crises, uncertainty must also be understood as formative in the work of policy.
{"title":"Responding to uncertainty in the COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives from Bavaria, Germany","authors":"A. Fiske, Johannes Lange, A. Buyx, S. McLennan","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad031","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for policymakers and scientific experts charged with preventing the spread of the virus. In upending the usual mechanisms for political deliberation, the pandemic offers a window into the co-production of governmental policy decisions and scientific evidence. Taking the German state of Bavaria as a case study, this article draws on expert interviews with individuals directly involved in high-level pandemic decision-making to explore the changing relationships between policymakers and scientific experts. The challenges that emerged in the Bavarian context illustrate that while uncertainty has long been understood as constitutive of scientific knowledge, it became a stumbling block for policymakers due to newfound degrees of urgency and implications of decision-making in relation to the pandemic. In order to better address the emergent, evolving problems posed by public health crises, uncertainty must also be understood as formative in the work of policy.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45775996","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}
Taru Peltola, Sanna-Riikka Saarela, Juha M. Kotilainen, Tapio Litmanen, J. Lukkarinen, Ismo Pölönen, Outi Ratamäki, H. Saarikoski, M. Salo, S. Vikström
While societies are facing complex problems involving multiple stakeholders and interdependencies, interest in collaborative governance as a potential solution is rising. Research-based interventions in policy, planning, and management processes have been introduced to test different approaches and tools for collaboration. The nature of these processes, tools, and approaches varies substantially, as do researchers’ cultures of making contributions to and in collaboration with society. This paper outlines the various possibilities and means for researchers to intervene in and explore steps towards collaborative governance. It utilises literature-based descriptions of potential roles for researchers and draws on insight from Finnish collaborative governance interventions in environmental decision-making. The conventional role of researchers as providers of knowledge was complemented with roles needed to foster favourable conditions for collaboration. Tensions regarding these roles show that collaborative governance requires a reflexive position from researchers, enabling them to adapt their ideas about collaboration to specific governance settings.
{"title":"Researcher roles in collaborative governance interventions","authors":"Taru Peltola, Sanna-Riikka Saarela, Juha M. Kotilainen, Tapio Litmanen, J. Lukkarinen, Ismo Pölönen, Outi Ratamäki, H. Saarikoski, M. Salo, S. Vikström","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad034","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 While societies are facing complex problems involving multiple stakeholders and interdependencies, interest in collaborative governance as a potential solution is rising. Research-based interventions in policy, planning, and management processes have been introduced to test different approaches and tools for collaboration. The nature of these processes, tools, and approaches varies substantially, as do researchers’ cultures of making contributions to and in collaboration with society. This paper outlines the various possibilities and means for researchers to intervene in and explore steps towards collaborative governance. It utilises literature-based descriptions of potential roles for researchers and draws on insight from Finnish collaborative governance interventions in environmental decision-making. The conventional role of researchers as providers of knowledge was complemented with roles needed to foster favourable conditions for collaboration. Tensions regarding these roles show that collaborative governance requires a reflexive position from researchers, enabling them to adapt their ideas about collaboration to specific governance settings.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45266215","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：