{"title":"Science diplomacy in the Global South—an introduction","authors":"Derya Büyüktanir Karacan, Pierre-Bruno Ruffini","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad028","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48339066","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}
How do entrepreneurs of high-growth firms in small, open economies evaluate innovation policy mixes? In response to market consolidation by large firms, governments in such countries are using a mix of innovation policy tools to support firms with high-growth potential in digitally intensive sectors. Government objectives, however, are not being realized. Bringing actor-centric perspectives to the policy mix literature, we analyze interviews with entrepreneurs from Canadian technology firms to determine whether there is a disconnect between the objectives and instruments employed by the government. With distinct policy preferences rooted in their growth experiences specific to the country’s political economy, we find that scale-up entrepreneurs prefer a more active role of the government in the form of demand-side, direct, and targeted innovation instruments. The findings presented in this article provide a more nuanced understanding of the innovation policy landscape and the preferences of technology scale-up firms
{"title":"Do winners pick government? How scale-up experience shapes entrepreneurs’ assessments of innovation policy mixes","authors":"S. Denney, Travis Southin, David A. Wolfe","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad030","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 How do entrepreneurs of high-growth firms in small, open economies evaluate innovation policy mixes? In response to market consolidation by large firms, governments in such countries are using a mix of innovation policy tools to support firms with high-growth potential in digitally intensive sectors. Government objectives, however, are not being realized. Bringing actor-centric perspectives to the policy mix literature, we analyze interviews with entrepreneurs from Canadian technology firms to determine whether there is a disconnect between the objectives and instruments employed by the government. With distinct policy preferences rooted in their growth experiences specific to the country’s political economy, we find that scale-up entrepreneurs prefer a more active role of the government in the form of demand-side, direct, and targeted innovation instruments. The findings presented in this article provide a more nuanced understanding of the innovation policy landscape and the preferences of technology scale-up firms","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47181337","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 urgent need to accelerate on, and make a national success of, the green and digital transition is leading to widespread calls for greater government involvement in the economy, including by means of an active industrial policy. After reviewing several case studies, it becomes evident that, against conventional wisdom, nearly all countries have systematically engaged in some form of industrial policy, especially large economies like the USA and China, notwithstanding their very different economic models. The same is true for Europe, both at the national level and through European Union policies. After analysing these experiences, we draw six key policy lessons to inform future debates on how to shape a successful industrial policy in the years to come and mitigate its risks, while acting in a context of souring geopolitical tensions.
{"title":"European industrial policy for the green and digital revolution","authors":"Alessio Terzi, Monika Sherwood, Aneil Singh","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The urgent need to accelerate on, and make a national success of, the green and digital transition is leading to widespread calls for greater government involvement in the economy, including by means of an active industrial policy. After reviewing several case studies, it becomes evident that, against conventional wisdom, nearly all countries have systematically engaged in some form of industrial policy, especially large economies like the USA and China, notwithstanding their very different economic models. The same is true for Europe, both at the national level and through European Union policies. After analysing these experiences, we draw six key policy lessons to inform future debates on how to shape a successful industrial policy in the years to come and mitigate its risks, while acting in a context of souring geopolitical tensions.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41637050","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}
Based on International Relations (IRs) grounding theories, this article outlines a realist-constructivist perspective in science diplomacy when assessing a nation-state’s foreign policy decision-making and behaviour. The proposed theoretical framing helps us evaluate existing practices of science diplomacy within the larger context of IRs and allows us to better understand the increasing role of science diplomacy and its potency in the foreign policy of emerging and developing countries. The proposed exploratory research methodology outlines the contours of a science diplomacy reading grid breaking it down into the categories of objectives, strategic drivers, and tools. The data collection and semi-structured interviews with high-ranking practitioners and experts allowed us to assess the meaning of science diplomacy as understood and implemented by Global South countries and to distinguish science diplomacy practices as oriented towards the satisfaction of domestic needs and international positioning.
{"title":"Science diplomacy from a nation-state’s perspective: a general framing and its application to Global South countries","authors":"Pierre-Bruno Ruffini, O. Krasnyak","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Based on International Relations (IRs) grounding theories, this article outlines a realist-constructivist perspective in science diplomacy when assessing a nation-state’s foreign policy decision-making and behaviour. The proposed theoretical framing helps us evaluate existing practices of science diplomacy within the larger context of IRs and allows us to better understand the increasing role of science diplomacy and its potency in the foreign policy of emerging and developing countries. The proposed exploratory research methodology outlines the contours of a science diplomacy reading grid breaking it down into the categories of objectives, strategic drivers, and tools. The data collection and semi-structured interviews with high-ranking practitioners and experts allowed us to assess the meaning of science diplomacy as understood and implemented by Global South countries and to distinguish science diplomacy practices as oriented towards the satisfaction of domestic needs and international positioning.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47208753","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}
Sam Robinson, M. Adamson, Gordon Barrett, L. Jacobsen, S. Turchetti, A. Homei, P. Marton, L. Aronowsky, Iqra Choudry, Johan Gärdebo, Jaehwan Hyun, Gerardo Ienna, Carringtone Kinyanjui, Beatriz Martínez-Rius, Júlia Mascarello, Doubravka Olšáková, Giulia Rispoli, Waqar H. Zaidi
The early 1970s brought fundamental transitions in international scientific collaboration that significantly affected the international relations in global patterns that are still relevant today. This article uses a multi-perspective approach to argue that the underlying condition for the globalization of science diplomacy was the increasing participation of recently independent countries in international technoscientific affairs, examining critical research areas, including space exploration, oceanography, nuclear technoscience, the environmental sciences, and health and population studies. Themes emerged at that time that continue to characterize what we term ‘Global Science Diplomacy’: multipolarity, resistance and agency, lack of global consensus, regional alliances and interests, and the centrality of the United Nations system to the conduct of transnational science. This survey is a first step in historical reflection on this phenomenon and shows that it was the emergence of the Global South in Science Diplomacy affairs that made Science Diplomacy global at the beginning of the 1970s.
{"title":"The globalization of science diplomacy in the early 1970s: a historical exploration","authors":"Sam Robinson, M. Adamson, Gordon Barrett, L. Jacobsen, S. Turchetti, A. Homei, P. Marton, L. Aronowsky, Iqra Choudry, Johan Gärdebo, Jaehwan Hyun, Gerardo Ienna, Carringtone Kinyanjui, Beatriz Martínez-Rius, Júlia Mascarello, Doubravka Olšáková, Giulia Rispoli, Waqar H. Zaidi","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad026","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The early 1970s brought fundamental transitions in international scientific collaboration that significantly affected the international relations in global patterns that are still relevant today. This article uses a multi-perspective approach to argue that the underlying condition for the globalization of science diplomacy was the increasing participation of recently independent countries in international technoscientific affairs, examining critical research areas, including space exploration, oceanography, nuclear technoscience, the environmental sciences, and health and population studies. Themes emerged at that time that continue to characterize what we term ‘Global Science Diplomacy’: multipolarity, resistance and agency, lack of global consensus, regional alliances and interests, and the centrality of the United Nations system to the conduct of transnational science. This survey is a first step in historical reflection on this phenomenon and shows that it was the emergence of the Global South in Science Diplomacy affairs that made Science Diplomacy global at the beginning of the 1970s.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41961382","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}
L. F. Echeverría-King, Aura Fossati, N. Raja, Kleinsy Bonilla, B. Urbani, R. K. Whiffen, Tereza Vizinová
International collaborations show asymmetries and imbalances that influence how countries take part in international relations. In this context, science diplomacy (SD) could offer possibilities towards building partnerships and meaningful engagement between Europe and Latin America. The purpose of this article is to analyse how scientific collaborations between Latin American and European researchers are carried out, observing trends, behaviours, and perceptions. Qualitative methodologies and the analysis of empirical data collected through a survey allow the extraction of relevant experiences from real cases of international joint projects. Findings indicate that addressing the asymmetries in the collaboration between partnering researchers from Europe and Latin America is essential, and SD approaches may facilitate such endeavour. SD may not represent a panacea; however, it seems to facilitate the internationalisation of research in terms of mobility, international scientific collaborations, and knowledge exchange with under-represented actors in traditional international scientific schemes, such as indigenous communities.
{"title":"Scientific collaborations between Latin America and Europe: an approach from science diplomacy towards international engagement","authors":"L. F. Echeverría-King, Aura Fossati, N. Raja, Kleinsy Bonilla, B. Urbani, R. K. Whiffen, Tereza Vizinová","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad025","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 International collaborations show asymmetries and imbalances that influence how countries take part in international relations. In this context, science diplomacy (SD) could offer possibilities towards building partnerships and meaningful engagement between Europe and Latin America. The purpose of this article is to analyse how scientific collaborations between Latin American and European researchers are carried out, observing trends, behaviours, and perceptions. Qualitative methodologies and the analysis of empirical data collected through a survey allow the extraction of relevant experiences from real cases of international joint projects. Findings indicate that addressing the asymmetries in the collaboration between partnering researchers from Europe and Latin America is essential, and SD approaches may facilitate such endeavour. SD may not represent a panacea; however, it seems to facilitate the internationalisation of research in terms of mobility, international scientific collaborations, and knowledge exchange with under-represented actors in traditional international scientific schemes, such as indigenous communities.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46633988","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}
Caetano C. R. Penna, Oscar Y. Romero Goyeneche, C. Matti
In this paper, we propose a method for tracking the evolution of sociotechnical niches supported by sustainability-focused project portfolios. Based on social network analysis (SNA), this method can be used to evaluate and monitor funding initiatives that seek to advance sociotechnical transitions. It is an important area of study because there is currently a lack of tools for measuring the success of efforts to promote transformative innovation. Conceptually, our approach is based on existing sociotechnical transition research and offers insights into how project networks evolve. We applied this method to a specific portfolio of food system projects that the European Institute for Innovation and Technology Climate-KIC supported. Our results show that SNA can provide a proper visual representation of the infrastructure that supports programme-based investment and can help us understand how specific network structures can support niche development and protect it from external pressures.
{"title":"Exploring indicators for monitoring sociotechnical system transitions through portfolio networks","authors":"Caetano C. R. Penna, Oscar Y. Romero Goyeneche, C. Matti","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this paper, we propose a method for tracking the evolution of sociotechnical niches supported by sustainability-focused project portfolios. Based on social network analysis (SNA), this method can be used to evaluate and monitor funding initiatives that seek to advance sociotechnical transitions. It is an important area of study because there is currently a lack of tools for measuring the success of efforts to promote transformative innovation. Conceptually, our approach is based on existing sociotechnical transition research and offers insights into how project networks evolve. We applied this method to a specific portfolio of food system projects that the European Institute for Innovation and Technology Climate-KIC supported. Our results show that SNA can provide a proper visual representation of the infrastructure that supports programme-based investment and can help us understand how specific network structures can support niche development and protect it from external pressures.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46293706","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}
In the USA, politics often dominates the conversation surrounding science and related technologies. We also live in times of high political polarization, leading to political debate over scientific discoveries and subsequent policy implications. Given these dynamics, there is much to be learned about the politicization of science, individuals’ policy views, and the public’s relationship with the communication and interpretation of scientific findings. Agencies are often responsible for facilitating scientific research and framing its policy relevance for decision makers and the public. This paper uses data from a large national public opinion survey to investigate citizen attitudes about government science agencies. We theorize that disparities between objective and self-assessed scientific knowledge coupled with ideological cues help frame citizen evaluations of agencies. We find that individuals’ political ideologies and disparities between knowledge types shape citizen assessments of energy-related scientific agencies. These findings have important implications for our understanding of public acceptance of the work of government science agencies.
{"title":"Ideology, knowledge, and the assessment of science policy agencies","authors":"Kathryn Haglin, A. Vedlitz","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In the USA, politics often dominates the conversation surrounding science and related technologies. We also live in times of high political polarization, leading to political debate over scientific discoveries and subsequent policy implications. Given these dynamics, there is much to be learned about the politicization of science, individuals’ policy views, and the public’s relationship with the communication and interpretation of scientific findings. Agencies are often responsible for facilitating scientific research and framing its policy relevance for decision makers and the public. This paper uses data from a large national public opinion survey to investigate citizen attitudes about government science agencies. We theorize that disparities between objective and self-assessed scientific knowledge coupled with ideological cues help frame citizen evaluations of agencies. We find that individuals’ political ideologies and disparities between knowledge types shape citizen assessments of energy-related scientific agencies. These findings have important implications for our understanding of public acceptance of the work of government science agencies.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41763339","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 Ocean science diplomacy stands for the social phenomena resulting from the interaction of science and diplomacy in ocean affairs. It refers, inter alia, to the provision of scientific evidence in support of international decision-making, the building of alliances through scientific cooperation, and the enhancement of international collaborative marine research. Despite this generalization, we still lack an understanding of the sense practitioners make of ocean science diplomacy. This paper reports on perceptions of ocean science diplomacy collected through twenty in-depth interviews with South and North Atlantic government officials and researchers involved in the All-Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance. In principle, interviewees perceive ocean science diplomacy as a positive and critically important phenomenon that combines the best of science and diplomacy. However, below this generally positive perception, there seems to be a polarization of power between science and policy and also between South and North Atlantic perspectives. Scientists have reported feeling suspicious of policymaking processes, while officials portray science as unaccountable and segregated from policy. South Atlantic researchers expressed concern over limited research capabilities, and officials reported an openness to the scientific evidence presented by scientists. Northern interviewees, with reported enhanced research capabilities, seem more inclined to search for the right scientific evidence in support of national political goals. A preconceived sense of the other is what seems to permeate South–North Atlantic relationships. Northern subjects make sense of their Southern peers as those in need of assistance, while Southern interviewees claimed being unheard and victims of tokenism. I discuss these findings in light of postcolonial and decolonial theories, advocating for the need to decolonize ocean science diplomacy in the Atlantic Ocean if we are to achieve its alluded benefits.
{"title":"Coloniality in science diplomacy—evidence from the Atlantic Ocean","authors":"Andrei Polejack","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad027","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ocean science diplomacy stands for the social phenomena resulting from the interaction of science and diplomacy in ocean affairs. It refers, inter alia, to the provision of scientific evidence in support of international decision-making, the building of alliances through scientific cooperation, and the enhancement of international collaborative marine research. Despite this generalization, we still lack an understanding of the sense practitioners make of ocean science diplomacy. This paper reports on perceptions of ocean science diplomacy collected through twenty in-depth interviews with South and North Atlantic government officials and researchers involved in the All-Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance. In principle, interviewees perceive ocean science diplomacy as a positive and critically important phenomenon that combines the best of science and diplomacy. However, below this generally positive perception, there seems to be a polarization of power between science and policy and also between South and North Atlantic perspectives. Scientists have reported feeling suspicious of policymaking processes, while officials portray science as unaccountable and segregated from policy. South Atlantic researchers expressed concern over limited research capabilities, and officials reported an openness to the scientific evidence presented by scientists. Northern interviewees, with reported enhanced research capabilities, seem more inclined to search for the right scientific evidence in support of national political goals. A preconceived sense of the other is what seems to permeate South–North Atlantic relationships. Northern subjects make sense of their Southern peers as those in need of assistance, while Southern interviewees claimed being unheard and victims of tokenism. I discuss these findings in light of postcolonial and decolonial theories, advocating for the need to decolonize ocean science diplomacy in the Atlantic Ocean if we are to achieve its alluded benefits.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135249800","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}
P. Feitosa, S. Salles-Filho, Adriana Bin, Yohanna Juk, F. Colugnati
Funding agencies (FAs) have increasingly engaged in international cooperation agreements (ICAs) to encourage world-class research and achieve more promising outcomes in the context of increasing competition for research resources. While the benefits of International Research Collaboration are largely supported by literature, less attention was paid to the influence of ICA on scientific and technological outputs. We employed a quasi-experimental evaluation with a comparison between funding for international collaboration carried under ICA (treatment) and funding for international collaboration not carried under ICA (control). The sample was collected from the database of the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) between 1990 and 2018. We have found that ICA has a positive and significant impact on the quality of scientific production measured by the number of citations, h-index, and the number of national and international papers co-authorship. However, no significant difference was found in terms of scholarly and technological outputs.
{"title":"Does international R&D cooperation under institutional agreements have a greater impact than those without agreements?","authors":"P. Feitosa, S. Salles-Filho, Adriana Bin, Yohanna Juk, F. Colugnati","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Funding agencies (FAs) have increasingly engaged in international cooperation agreements (ICAs) to encourage world-class research and achieve more promising outcomes in the context of increasing competition for research resources. While the benefits of International Research Collaboration are largely supported by literature, less attention was paid to the influence of ICA on scientific and technological outputs. We employed a quasi-experimental evaluation with a comparison between funding for international collaboration carried under ICA (treatment) and funding for international collaboration not carried under ICA (control). The sample was collected from the database of the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) between 1990 and 2018. We have found that ICA has a positive and significant impact on the quality of scientific production measured by the number of citations, h-index, and the number of national and international papers co-authorship. However, no significant difference was found in terms of scholarly and technological outputs.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41989270","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：