Technical Report 4: European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC) (Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm): Socio-Economic Impacts Monitoring Study. Final Report

Executive Summary. Aims: This study is one element of the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC) Environmental Research and Monitoring Programme supported by Vattenfall. The focus of this element of the whole programme is on the socio-economic impacts of Offshore Wind Farm (OWF) projects on the human environment. The EOWDC study provides the most detailed element of the socio-economics impacts research programme. Through detailed monitoring of the EOWDC over its lifecycle to date, the research seeks to provide a more robust evidence base of actual socio-economic impacts - particularly at the local and regional level - and so help to reduce uncertainties in future assessment/practices. The research compares these, as far as is possible, with the predicted impacts in the Environmental Statement (ES) for the project. The EOWDC is a relatively small OWF with 11 turbines/c 93.2MW, and with total expenditure (Totex) of about £280m. It is located 2.4km offshore. It is also an innovative project in terms of technology. It has offshore and onshore elements; the latter includes a sub-station at Blackdog, and a 7.5 km cable connection to SSE’s Dyce sub-station. Construction was completed in the Summer of 2018, and the first power flowed into the grid in September of that year. Approach: the research approach included regular meetings/telecoms with Vattenfall project staff; workshops with representatives of local authorities/agencies and with the local Belhelvie Community Council to explore evolving project impacts and responses; and various surveys through the lifecycle of the project to identify actual socio-economic impacts. The ES (DTZ, 2011) uses Inner (Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire), Wider (Scotland), and UK study areas. The focus here is on the Inner and Wider spatial areas. There was good data for the research from Vattenfall contracts spending; onshore tier 1 contractor contracts data, and sub-station workforce survey; community responses to proposed Community Benefits Fund; various community surveys; and press coverage of the project over its lifecycle. However, data was much thinner for the offshore construction stage activities of the two main tier 1 contractors. Structure of the Report: the report has five parts. Part A provides an Introduction and Overview of the study. Part B analyses the findings gained on the actual economic impacts over the lifecycle to date of the EOWDC. It also seeks to compare the actual impacts with those forecast in the ES. The approach is largely quantitative, focusing on employment and wider economic effects. Part C concentrates on the social impacts, including analyses of various perception studies undertaken by the project and by Vattenfall (re Community Benefits Fund). The data on the social impacts is generally more qualitative in nature. A further section, Part D, very briefly reviews socio-economic impacts on the two floating OWF developments off the Aberdeenshire coast -- Hywind and Kincardine. A final section, Part E , draws out some conclusions on the actual socio-economic impacts and compares these, as far as is possible, with the predicted impacts in the ES for the project. It also summarises cumulative effects of the EOWDC with the adjacent floating OWF projects. Summary of Economic Impacts Findings: the EOWDC project performed well against economic impact predictions for the onshore construction and for the early O&M stages of the project life cycle -- stages that tend to be underplayed in EIAs and in the ES documentation, but which are especially important for local economic benefits. The O&M stage is particularly significant in terms of the high local percentage of the total economic impacts, over a 20-25 year life. In contrast, for this project, the local and Scotland wide economic benefits from offshore construction appear to be very limited, and much less than predicted. There are some caveats, relating to the relatively small size of the EOWDC project, and data gaps from two key tier 1 contractors, but even so, the actual impacts are estimated as being low and well below those predicted in the original ES documents. The nearby Hywind floating wind farm project appears to have even larger construction stage leakages, and indeed, there may be even less local economic benefit from the O&M stage than anticipated in the low impact scenario for that project. This leakage of the offshore construction stage benefits is a major concern to local, regional and national authorities, as noted by the Scottish Energy Minister at an offshore wind summit in Edinburgh in early 2020 – ‘Scotland is the ideal location for offshore wind, but recent projects have not delivered the significant economic opportunities we want to see for Scottish businesses’. Summary of Social Impacts Findings: there was very little coverage of social impacts in the ES documentation, and there was no evidence of any significant actual impacts on social infrastructure, such as housing and local services. However, from the various surveys, there were some community concerns, although these lessened over the life cycle. Community views of the project during the consenting and pre-construction stage comprised elements of ‘resistance’ due to uncertainty over the number, size and location of the turbines. Parts of the community felt ‘blighted’ due to decades of historic legacy of unwanted development and made vocal objection to the development. Yet others expressed that they did not mind the proposed development and sought to ‘get on board’ with the project. These differing views (possibly somewhat exaggerated by the media) did result in some loss of social cohesion within the communities during the pre-construction and construction stage, but this was less of an issue into the early O&M stage. Concerning visual impacts during construction of the onshore and offshore elements, most respondents (over 50% in each case) felt that the impacts were as expected. These dropped slightly in a later survey of community views during the O&M stage, when ‘as experienced’ or ‘not experienced’ was the dominant response. Many responses used the word ‘surprise’ in relation to the wind turbines – how big they are and how close to the shore. The biggest ‘feeling’ in relation to the windfarm was that it was ‘good to see clean energy being generated’ (80%). However, a number of qualitative comments indicate some conflicted viewpoints e.g. ‘not great for the seascape but the renewable energy is necessary’. Of importance for management of both social and economic impacts is the engagement strategy of the developer.There is evidence of much good practice in the Vattenfall approach, well managed by the project’s Local Community Liaison Officer, throughout the life cycle from pre-construction through to early O&M. The introduction of the EOWDC Community Benefits Fund (CBF), known as the Unlock our Future Fund, is another very important feature of long-term community engagement

Cognitive Load Theory: Implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86

Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) builds upon established models of human memory that include the subsystems of sensory, working and long-term memory. Working memory (WM) can only process a limited number of information elements at any given time. This constraint creates a bottleneck for learning. CLT identifies three types of cognitive load that impact WM: intrinsic load (associated with performing essential aspects of the task), extraneous load (associated with non-essential aspects of the task) and germane load (associated with the deliberate use of cognitive strategies that facilitate learning). When the cognitive load associated with a task exceeds the learner\u27s WM capacity, performance and learning is impaired. To facilitate learning, CLT researchers have developed instructional techniques that decrease extraneous load (e. g. worked examples), titrate intrinsic load to the developmental stage of the learner (e. g. simplify task without decontextualizing) and ensure that unused WM capacity is dedicated to germane load, i.e. cognitive learning strategies. A number of instructional techniques have been empirically tested. As learners\u27 progress, curricula must also attend to the expertise-reversal effect. Instructional techniques that facilitate learning among early learners may not help and may even interfere with learning among more advanced learners. CLT has particular relevance to medical education because many of the professional activities to be learned require the simultaneous integration of multiple and varied sets of knowledge, skills and behaviors at a specific time and place. These activities possess high element interactivity and therefore impose a cognitive load that may surpass the WM capacity of the learner. Applications to various medical education settings (classroom, workplace and self-directed learning) are explored

The Realities of Managing Complex Space Missions like the James Webb Space Telescope

An overview of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) project and its status are presented. The JWST is a deployable infrared telescope with a 6.5 meter diameter segmented, adjustable primary mirror. It has a cryogenic temperature telescope and instruments suited for infrared performance. It will be launched in 2013 on an European Space Agency-supplied Ariane 5 rocket 20 Sun-Earth L2 for a 5-year mission. Compared to other telescopes the JWST: has a 2.7 time longer diameter and 2.7 time longer wavelength capability than the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), 38 times increased sensitivity at K band and 8 times increased sensitivity at H band than the HST NICMOS; and, 8-24 times better angular resolution than the Spitzer. An instrument overview and integration and test flow overview are provided. The JWST project management approach, including organizational chart, program phases, technology status, and project critical path summary, are included. Additionally, project management tools and guidelines are are outlined

Technical Report 3. Socio-economic impacts of offshore wind farms (OWFs): Non-UK EU member states studies

Executive summary. Research aims and methods: The review of Environmental Statements (ESs) sought to determine the socio-economic content of EU member state offshore wind farms (OWFs). This was part of a project funded by the European Offshore Windfarm Development Centre research programme (EOWDC). It parallels a similar study of ESs for UK OWFs. The aim of the EOWDC project is multifaceted: explore methods used to predict socio-economic impacts of OWFs, to enhance understanding of OWF socio-economic impacts (SEI), highlight best practice in how to maximize local benefits and compare predicted impacts with actual impacts. This report includes two elements. The first explores the extent of coverage of socio-economic impacts (SEI) in Environmental Statements (ESs) for recent large OWF projects across a range of European countries. The second element reviews the legislation and policy behind OWFs for EU member state countries to determine how different approaches impact on the socio-economic content of ESs and methodology employed. The review concentrated on OWFs of c50MW and over undertaken from 2010 onwards. The review included 13 projects, in five countries (Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and ES review of socio-economic impacts content—Non-UK EU countries Ireland), ranging in size from 50MW to 752MW. Researchers translated relevant chapters in the ESs were ESs into English using an online translation tool. There was an assessment of ES chapters against a 9-point template covering the research aims, including to: document the extent to which SEI are covered in the ESs, identify the relative coverage of social, economic and other impacts (e.g. cumulative), and identify the relative coverage of SEI in the various stages of the OWF lifecycle. The research also seeks to identify trends over time and to explain variations in ES consideration of impacts (e.g. more coverage for larger projects; any variations according to distance from shore). There is also a consideration of evolving approaches to methodology, mitigation, enhancement and monitoring, and to overall good practice. Brief summary of findings: Overall, the depth and focus on socio-economic impacts covered in the EU ESs appears less than that observed in the UK examples. All ESs contained greater coverage of economic impacts than social impacts. The key economic topics considered were tourism (onshore and offshore); commercial fishing, shipping; traffic, plus employment to varying degrees. There was little use of quantitative methods, such as input-output analysis. The coverage of social impacts in the ESs was minimal. Recreation was one focus, along with changes in ferry trip duration and noise levels. As observed with the UK ES reviews there was a lack of depth with respect to impact of projects based on: community demographics, wellbeing, and cohesion. Methodology used was a combination of use of existing data, academic papers and reports from previous wind farm projects; consultation with stakeholders was highlighted in Denmark. The focus of the ESs was on the impacts related to the construction and ‘operation and maintenance’ phases. Decommissioning was largely unaddressed or anticipated to be the same as the construction stage. A major consideration in the EU analysis is whether the ES includes the onshore element of the project. This was not easy to determine in all the ESs reviewed nor from looking at country policy. The Belgian ESs did not include an onshore element; and stood out as lacking in socio-economic detail. In general, for the ESs studies, there does appear to be greater focus on onshore socio-economic impacts for nearshore windfarms (distinct from offshore). There was a lack of final plan information regarding construction port base(s) and cable landing points/ports; these sometimes hindered the depth at which impacts could be analysed. Typical mitigations for economic impacts included timing of work to avoid the tourist season; financial compensation (fishing and agricultural) and turbine placement to allow fishing boats and recreational boats access; plus restricted working hours during construction and traffic management. There was little or no monitoring for socio-economic impacts. All EU counties have a legal requirement to create marine spatial plans (MSP) which may include renewable energy plans and can be subject to SEA. The content of EIAs carried out at project level do vary in content and this may be attributable to the strategic context and process leading up to their production. Belgium is a good example where a royal decree has determined and considered the impacts prior to setting the locations of the windfarms in their EEZ. Typically, the UK covered socio-economic topics in more detail than those reviewed for the other EU States. This may be a function of the more all-encompassing integrated approach of EIA topics in the UK, and the perceived importance of such projects to economically problematic coastal areas

Technical report 1. EOWDC research project: A literature review on the socio-economic impacts of offshore wind farms (OWFs) and their assessment

Executive summary. This research report seeks to provide a systematic review of current literature (both academic and grey) on socio-economic impact assessment methodology and mitigation/enhancement methods. It includes academic, industry and government literature relating to OWF published over the 10 years to 2019. The review first considers impact assessment methodology, and then its application to Offshore Wind Farms (OWFs), for both economic and social impacts. There is then a specific examination of socio-economic impacts of OWFs, with particular reference to Scotland. The executive summary here briefly sets out the nature of socio-economic impacts and their assessment, and associated challenges and opportunities in relation to OWF development, especially in Scotland. Nature of socio-economic impacts and their assessment: Socio-economic impacts can be summarised as the “people effects” of development actions. They cover a wide range of social and economic impacts and the boundaries are fuzzy between social and economic impacts. Economic impacts can range from the macro-impacts on a nation’s GNP to the impact on construction workers’ wage levels in a town adjacent to a project. Social impacts may include impacts on local demographics, livelihoods, housing, local services, and wellbeing and community cohesion. Socio-economic impact assessment seeks to identify the impacts of development actions on people, and who benefits and who loses; it can help to build the needs and voices of diverse groups in a community into project planning and decision-making. The consideration of the social and economic impacts of major developments has been the poor relation of impact assessment until the current century. However, it is now a much more important element in the assessment of the impacts of major projects. Evolving international guidance, standards and legislation on SIA stress the importance of maximizing opportunities for local content (i.e. jobs for local people and local procurement), and the necessity for a project to earn its ‘social licence to operate’ in the host community. Assessing the economic impacts of OWFs – challenges and opportunities: OWF is a rapidly increasing energy sector and the UK is the global leader. Yet there is concern that the UK offshore wind sector has not sufficiently capitalised on its lead to secure local economic content, in terms of UK investment and UK jobs. Economic leakage is greatest for the construction (CAPEX) stage, with only on average about 20% of expenditure staying in the UK; but in contrast, around 70% of the operational (OPEX) stage stays in the UK. Whilst much of the offshore construction work will not be from local companies, there is more local potential with onshore work (e.g. sub-station connections; local port improvements) and operation and maintenance. The impacts of multiple OWFs developments can be cumulative, and can be a catalyst for port development and other supply chain activities (e.g. set down areas, assembly and, in some cases, fabrication facilities). A modelling trend that has evolved in the OWF sector over the last decade is the development of an Input–Output (I-O) approach to the prediction of economic impacts. However, this “top-down” approach does have some limitations. The focus of mitigation and enhancement is very much on the enhancement of local benefits, for example through developer support to maximise local supply chain benefits and local employment via training and recruitment policies. Monitoring of actual, rather than predicted local impacts, is essential for the advancement of the planning, assessment and management of economic benefits in the interests of the local community. Yet such monitoring has been very limited to date. Assessing the social impacts of OWFs – challenges and opportunities: Methods to analyse social impacts, as well as mitigation and enhancement methods, are developing. There is increasing recognition of the need for both technical and participatory approaches, in order to Literature Review on the Socio-economic Impacts of OWFs and their Assessment 5 capture the complexity and nuances of potential social impacts on a given community or group of communities. Early community engagement is crucial, in order to lessen the impact in relation to fear and anxiety, which in turn has a positive effect on the social impacts of an offshore development. It is also important to ensure sustained engagement throughout the project’s lifetime, in order to mitigate or avoid longer-term social impacts. This review also demonstrates the importance of taking into consideration culturally meaningful aspects, such as the importance of seascape, which might have impacts on the community’s attitude and perception. Research indicates that OWF overall have a positive impact on well-being, motivated by beliefs about environmental impact, job creation and local economic growth. However, there can be opposition motivated by concerns over profitability, decreases in property values and impacts on wildlife. The host community generally sees mitigation and enhancement methods as positive. Research suggests that emphasising the community benefits, rather than benefits to individuals, will garner greater support for offshore wind developments. Overall, there is an emerging literature on the social impacts of OWFs, but there is a need for more work, particular in relation to potential impacts on the sense of community and belonging. Socio-economic impacts of OWFs, with particular reference to Scotland: Scotland has great potential for renewable energy development, with an estimated 25% of all of Europe’s offshore wind and tidal potential. There is considerable government ambition for the industry at both UK and Scotland levels, with strong strategy positions and support initiatives, and in local authorities and other Scottish agencies. Yet the take-up of OWF projects in Scotland is currently low, compared with take-up for Scottish onshore wind and with English offshore wind. However, starting with the 588 MW Beatrice project, the number of major projects now in the pipeline could see Scottish offshore wind at least matching the 5GW capacity of Scottish onshore wind by the early/mid 2020s. Scotland is also pioneering innovation in the offshore wind industry, exemplified by the turbine size (8.4MW) and suction bucket technology for the Vattenfall Aberdeen project, and the Statoil floating Hywind project. Research on socio-economic impacts for offshore wind in Scotland identifies some impact issues and opportunities relating to: process (e.g. how to improve community participation), economy (eg the potential from the O&M stage), and social (e.g. on rural way of life), plus for other sectors, such as fishing. There is also the key issue of the importance of the provision of the required facilities needed at Scottish ports to support the offshore wind industry. However, there is growing good practice by developers such as SSE, Scottish Power and Vattenfall, who have promoted an array of measures to mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive impacts, especially on local employment and supply chain opportunities and with community benefits agreements

Guidance on assessing the socio-economic impacts of offshore wind farms (OWFs)

Executive Summary. Purpose and structure of the report: The Offshore Wind sector is a major, dynamic, and rapidly evolving renewable energy industry. This is particularly so in Europe, and especially in the UK. Offshore Wind Farms (OWFs) are usually large projects in terms of spatial spread and development expenditure. Such projects normally require specific planning and assessment procedures, including an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), in advance of any development consent. For OWFs, the focus of EIA activity, and the content of resulting Environmental Statements (ESs), has been on the biophysical impacts. There has been much less ES content on the impacts on the human environment, and especially the impacts on local and regional coastal communities adjacent to the offshore projects. Such communities are often suffering greatly from the decline in traditional industries, such as shipbuilding, fishing and tourism. Human environmental impacts include a wide range of social and economic issues. However, the lack of knowledge on the impacts of OWFs on human interests can greatly hamper case management. There is a need for adequate planning and assessment tools for the key stakeholders – developers, consultancies, governments (local, regional and national), development agencies and the general public—who are the audience for this report. The focus of this document, as structured below, is to provide an array of good practice guidance for stakeholders on the under-assessed socio-economic implications and opportunities emanating from the growth in this dynamic renewable OWF energy industry. In each of sections 2-5, there are short summaries of key guidance points, highlighted in yellow, underpinned by research findings and good practice examples, drawing on the findings in the six Technical Reports for this research programme. Context: a dynamic OWF renewable energy industry: The UK is the global leader in offshore wind energy generation. At the end of 2018, the UK had 7.9GW in 38 operational OWFs, with almost 2,000 wind turbines, making the country the nation with the single largest operating capacity in the world (Crown Estate 2019). The most recent forecast is for this capacity to grow to 40GW by 2030, with up to £50bn infrastructure spend (Queen’s Speech Dec 2019). Such growth provides important potential socio-economic opportunities for the UK, and for regions and local areas adjacent to the OWF sites, in terms of employment, supply chain and other socio-economic benefits. Yet there is a concern that as an industry, the UK offshore wind energy sector should take the delivering of UK content and UK economic success, at all levels, more seriously. An overview of the procedures for planning and assessing the socio-economic impacts of major OWF projects: Socio-economic impacts are of growing importance in the planning and assessment of OWFs, especially in the UK. International drivers include IFC/World Bank Performance Standards (IFC 2012, World Bank 2017), IAIA Social Impact Assessment Guidelines (2015) and the amended EIA Directive (EC 2014). Major projects have special assessment procedures. For example, in England, OWFs greater than 50MW come under the 2008 Planning Act which identifies a subset of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), with impacts examined by the Planning Inspectorate, National Infrastructure Division (PINs/NID). There is a growing recognition by practice of the importance of a social licence to operate from the community, and of local content. However, to date, from a review of UK OWF ESs, there has been a predominance of assessment of economic impacts, with much more limited consideration of the assessment of social impacts. There is also a concern that many of the economic benefits of major projects may leak out way beyond the local area. A consideration of socio-economic impacts needs to clarify the type, duration, spatial extent and distribution of impacts. In other words, the analyst need to ask what to include, over what period, over what area, and for whom. A socio-economic impact assessment examines these questions through the various steps in the assessment process - baseline studies, scoping; prediction and assessing impact significance; mitigation and enhancement of impacts; and monitoring. There is consideration of the steps separately for economic impacts and for social impacts in the main sections of this guidance report. Impact assessment process -- some economic impact findings and recommendations: Economic impacts will normally include employment, Gross Value Added (GVA) and specific sector impacts, for each project stage, time-period and spatial level. There are Direct impacts (eg project employment), Indirect impacts (eg supply chain), and Induced impacts (eg retail expenditure of employees). For the project, it is important to establish, as fully and accurately as possible, the investment/expenditure and the associated human resources plans for the key stages of the project lifecycle—especially for the construction (CAPEX) and O&M stages (OPEX). The prediction and assessment of economic impacts of an OWF project on various spatial areas is an inexact, but important, exercise. Methods used, such as scenarios, should seek to reduce uncertainty associated especially with port location, supply chain and technology. Use may be made of a range of potential local and regional employment impact rules of thumb for total construction and for each O&M year, using a jobs per project MW size, and GVA £m per project MW size approach. These can provide broad orders of scale and ranges of potential economic impacts for the analyst. For socio-economic impacts, and particularly for economic impacts, the focus in assessment is often more on enhancing beneficial impacts, rather than on mitigating adverse impacts. Key enhancement measures include supply chain websites, supply chain events, skills training programmes, and local recruitment targets. Use can be made of an Employment and Skills Plan, or equivalent, in a planning permission to support effective implementation of socio-economic undertakings (predominantly economic). Monitoring is invaluable in learning from practice. It allows the comparison of predictions with actual outcomes, provides guidance on actual impacts for future OWF planning, and facilitates an adaptive approach to project implementation. Monitoring of recent projects shows the economic value of onshore construction and especially the O&M stage for local areas, and the need to increase local and regional economic benefits from offshore construction. Impact assessment process--some social impact findings and recommendations: Social impacts of OWFs include impacts on the demography, housing, other local services, and socio-cultural/quality of life of the host coastal area. Some social issues – such as attitudes to change in seascape, way of life and implications for marine environment-- are important but qualitative and more difficult to assess. Key tasks in assessing social impacts follow the main steps for EIA, particularly highlighting the importance of participatory approaches to engage communities. Social impacts should be covered whatever the distance from the coast of the OWF, for there is always onshore construction, the substantial offshore construction workforce may have onshore impacts (eg temporary housing), and there is the important O&M stage. Affected communities should be involved and engaged at the earliest stage possible, to achieve a ‘social licence to operate’. This will hopefully minimise negative social impacts and maximise local community benefits. Prediction methodology for social impacts is largely descriptive and qualitative. While various methods can be employed (eg. scenarios), predicting impacts for social issues is not a precise science, and an element of assessor judgement, informed by stakeholder consultation, is necessary. Mitigation and enhancement measures are likely to focus on local area education and skills training initiatives. Monitoring of social impacts, including views on wellbeing/QoL, local services, community cohesion and land

Guidance on assessing the socio-economic impacts of offshore wind farms (OWFs): A brief summary

Purpose of the report: Offshore Wind is a major, dynamic, and rapidly evolving renewable energy industry. This is particularly so in Europe, and especially in the UK. Offshore Wind Farms (OWFs) are usually large projects in terms of spatial spread and development expenditure. Such projects normally require specific planning and assessment procedures, including an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), in advance of any development consent. For OWFs, the focus of EIA activity, and the content of resulting Environmental Statements (ESs), has been on the biophysical impacts (especially on birds and marine mammals). There has been much less ES content on the impacts on the human environment, and especially the impacts on local and regional coastal communities adjacent to the offshore projects. Such communities are often suffering greatly from the decline in traditional industries, such as shipbuilding, fishing and tourism. Human environmental impacts include a wide range of social and economic issues

Re-visiting Meltsner: Policy Advice Systems and the Multi-Dimensional Nature of Professional Policy Analysis

10.2139/ssrn.15462511-2

What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach

Ambiguity surrounding the effect of external engagement on academic research has raised questions about what motivates researchers to collaborate with third parties. We argue that what matters for society is research that can be absorbed by users. We define openness as a willingness by researchers to make research more usable by external partners by responding to external influences in their own research practices. We ask what kinds of characteristics define those researchers who are more open to creating usable knowledge. Our empirical study analyses a sample of 1583 researchers working at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). Results demonstrate that it is personal factors (academic identity and past experience) that determine which researchers have open behaviours. The paper concludes that policies to encourage external engagement should focus on experiences which legitimate and validate knowledge produced through user encounters, both at the academic formation career stage as well as through providing ongoing opportunities to engage with third parties.The data used for this study comes from the IMPACTO project funded by the Spanish Council for Scientific Research - CSIC (Ref. 200410E639). The work also benefited from a mobility grant awarded by Eu-Spri Forum to Julia Olmos Penuela & Paul Benneworth for her visiting research to the Center of Higher Education Policy Studies. Finally, Julia Olmos Penuela also benefited from a post-doctoral grant funded by the Generalitat Valenciana (APOSTD-2014-A-006).Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach. Minerva. 53(4):381-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9283-4S381410534Abreu, Maria, Vadim Grinevich, Alan Hughes, and Michael Kitson. 2009. Knowledge exchange between academics and the business, public and third sectors. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research and UK-IRC.Aghion, Philippe, Mathias Dewatripont, and Jeremy C. Stein. 2008. Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 39: 617–635.Ajzen, Icek. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 27–58.Alrøe, Hugo Fjelsted, and Erik Steen Kristensen. 2002. Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19(1): 3–23.Audretsch, David B., Werner Bönte, and Stefan Krabel. 2010. Why do scientists in public research institutions cooperate with private firms. In DRUID Working Paper, 10–27.Baldini, Nicola, Rosa Grimaldi, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2007. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70(2): 333–354.Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barnett, R. 2009. Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 34(4): 429–440.Becher, Tony. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education 19(2): 151–161.Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. McGraw-Hill International.Bekkers, Rudi, and Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy 37(10): 1837–1853.Belderbos, René, Martin Carree, Bert Diederen, Boris Lokshin, and Reinhilde Veugelers. 2004. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22(8): 1237–1263.Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström. 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy 29(2): 291–301.Bercovitz, Janet, and Maryann Feldman. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19(1): 69–89.Berman, Elizabeth Popp. 2011. Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton University Press.Bleiklie, Ivar, and Roar Høstaker. 2004. Modernizing research training-education and science policy between profession, discipline and academic institution. Higher Education Policy 17(2): 221–236.Bozeman, Barry, Daniel Fay, and Catherine P. Slade. 2013. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer 38(1): 1–67.Collini, Stefan. 2009. Impact on humanities: Researchers must take a stand now or be judged and rewarded as salesmen. The Times Literary Supplement 5563: 18–19.D’Este, Pablo, and Markus Perkmann. 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36(3): 316–339.D’Este, Pablo, Oscar Llopis, and Alfredo Yegros. 2013. Conducting pro-social research: Cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research: INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series.Deem, Rosemary, and Lisa Lucas. 2007. Research and teaching cultures in two contrasting UK policy contexts: Academic life in education departments in five English and Scottish universities. Higher Education 54(1): 115–133.DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.Downing, David B. 2005. The knowledge contract: Politics and paradigms in the academic workplace. Lincoln: Nebraska University of Nebraska Press.Donovan, Claire. 2007. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy 34(8): 585–597.Durning, Bridget. 2004. Planning academics and planning practitioners: Two tribes or a community of practice? Planning Practice and Research 19(4): 435–446.Edquist, Charles. 1997. System of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, ed. C. Edquist, 1–35. London: Pinter.Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109–123.Fromhold-Eisebith, Martina, Claudia Werker, and Marcel Vojnic. 2014. Tracing the social dimension in innovation networks. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47(1): 93–114.Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Gläser, Jochen. 2012. How does Governance change research content? On the possibility of a sociological middle-range theory linking science policy studies to the sociology of scientific knowledge. Technical University Berlin. Technology Studies Working Papers. http://www.ts.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg226/TUTS/TUTS-WP-1-2012.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2015.Goethner, Maximilian, Martin Obschonka, Rainer K. Silbereisen, and Uwe Cantner. 2012. Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology 33(3): 628–641.Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932–950.Haeussler, Carolin, and Jeannette Colyvas. 2011. Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy 40(1): 41–54.Hessels, Laurens K., Harro van Lente, John Grin, and Ruud E.H.M. Smits. 2011. Changing struggles for relevance in eight fields of natural science. Industry and Higher Education 25(5): 347–357.Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro Van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37(4): 740–760.Hoye, Kate, and Fred Pries. 2009. ‘Repeat commercializers’, the ‘habitual entrepreneurs’ of university–industry technology transfer. Technovation 29(10): 682–689.Jacobson, Nora, Dale Butterill, and Paula Goering. 2004. Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication 25(3): 246–259.Jain, Sanjay, Gerard George, and Mark Maltarich. 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy 38(6): 922–935.Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2013. Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture 22(2): 189–196.Jensen, Pablo. 2011. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science 20(1): 26–36.Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Kronenberg, Kristin, and Marjolein Caniëls. 2014. Professional proximity in research collaborations. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Krueger, Rob, and David Gibbs. 2010. Competitive global city regions and sustainable development’: An interpretive institutionalist account in the South East of England. Environment and planning A 42: 821–837.Lam, Alice. 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy 40(10): 1354–1368.Landry, Réjean, Malek Saïhi, Nabil Amara, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2010. Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy 39(10): 1387–1403.Lee, Alison, and David Boud. 2003. Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education 28(2): 187–200.Lee, Yong S. 1996. ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy 25(6): 843–863.Lee, Yong S. 2000. The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer 25(2): 111–133.Leisyte, Liudvika, Jürgen Enders, and Harry De Boer. 2008. The freedom to set research agendas—illusion and reality of the research units in the Dutch Universities. Higher Education Policy 21(3): 377–391.Louis, Karen Seashore, David Blumenthal, Michael E. Gluck, and Michael A. Stoto. 1989. Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1): 110–131.Lowe, Philip, Jeremy Phillipson, and Katy Wilkinson. 2013. Why social scientists should engage with natural scientists. Contemporary Social Science 8(3): 207–222.Martín-Sempere, María José, Belén Garzón-García, and Jesús Rey-Rocha. 2008. Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 349–367.Martin, Ben. 2003. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, eds. A. Geuna, A.J. Salter, and W.E. Steinmueller, 7–29. Cheltenhan: Edward Elgar.Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Miller, Thaddeus R., and Mark W. Neff. 2013. De-facto science policy in the making: how scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva 51(3): 295–315.Muthén, Bengt O. 1998–2004. Mplus Technical Appendices. Muthén & Muthén. Los Angeles, CA.: Muthén & Muthén.Nedeva, Maria. 2013. Between the global and the national: Organising European science. Research Policy 42(1): 220–230.Neff, Mark William. 2014. Research prioritization and the potential pitfall of path dependencies in coral reef science. Minerva 52(2): 213–235.Nelson, Richard R. 2001. Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1): 13–19.Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Paul Benneworth, and Elena Castro-Martínez. 2014a. Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’? Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value. Science and Public Policy 41: 384–400.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Elena Castro-Martínez, and Manuel Fernández-Esquinas. 2014b. Diferencias entre áreas científicas en las prácticas de divulgación de la investigación: un estudio empírico en el CSIC. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. doi: 10.3989/redc.2014.2.1096 .Ouimet, Mathieu, Nabil Amara, Réjean Landry, and John Lavis. 2007. Direct interactions medical school faculty members have with professionals and managers working in public and private sector organizations: A cross-sectional study. Scientometrics 72(2): 307–323.Perkmann, Markus, Valentina Tartari, Maureen McKelvey, Erkko Autio, Anders Brostrom, Pablo D’Este, Riccardo Fini, et al. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy 42(2): 423–442.Philpott, Kevin, Lawrence Dooley, Caroline O’Reilly, and Gary Lupton. 2011. The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31(4): 161–170.Rutten, Roel, and Frans Boekema. 2012. From learning region to learning in a socio-spatial context. Regional Studies 46(8): 981–992.Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger A. Pielke. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 10(1): 5–16.Sauermann, Henry, and Paula Stephan. 2013. Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science 24(3): 889–909.Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Shane, Scott. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4): 448–469.Spaapen, Jack, and Leonie van Drooge. 2011. Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation 20(3): 211–218.Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Tartari, Valentina, and Stefano Breschi. 2012. Set them free: scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change 21(5): 1117–1147.Tinker, Tony, and Rob Gray. 2003. Beyond a critique of pure reason: From policy to politics to praxis in environmental and social research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16(5): 727–761.van Rijnsoever, Frank J., Laurens K. Hessels, and Rens L.J. Vandeberg. 2008. A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy 37(8): 1255–1266.Venkataraman, Sankaran. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth 3: 119–138.Verspagen, Bart. 2006. University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Surveys 20(4): 607–632.Villanueva-Felez, Africa, Jordi Molas-Gallart, and Alejandro Escribá-Esteve. 2013. Measuring personal networks and their relationship with scientific production. Minerva 51(4): 465–483.Watermeyer, Richard. 2015. Lost in the ‘third space’: the impact of public engagement in higher education on academic identity, research practice and career progression. European Journal of Higher Education (online first, doi: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1044546 ).Weingart, Peter. 2009. Editorial for Issue 47/3. Minerva 47(3): 237–239.Ziman, John. 1996. ‘Postacademic science’: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 1: 67–80.Zomer, Arend H., Ben W.A. Jongbloed, and Jürgen Enders. 2010. Do spin-offs make the academics’ heads spin? The impacts of spin-off companies on their parent research organisation. Minerva 48(3): 331–353

The James Webb Space Telescope Mission

Twenty-six years ago a small committee report, building on earlier studies, expounded a compelling and poetic vision for the future of astronomy, calling for an infrared-optimized space telescope with an aperture of at least $4m$. With the support of their governments in the US, Europe, and Canada, 20,000 people realized that vision as the $6.5m$ James Webb Space Telescope. A generation of astronomers will celebrate their accomplishments for the life of the mission, potentially as long as 20 years, and beyond. This report and the scientific discoveries that follow are extended thank-you notes to the 20,000 team members. The telescope is working perfectly, with much better image quality than expected. In this and accompanying papers, we give a brief history, describe the observatory, outline its objectives and current observing program, and discuss the inventions and people who made it possible. We cite detailed reports on the design and the measured performance on orbit.Comment: Accepted by PASP for the special issue on The James Webb Space Telescope Overview, 29 pages, 4 figure