Explaining international co-authorship in global environmental change research

This paper maps the domain of earth and environmental sciences (EES) and investigates the relationship between cognitive problem structures and internationalisation patterns, drawing on the concepts of systemic versus cumulative global environmental change (GEC) and mutual task dependence in scientific fields. We find that scientific output concentration and internationalisation are significantly higher in the systemic GEC fields of Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography than in the cumulative GEC fields Ecology and Water Resources. The relationship is explained by stronger mutual task dependence in systemic GEC fields. In contrast, the portion of authorships with developing, emerging and transition countries among all international publications is larger for Water Resources than for three other fields, consistent with the most pressing needs for STI capacity development in these countries. --

Four major task domains of science for sustainability

We propose a research agenda integrating environment-related science, technology, and innovation (STI) using a problem-solving approach to sustainable development. We argue that STI for sustainability encompasses four major task domains: (1) ecological modernization and transformation, (2) ecosystem management, (3) environmental risk assessment, and (4) adaptation to environmental change, each posing great social challenges. For each domain, naturesociety interaction increasingly relies on knowledge acquisition. The proposed agenda focuses on the investigation of R&D capacity and linking knowledge and action within and among societal spheres (i.e., science, politics, business, law, mass media, and education). While today the disciplinary niches of environment-related STI research are still fragmented, with this broader framework, STI research could develop into a major social science field of humanenvironment relations. --human dimensions of global environmental change,environmental sociology,science for sustainability,STI research,innovation research,social studies of science,so-ciology of knowledge,naturesociety interaction,noosphere,ecological modernization,ecosystem management,environmental risk assessment,adaptation to environmental change

International collaboration schemes in earth and environmental sciences : IGEC programmes and UNESCO IHP

There is a lack of studies that investigate how internationalization of science can effectively contribute to the globalization of environmental knowledge. Two cases of international collaboration programmes are analyzed from a science and innovation research perspective: (1) The organizational scheme of the International Global Environmental Change (IGEC) programmes in the ICSU tradition, and (2) the International Hydrological Programme (IHP). led by the UNESCO. The paper draws on two analytical distinctions: Firstly, following Turner et al. (1990), systemic global change is distinguished from local or regional environmental change that becomes global by worldwide accumulation. Secondly, collaboration programmes that belong to the social system of science are distinguished from programmes at the intersection of scientific and political spheres. Both cases are compared in terms of their (a) rationales for international collaboration, (b) their organisational structure and fundings, (c) international participation and (d) linkages between problem structure and collaboration. Representative and contrasting examples, their juxtaposition illustrates actual strategies and various constraints faced by scientific and intergouvernmental agencies promoting international collaboration in S & T for sustainability and capacity development. The paper reports research of my ongoing dissertation project under the working title Internationalization in environmental research: The case of freshwater. --

The spatial embeddedness of multi-national enterpises' research activity: a bibliometric analysis

--

Wissen über das Raumschiff Erde : eine soziologische Perspektive auf die Kapazitätsentwicklung

Jappe-Heinze LA. Knowledge about the spaceship Earth : a sociological perspective on capacity development. Bielefeld (Germany): Bielefeld University; 2007.Die vorliegende Arbeit leistet einen Beitrag zu Umweltsoziologie und Wissenschaftssoziologie. Der erste Teil präsentiert einen neuen Forschungsansatz, um die Rolle von Forschung, Technologie und Innovation (engl. STI) für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung empirisch zu untersuchen. Im Zentrum dieser Analyse steht der Begriff der STI-Kapazität. Der zweite Teil untersucht internationale Kooperation in Umweltwissenschaften. Einen Schwerpunkt bildet der Vergleich des Internationalen Geosphären-Biosphären Programms (IGBP) und des Internationalen Hydrologischen Programms (IHP) der Unesco. Diese Fälle stehen exemplarisch für neue Organisationsformen zum Aufbau globalen Umweltwissens - im doppelten Sinn globaler Umweltbeobachtung und einer weltweiten Wissensverbreitung. Derartige Kooperationsprogramme sind aus institutionalistischer Sicht jedoch bislang kaum erforscht. Der Begriff der STI-Kapazität bezieht sich auf das Umweltpolitik-Modell von M. Jänicke. Diesem Modell zufolge umfasst umweltpolitische Kapazität die längerfristigen, strukturellen Bedingungen politischer Handlungsfähigkeit in Abgrenzung von kurzfristigen, situativen Handlungsbedingungen der Tagespolitik. Jänicke geht davon aus, dass moderne Gesellschaften ein großes Potenzial zur Steigerung ihrer umweltbezogenen Problemlösefähigkeit besitzen, auch wenn diese Fähigkeiten bislang nicht ausreichen, um zentrale Umweltprobleme dauerhaft zu lösen. Die Kapazitätsentwicklung stellt somit eine strategische Aufgabe der Umweltpolitik dar. Während Jänicke den Kapazitätsbegriff auf das politische System anwendet, geht es in der vorliegenden Arbeit um das Wissenschaftssystem und um die Innovationsfähigkeit in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. STI-Kapazität ist die Fähigkeit einer Gesellschaft, Wissen und technologische Neuerungen zu schaffen und anzuwenden. Der Kapazitätsaufbau ist Teil eines umfassenden gesellschaftlichen Wandels angesichts begrenzter ökologischer Lebensgrundlagen. Im ersten Kapitel wird der Begriff der STI-Kapazität inhaltlich präzisiert. Dabei wird die These vertreten, dass sich die langfristigen Herausforderungen für Forschung und Innovation in vier große Handlungsfelder einteilen lassen: (1.) die ökologische Modernisierung und Transformation von Industrie- und Dienstleistungssektoren, (2.) das Management von Ökosystemen und Ökosystemdiensten, (3.) die Analyse und Bewertung von Umweltrisiken, und (4.) die Anpassung der Gesellschaft an irreversible Umweltveränderungen. Diese Taxonomie dient als Gliederung für einen Literaturüberblick, der bislang getrennte Forschungsansätze verbindet und dadurch aufzeigt, wie das Forschungsgebiet einer umweltsoziologischen STI-Forschung aussehen könnte. Im Anschluss daran untersucht das zweite Kapitel die methodische Operationalisierung des Kapazitätsbegriffs. Im zweiten Teil untersuchen wir internationale Kooperation, ein wichtiges Teilgebiet der wissenschaftlichen Kapazitätsentwicklung. Denn erstens konzentriert sich die Forschungskapazität bislang in führenden Industrieländern. Dadurch ist es - von der satellitengestützten Beobachtung abgesehen - nur begrenzt möglich, Umweltveränderungen weltweit zu erforschen. Zweitens spielen internationale Programme in der Klimaforschung eine wichtige Rolle. Die Klimaforschung ist ein beeindruckendes Beispiel für den Aufbau wissenschaftlicher Kapazität seit den 1970er Jahren. Daher dienten ihre Kooperationsprogramme in der Praxis zum Teil als Modelle für andere Umweltwissenschaften. Das dritte Kapitel untersucht den Internationalisierungsgrad umweltwissenschaftlicher Forschung zunächst auf der Feldebene, gemessen in Kopublikationen im Science Citation Index (SCI). Zentral ist hierbei eine neue theoretische Erklärung für Unterschiede im Internationalisierungsgrad, die sich auf R. Whitleys Theorie der wissenschaftlichen Arbeitsorganisation bezieht. Anhand von vier Feldern belegen wir, dass der Internationalisierungsgrad mit inhaltlichen Merkmalen des Forschungsgegenstandes zusammenhängt. Als Merkmale der kognitiven Struktur unterscheiden wir systemisch-globale von kumulativ-globalen Umweltveränderungen. Das vierte Kapitel vergleicht die Kooperationsprogramme IGBP und Unesco-IHP aus institutionalistischer Sicht. Das IGBP ist ein disziplinübergreifendes Netzwerk der Erdsystemforschung, während das IHP als Teil der Unesco zwischen Wissenschaft und internationaler Politik angesiedelt ist. Verglichen werden Ziele, Organisationsstrukturen, internationale Beteiligung und Entwicklungsdynamik im Zeitverlauf. Die Analyse basiert auf der Auswertung von Literatur und Dokumenten, Interviews und teilnehmender Beobachtung im Rahmen eines Forschungsaufenthalts beim IHP-Sekretariat. Aus dem Fallvergleich werden allgemeine institutionelle Faktoren abgeleitet, die den Erfolg umweltwissenschaftlicher Kooperationsprogramme beeinflussen. Außerdem werden Empfehlungen zur Weiterentwicklung des IHP formuliert und wichtige Fragen für die weitere Forschung aufgeworfen.The present work makes a contribution to environmental sociology and the sociology of science. The first part presents a new approach to the empirical investigation of the role of research, technology and innovation (STI) for sustainable development. The term STI capacity forms the core of this analysis. The second part examines international cooperation in environmental sciences. The comparative analysis of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and the International Hydrological Programme (IHP) of Unesco is a main focus of this part. These cases exemplify new organisational structures to build up global environmental knowledge - in the double sense of global environmental observation and a diffusion of environment-related knowledge worldwide. Yet such collaboration programmes have hardly been researched until now from an institutionalist perspective. Our understanding of "capacity" refers to the model of environmental policy performance of M. Jänicke. According to this model, capacity describes the longer-term structural conditions for environmental policy actions, as opposed to situative opportunities and obstacles that are part of daily politics. Jänicke assumes that modern societies possess a great potential to increase their problem solving capabilities with regard to the environment, even if these capabilities are as yet inadequate to solve central environmental problems permanently. The development of capacity thus represents a strategic task of environmental policy. While Jänicke investigates capacity with regard to the political system, the present dissertation applies the concept to the science system and the innovative ability of industry and society. STI capacity is the ability of a society to create and apply knowledge and technological innovations. Capacity building is part of a comprehensive social transition process in view of limited planetary life support systems. In the first chapter, the content of STI capacity is clarified. Our thesis is that the long-term challenges for research and innovation can be classified in four major task domains: (1.) the ecological modernisation and transformation of industrial and service sectors, (2.) the management of ecosystems and ecosystem services, (3.) the assessment of environmental risks, and (4.) the adaptation of society to irreversible, anthropogenic environmental changes. The taxonomy of the four task domains serves as the structure for a literature review. Linking research approaches which were separate until now, we show how STI research as a field of environmental sociology could look. Following this, the second chapter investigates the methodological operationalisation of the term capacity. In the second part, we examine international cooperation in environmental sciences. International cooperation is an important issue for scientific capacity development. Firstly, research capabilities are as yet concentrated in the leading industrialised countries. Beyond satellite-based observation, this uneven distribution of capacity makes it difficult to track environmental changes worldwide. Secondly, international programmes play a significant role in climate research. Climate research is an impressive example for the development of research capacity since the 1970s. In view of this success story, efforts have been made to implement similar programme structures in other environmental science fields also. The third chapter examines the frequency of international cooperation in environmental research at the field level, measured in co-publications in the Science Citation Index (SCI). We offer a new theoretical explanation for differences in the degree of internationalisation across fields with reference to Richard Whitley's theory of scientific work organisation. Based on four environmental science fields, we demonstrate that the degree of internationalisation is linked with characteristics of the research object. As characteristics of the cognitive structure we differentiate globally systemic from cumulatively global environment changes. The fourth chapter compares the cooperation programmes IGBP and Unesco-IHP from an institutionalist perspective. IGBP is a transdisciplinary network in earth system science, while IHP as a part of Unesco is positioned between the science system and international politics. The comparison includes programme targets, organisational structures, international participation and programme evolution over time. The analysis is based on sources in the literature, internal documents, interviews and participant observation during a research stay in the IHP secretariat. Institutional factors are derived which have significance for the success of multilateral cooperation programmes in general. In addition, we formulate policy recommendations for the further development of IHP and identify relevant questions for further research

A regional typology of innovation capacities in new member States & candidate countries

--

Clusterpolitik: Kriterien für die Evaluation von regionalen Clusterinitiativen

--

There is an absence of scientific authority over research assessment as a professional practice, leaving a gap that has been filled by database providers

Research metrics have become more established as a means to assess research performance. This is understandable given research institutions' and funders' demand for assessment techniques that are relatively cheap and universally applicable, even though use of such metrics remains strongly contested within scientific communities. But to what extent does the academic research field of evaluative citation analysis confer legitimacy to research assessment as a professional practice? Arlette Jappe, David Pithan and Thomas Heinze find that the growth in the volume of ECA publications has not led to the formation of an intellectual field with strong reputational control. This has left a gap which has been filled by commercial database providers, who by selecting and distributing research metrics have gained a powerful role in defining standards of research excellence without being challenged by expert authority

Correction: From North American hegemony to global competition for scientific leadership? Insights from the Nobel population.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213916.]

From North American hegemony to global competition for scientific leadership? Insights from the Nobel population.

Based on the entire population of Nobel laureates in science from 1901 to 2017, we show that North America's rise as global power in science started in the 1920s. Following a transition period (1940s to 1960s), its scientific hegemony was consolidated in the 1970s. Yet since the 2000s, North America's global leadership in science has come under pressure. In that time, its share of laureates across disciplines dropped, although it has retained its attractiveness as a destination for future laureates from Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. In addition, we find that North America has become apparently less effective since 2010 in transferring capacities for conducting ground-breaking research from one generation of scientists to another. Furthermore, both Europe and the Asia-Pacific region have similarly high shares of newcomer organizations with regard to where prize-winning work is conducted, indicating that these two regions are very active in the inter-organizational competition for scientific talent. Despite this competition, however, we find no support for the rise of a new global center of science