Explore the vast range of titles available.

This review explores contributions by science policy studies and the sociology of science to our understanding of the impact of governance on research content. Contributions are subsumed under two perspectives, namely an “impact of”—perspective that searches for effects of specific governance arrangements and an “impact on”—perspective that asks what factors contribute to the construction of research content and includes governance among them. Our review shows that little is known so far about the impact of governance on knowledge content. A research agenda does not necessarily need to include additional empirical phenomena but must address the macro-micro-macro link inherent to the question in its full complexity, and systematically exploit comparative approaches in order to establish causality. This requires interdisciplinary collaboration between science policy studies, the sociology of science, and bibliometrics, which all can contribute to the necessary analytical toolbox. Cet article explore les apports de deux domaines – les étude de politique des sciences et la sociologie des sciences – pour la compréhension de l’impact de la gouvernance sur le contenu de la connaissance scientifique. Ces apports sont regroupés dans deux perspectives principales, d’une part celle dite de l’« impact de » qui cherche à identifier les effets spécifiques des dispositifs de gouvernance, d’autre part celle dite de l’« impact sur » qui s’interroge sur les facteurs qui façonnent le contenu et qui inclue la gouvernance comme l’un de ces facteurs. Les auteurs montrent que l’on dispose au final que de peu de connaissances sur l’impact de la gouvernance sur le contenu de la science. Un agenda de recherche ne doit pas servir nécessairement à produire davantage de matériau empirique mais avant tout à saisir, dans toute sa complexité, le lien macro-micro-macro inhérent à cette question, tout en exploitant de façxon systématique les approches comparées pour au final établir la causalité. Cela suppose l’élaboration d’une nouvelle « boîte à outils » analytique, fruit d’une collaboration interdisciplinaire à laquelle peuvent contribuer utilement les études de politique scientifique, la sociologie des sciences et l’approche bibliométrique. Dieser Review analysiert Beiträge der politikwissenschaftlichen und soziologischen Wissenschaftsforschung zu der Frage, wie Governance Forschungsinhalte beeinflusst. Wir gruppieren die Beiträge unter zwei Perspektiven, und zwar einer ‚Einfluss von‘ – Perspektive, die nach Effekten spezifischer Governance-Arrangements sucht, und einer ‚Einfluss auf‘ – Perspektive, die nach Einflüssen auf die Konstruktion wissenschaftlichen Wissens fragt und Governance als einen solchen Einfluss einschließt. Unser Review verdeutlicht, wie gering unsere gegenwärtiges Wissen über den Einfluss von Governance auf Forschungsinhalte noch ist. Eine Forschungsagenda muss nicht unbedingt zusätzliche empirische Phänomene einschließen. Sie muss aber die der Frage inhärente Makro-Mikro-Makro – Struktur in ihrer vollen Komplexität adressieren und systematisch vergleichende Ansätze für die Etablierung von Kausalität ausnutzen. Das erfordert interdisziplinäre Kooperation zwischen der politikwissenschaftlichen und soziologischen Wissenschaftsforschung sowie der Bibliometrie, da alle drei Gebiete zum nötigen analytischen Werkzeugkasten beitragen können.

The past three decades have witnessed a sharp reduction in the rate of growth of public research funding, and sometimes an actual decline in its level. In many countries, this decline has been accompanied by substantial changes in the ways that such funding has been allocated and monitored. In addition, the institutions governing how research is directed and conducted underwent significant reforms. In this paper we examine how these changes have affected scientists' research goals and practices by comparing the development of three scientific innovations (one each in physics, biology, and educational research) in four European countries, namely Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Sweden. We find that the increased number of actors exercising authority over research goals does not necessarily lead to a greater diversity of interests funding research. A narrowing of goals and frameworks is especially probable when the increasing importance of external project funding is combined with reductions in state financing of universities and public research institutes. Finally, the growing standardisation of project cycle times and resource packages across funding agencies and scientific communities make it more difficult for researchers to pursue projects that deviate from these norms, especially, if they challenge mainstream beliefs and assessment criteria.

The aspirations of Alzheimer's disease (AD) precision medicine and precision brain health are not fully realized despite significant advances in early pathological detection. Hampering progress is the difficult challenge of the accurate detection of behavioral symptoms that can help differentiate those at high risk specific to AD versus those with more AD and related dementias (ADRD), who may have AD along with other types of dementia, as well as those who will and will not progress to clinically expressed disease. Technological advances in hardware, software, and analytics are paving the way to opportunities to overcome these long‐standing barriers to early clinical symptom detection, when recent and emerging interventions might be most effective. It is important to note that these innovations must not exist in isolation. Integration of data from both AD/ADRD related studies and non‐AD related studies is needed whenever brain‐related measures are collected to fully realize the scientific opportunities. We envision a near future of harmonized participant data sharing, encompassing standardized multimodal data alongside emerging digital streams, to deliver an invaluable resource for the global research community. Highlights Technology is overcoming barriers to accurate early detection of behavioral symptoms of AD/ADRD. The National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center is paving the way for the integration of technological advances into AD/ADRD research. A technologically‐enabled framework provides a solution for open science on a global scale.

The Graduate Program in Ethnobiology and Nature Conservation (PPGEtno, an acronym in Portuguese) was established in 2011 at the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco (UFRPE, an acronym in Portuguese) in collaboration with other institutions in Northeast Brazil. PPGEtno addressed the urgent need to train professionals sensitive to biodiversity conservation issues through an interdisciplinary approach that values traditional knowledge and the relationship between people and nature. Despite its success, PPGEtno faces administrative challenges due to regulatory constraints, which restrict coordination roles only UFRPE faculty members to hold, which is currently limited to just five faculty members from the UFRPE, the program’s host institution. The lack of faculty members aligned with social-ecological thinking at UFRPE exacerbates the situation, putting the program at risk of extinction or reduction to a research line within another graduate program. PPGEtno's academic output is significant, with 96 graduates, 1,473 published articles, and important contributions to Ethnobiology and Ecology. Its publications include high-impact journals and cover a wide range of topics. The program's closure would represent an immeasurable loss for research on biodiversity and human-nature interactions. In this manuscript, we demonstrate the impacts that the absence of PPGEtno could cause, both theoretically and practically. The continuation of PPGEtno is vital for advancing Ethnobiology as a scientific discipline, serving a critical role in training ethnobiologists and fostering new knowledge on biodiversity conservation and human-nature relationships in Brazil and across Latin America.

This paper reviews the recent development of the scientific, legislative, economic and environmental aspects of plant organic farming. The impact of organic farming on biodiversity and soil fertility is discussed in comparison with conventional systems. A significant barrier for wide application and future development of organic farming is the existing diversity of national and international policy instruments in this sector. Special attention is paid to up-to-date research techniques that could help solve a number of the problems typically faced in plant organic farming. It is argued that organic farming is still not productive enough to be considered fully sustainable. This underlines the necessity of strong support for more effective implementation of scientific research innovations and improvement of the networking between all stakeholders – organic producers, scientists and corresponding policy makers at the national and international level.

\"The Manual highlights the human rights principles and criteria in relation to drinking water and sanitation. It explains the international legal obligations in terms of operational policies and practice that will support the progressive realisation of universal access. The Manual introduces a human rights perspective that will add value to informed decision making in the daily routine of operators, managers and regulators. It also encourages its readership to engage actively in national dialogues where the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation are translated into national and local policies, laws and regulations. Creating such an enabling environment is, in fact, only the first step in the process towards progressive realisation. Allocation of roles and responsibilities is the next step, in an updated institutional and operational set up that helps apply a human rights lens to the process of reviewing and revising the essential functions of operators, service providers and regulators.\"

In the 1990s, the “knowledge economy\" was hailed by policy-makers in developed democracies as an antidote to the anxieties arising from the era of market liberalization – an era characterized by the decline of skilled blue-collar work, increasing levels of social exclusion and widening regional inequality. The shift to knowledge-driven growth appeared to offer policymakers a way of harnessing technological progress and global economic integration for progressive purposes, and justifying progressive policies in terms of the economic benefits that they would produce. Nick O’Donovan tells the story of how the techno-optimism once associated with the rise of the knowledge economy came to be supplanted by widespread anxiety about technological progress, and how the political consensus that formed around a knowledge-driven growth agenda has unravelled, paving the way for the electoral upheavals experienced by many developed democracies in recent years. By examining the rhetoric and reality of knowledge-driven growth over the last three decades, the book highlights the flawed assumptions underpinning this policy agenda, showing how its economic shortcomings map on to patterns of political discontent evident today. It assesses whether there is scope for rebooting this policy agenda in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, or whether politicians will need to reach beyond it if they are to deliver inclusive prosperity and equitable growth in the future.

Societal Impact Statement Protecting diversity is critical to maintaining functional and adaptive ecosystems. However, research groups that explore these relationships tend to lack diversity themselves. To address the challenges of our changing world, it is crucial to consider a wide range of perspectives and knowledge. We propose that just as greater diversity in ecosystems relates to a variety of functions and, consequently, enhances resilience, stability, and efficiency, a comparable diversity within research teams results in a broader spectrum of creative endeavors. Thus, it is important to re‐evaluate our scientific communities' openness toward greater diversity to meet the diverse problems of our changing world. Summary Ecosystems face multiple threats, jeopardizing natural and human well‐being. Biodiversity loss can increase ecosystem vulnerability to global change, risking abrupt and irreversible changes. Protecting biodiversity can prevent ecosystems from crossing tipping points, preserving their functions and resilience, which sustain life on our planet. In addressing these challenges, society demands creativity, innovation, and diverse perspectives. Yet, our societal structures often neglect the full range of voices and experiences, limiting problem‐solving. Understanding how research teams with diverse demographics may stimulate creative solutions to global change challenges may help. In this context, we emphasize examples from plant ecology, where the advantages of diverse ecosystems are well recognized, and we draw an analogy of these features to the innovation of research teams. In ecosystems, biodiversity can maximize productivity and function but can also serve as a protective “insurance” against disruptions. Similarly, in a time of multifaceted environmental changes, diverse research groups play a critical and analogous role, resembling the biodiversity within ecosystems. Diverse research teams not only bring complementary strengths, fostering creative problem‐solving by embracing various perspectives, but also drive scientific innovation by integrating a wide range of research topics (e.g., ecosystems, taxa, and conservation priorities). These human‐centered dynamics are congruent with the mechanisms in ecosystems, with a diversity of solutions promoting resilience, stability, and efficiency, all of which ultimately provide a counterbalancing effect on global change. Much like biodiverse ecosystems, a diverse spectrum of knowledge, and expertise within the scientific community can enrich a dynamic landscape of innovation. La protección y conservación de la diversidad es crucial para mantener ecosistemas funcionales y adaptables. Sin embargo, esta diversidad a menudo falta en los grupos de investigación. Para abordar los complejos retos de nuestro mundo en constante cambio, es esencial tener en cuenta un amplio rango de perspectivas y conocimientos. Partimos de la base de que la diversidad en los ecosistemas y los equipos de investigación tienen mecanismos comunes que conducen a soluciones más diversas y de mayor resiliencia, la estabilidad y la eficiencia. Por lo tanto, nos resulta importante reevaluar la disposición de las comunidades científicas a una mayor diversidad para poder abordar los diversos problemas de nuestro mundo cambiante. Zusammenfassen Der Schutz der Vielfalt ist entscheidend für den Erhalt funktions‐ und anpassungsfähiger Ökosysteme. Allerdings mangelt es den Forschungsgruppen oft an Vielfalt. Um die komplexen Herausforderungen des globalen Wandels anzugehen, ist es entscheidend, eine breite Palette von Perspektiven und Wissen zu berücksichtigen. Wir zeigen, dass die Vielfalt in Ökosystemen und Forschungsteams ähnliche Mechanismen aufweist, die vielfältige Lösungen hervorbringen und die Widerstandsfähigkeit, Stabilität und Effizienz verbessern. Daher ist es wichtig, die Offenheit unserer wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaften für eine größere Vielfalt zu fördern, um den vielfältigen Problemen unserer sich verändernden Welt gerecht zu werden. Protecting diversity is critical to maintaining functional and adaptive ecosystems. However, research groups that explore these relationships tend to lack diversity themselves. To address the challenges of our changing world, it is crucial to consider a wide range of perspectives and knowledge. We propose that just as greater diversity in ecosystems relates to a variety of functions and, consequently, enhances resilience, stability, and efficiency, a comparable diversity within research teams results in a broader spectrum of creative endeavors. Thus, it is important to re‐evaluate our scientific communities' openness toward greater diversity to meet the diverse problems of our changing world.

Modern science has become collaborative and digital. The Internet has supported the emergence of scientific digital platforms that globally connect programmers and users of novel digital scientific products such as scientific interactive software tools. These digital scientific innovations complement traditional text-based products like journal publications. This article is focused on the scientific impact of a platform’s programming community that produces these digital scientific innovations. The article’s main theoretical argument is that beyond an individual’s contribution efforts to these innovations, a new social structure affects his scientific recognition through citations of his tools in text-based publications. Taking a practice theory lens, we introduce the concept of a digital practice structure that emerges from the digital innovation work practice, performed by programmers who jointly work on a tool. This digital practice creates dependence forces among the community members in an analogy to Newton’s gravity concept. Our model represents such dependencies in a spatial autocorrelative model. We empirically estimate this model using data of the programming community of nanoHUB in which 477 nanotechnology tool programmers have contributed more than 715 million lines of code. Our results show that a programmer’s contributions to digital innovations may have positive effects, while the digital practice structure creates negative dependency effects. Colloquially speaking, being surrounded by star performers can be harmful. Our findings suggest that modeling scientific impact needs to account for a scientist’s contribution to programming communities that produce digital scientific innovations and the digital work structures in which these contributions are embedded.

Abrupt changes in research content are of interest to innovation research because many innovations in general and scientific innovations in particular emerge from such changes. However, investigations of innovations emerging from research processes face the problem that the initial change of direction in research by one or few researchers is an elusive phenomenon. The method presented in this article contributes to solving this problem by supporting the in-depth analysis of individual research biographies and of the emergence of new directions of research in these. The method employs bibliometric tools for a reconstruction of individual cognitive careers, embeds these reconstructions in qualitative studies of research biographies, and provides opportunities to link cognitive careers to the dynamics of scientific fields. As we will demonstrate, the method is generic in that it supports not only the investigation of scientific innovations but also, more generally, the identification of thematic change in individual cognitive careers. Two applications in qualitative research projects illustrate the potential of the method.