|
29 September-1 October 2020
14-16 October 2020
26, 28, 30 October 2020
4-6 November 2020
25-27 November 2020
30 November - 4 December
14-18 December 2020
15-16 December 2020
|
|
University leaders in seven of the higher education systems in Europe – Belgium-Flanders, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Romania, Serbia and Spain – predict a fall in core national funding as a result of the COVID-19 crisis, according to a survey of rectors’ conferences conducted during the summer. Read more about the survey and its outcome in this post on the University World News website
|
|
The SHAPE-ID project has recently organised six workshops across Europe to enable stakeholders to explore best practices in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research (IDR/TDR). A new working paper, sharing in a preliminary form the results of the first three workshops, is available here. You can find more information about their other workshops and events here.
|
|
|
The registration for the Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings 2021 is open. Universities around the world can now participate in the third edition of their rankings based on the UN Sustainable Development Goals. For more information and registration | click here
|
|
|
|
Science policy for scientists: A simple task for a great effect
|
|
A group of early-career scientists, four UC Irvine graduate students and one postdoc were concered about the impact of their research and wanted to improve it. They contend that science communication and engagement with the political process is crucial to enhance the impact of research in society and came up with a five steps approach for scientists to approach policy makers and communicate their research effectively to them. Read the full article here
|
|
|
|
'Book a scientist': academics find a new way to engage public
|
|
German researchers recently let members of the public fire questions at them in 20-minute slots. Participants were allowed to 'book a scientist' and were able to ask questions to them on topics ranging from “why do I X-ray bats?” to “who can decide what I’m allowed to say online?”
This resulted in a deep, albeit narrow, form of public engagement through communication in which the public gets connected to academia through open- and interactive discussions. Read the full article here
|
|
|
Citizen scientists: then and now
Roseann O'Reily Runte (Canada Foundation for Innovation, Canada)
|
|
|
In 1845, Sir John Franklin set off to chart and navigate the Northwest Passage. Franklin, his crew and his two boats, the HMS Erebus and the HMS Terror disappeared in 1846 and have since been the subject of many theories, futile searches and romantic narratives. In 2014, Parks Canada’s Victoria Straight expedition located the Erebus, and then the Terror in 2016.
Louie Kamookak, an amateur historian from Gjoa Haven, Nunavut, who dedicated his life to recording Inuit oral stories, was instrumental in the recovery of the Erebus. Marc-André Bernier, Chief, Underwater Archaeology Team for Parks Canada, is now working with local residents to solve the mystery of what happened to the sailors and why the sunken ship shows no signs of either hasty or planned departure. These residents heard stories of sightings of the ill-fated expedition passed down over generations and are helping to piece the puzzle together.
This story illustrates the signal role of citizen scientists. The ships might never have been found without local knowledge. Without local participation, the diving, and preservation and classification of artifacts — work carried out in extreme conditions — would not be possible. Community scientists provide historic and cultural information, gather data, analyze it and participate in the development of new understanding and knowledge.
Today, the citizen scientist’s role is even more important because the pandemic has made travel for researchers difficult, if not impossible. While researchers hurry to discover new information, come up with innovative ideas, and the necessary materials and equipment to fight the virus, citizen scientists act on behalf of researchers, playing key roles in their communities, helping track the spread of COVID-19 and volunteering in labs.
I salute them warmly!
|
|
|
Making Science Museums relevant for Public Engagement
Guadalupe Díaz Costanzo (Centro Cultural de la Ciencia (C3), Argentina).
|
|
|
The COVID-19 pandemic has made visible the urgent need of maintaining our efforts for science engagement. Why does the mutual dialogue between science and society seem to be broken in this particular situation? The question is tricky, yes, and it has several possible factors as answers. However, we cannot deny that science museums should be important pieces of such science and society complex dialogue and, moreover, are able to increase citizen participation opportunities in scientific culture.
|
|
|
|
In the BP (Before Pandemic) era, professionals from different areas in science museums were struggling to develop programs and experiences that would make visitors “need” more science. Nowadays, even with the appearance of negationism or suspicious views of scientific research, the “necessity” for science is present in many people, including many who were not previously interested in science issues. That “necessity” for science is seen in small examples of our daily lives, for example, when searching for scientific progresses about a vaccine or when checking if handwashing can be done using only water. In other words, are we facilitating science talks with all those curious minds?
Do we want science museums and science centres just to be “reopened”? Let’s hope we won’t. What we probably need are “new” science museums. Relevant science centres and museums have a great opportunity to be rethought and to recreate (or to create) meaningful conversations about science so that all publics may participate. Today, science engagement also means public health, and science museums may become relevant partners if they decide to listen and respond to social demands and needs.
|
|
|
U.S. Voters overwhelmingly support innovation platform
Ellen Marrison (SSTI, US)
|
|
With less than 50 days to the U.S. elections, candidates are espousing their respective platforms and vying for voter approval. However, a recent poll conducted for SSTI shows that voters are hungry for an innovation platform that supersedes politics and focuses on sound science and innovation to increase economic prosperity.
Advances in science and technology have lifted the United States out of past economic downturns, and Americans are eager for a new commitment to research and innovation to be made now. Even at the outset of unprecedented economic conditions, more than 90 percent of the electorate supported expanded efforts to strengthen the key elements of a knowledge-driven economy. These are among the findings of the poll conducted by GQR and TargetPoint Consulting for SSTI. Registered voters were asked to review a proposal to focus on converting the U.S. strength in research into new businesses and jobs, called the Innovative Science & Technology for Economic Prosperity (iSTEP) initiative.
Overwhelmingly, voters said they view science and innovation policy as a means for improving the economy in the future, with 92 percent saying they believe it can change the American economy for the better. That support crossed party lines, gender, income, and employment status. Voters also showed strong interest in supporting a candidate that backs the iSTEP initiative, with that support holding across party lines; 78 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats said they would be more likely to support a candidate that backed the proposal.
“Adopting policies that support innovation and have the capacity to create new opportunities for economic growth is vital to our future. The initiative’s focus on the future is part of the reason Americans embrace the policy proposals, and our elected officials need to know that voters support a long-term investment to capitalize on an economy based on science, technology and innovation,” said Dan Berglund, SSTI president and CEO.
More results from the poll and information about iSTEP may be found here.
|
|
|
Citizen Science from a health funder's perspective
Joey Gijbels (The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), The Netherlands)
|
|
|
Citizen Science (CS) is about participation of citizens (e.g. as patients) in scientific research and of scientific researchers in citizen-driven research. Meaningful interaction should be based on mutual equality and actual commitment of the parties involved. Participation and collaboration can take place in various stages and degrees: in agenda setting, in designing and conducting research, and in disseminating and evaluating results. Since CS is a promising (interdisciplinary) concept ‘in development’, it can be regarded as high risk, high gain.
|
|
|
CS can provide various benefits, including improved public engagement and civic mobilisation. Furthermore, it can be used as a research method (Kasperowski, 2017). As a public research funder, ZonMw strives to maximize impact of health research and innovation. Fundamental to this is promoting responsible research and innovation (RRI). We believe CS can provide a positive contribution to RRI and impact, and as a result is worth experimenting with. In a recent presentation given during the EViR Funders’ Forum virtual conference, we explain how ZonMw defines Citizen Science, what concepts it relates to, what its possible contributions are to RRI and how we experiment with it. We encourage others to learn from our reflections and to share their experiences with CS experiments in (inter)national research funding programming. You can find the presentation here.
|
|
Moving towards a non-traditionalists academic culture that endorses mental health
Science & Policy Exchange, US
|
|
“What mental health needs is more sunlight, more candor, and more unashamed conversation” (Glenn Close)
Recent studies on mental health in academia echo a unanimous conclusion - the percentage of graduate students experiencing mental health concerns such as depression and anxiety is increasing at a staggering rate.
On July 28th, 2020, Science and Policy Exchange (SPE) called graduate students across Canada to a virtual roundtable discussion (SPE Café) on the current landscape of mental health in academia and the systemic changes that are required. The perspectives and recommendations that bloomed from the discussion are being compiled into a report, which will be circulated to stakeholders such as academic institutions and funding organizations.
Highlighted issues include financial uncertainties, repudiation of mental health concerns by PIs, disproportionate ratio of mental health resources to the graduate student population and the need for better EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) practices in academia. Examples of recommendations are 1) re-defining the student-PI relationship to dissipate stigma on mental health, 2) persuading institutions to invest in their graduate students by emphasizing the direct correlation between mental health and academic productivity and 3) urging funding agencies to create the incentive and financial support required by institutions to amplify mental health resources. This report aims to punctuate the mental health crisis in academia, which has been exacerbated by the on-going pandemic, and to request stakeholders to re-imagine an academic environment free from over-represented mental challenges.
Stay tuned for their reports and upcoming events!
|
|
Intention and Willingness for Public Engagement with Science
Bonita Liu (AESIS Network)
Now more than ever, science and technology have assumed a large presence in our day to day lives. From development of technologies to combat environmental challenges to science-based personal-development strategies that can be used at home, scientific advancements have increasing impact on quality of life and decision-making at the individual, industrial, governmental, and global level. For example, during the current pandemic, politicians and policymakers rely greatly on scientists for updates on the virus, to provide evidence-based guidance on prevention measures, and to advise on governmental decisions. Due to the vital impact science can have on society, effective communication of scientific research to the public is crucial. Many institutions therefore are looking to raise public engagement (PE) rates among their scientists.
Several programmes have been established through the years to train scientists in communication skills such as storytelling and using accessible language, and they have seen much success in increasing scientists’ sense of self-efficacy in PE as well as helping academics relate to and create dialogue with the public. However, for institutions without many PE opportunities or guidance on how scientists may create opportunities for themselves, these heavily communication-focused programmes may not be enough in raising PE rates. This article advises that institutions should consider the avenues through which their scientists can get involved with PE, depending on whether intention or willingness for PE is lacking.
Read the whole article here
|
|
|
Engage conference: November 30th - December 4th
|
|
The UK’s National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement inspires and supports universities to engage with the public. The NCCPE’s annual conference is a chance to connect with some of the most interesting practice and thinking in this space. This year the conference is running an a week long festival of engagement and will focus on public engagement in a COVID-19 world. Bookings will open in October. You can find out more here
|
|
|
Role of communications, public engagement in demonstrating value of research and innovation
Julia Necheff (Alberta Innovates, Canada)
|
|
Alberta Innovates, a provincial corporation in Alberta, Canada, works to accelerate research and innovation (R&I) through the investment of public funds, also by providing business development and technical services to innovators, and by acting as a connector and convenor for the innovation ecosystem. The corporation’s first goal is to “make the lives of Albertans better today and for generations to come by contributing to a diversified economy, cleaner and sustainable environment, and healthier communities.”
|
|
|
The Marketing and Communications team raises awareness of Alberta Innovates activities and the value of research and innovation for Albertans. Gaining buy-in and trust among elected officials, key stakeholders and the public by demonstrating accountability and communicating impact is especially critical during the global COVID-19 pandemic, when health and economic concerns are paramount and when demands on public funds are greater than ever.
Alberta Innovates wishes to engage the public in a broader dialogue about R&I and its role in achieving benefits for society. To that end, the Marketing and Communications team will launch a new, year-long campaign on Oct. 1, 2020, called Learn How Alberta Innovates. The Learn How campaign will shine a spotlight on the innovators, technologies and initiatives that are contributing to a healthy and prosperous future, and on the role that Alberta Innovates plays. We will engage with the public more extensively and more directly through community outreach, and through select communication tools and channels. Through these means, we will seek out and highlight innovators and innovation stories taking place in all sectors and all regions of the province.
In addition to increasing public understanding of how R&I contribute to desired societal outcomes, through greater engagement we also aim to inspire hope for the future among Albertans during a difficult time. As one of the integrated components of the organization’s Performance Impact Management System (PIMS), the Marketing and Communications group has set a baseline and targets for this publicity campaign and will use various measures to gauge its effectiveness and share lessons learned.
|
|
In Fall 2020, the Institute on Governance (Canada) will launch a multi-year initiative Beyond Endless Frontiers: Renewing the Social Contract for Science and Innovation examining the need to renegotiate the post-WWII social contract and develop the elements of a new relationship. Each month the AESIS Newsletter will include part of a series about the new social contract initiative, highlighting an important element in each edition.
This month:
Beyond Endless Frontiers
|
|
|
|
"The conversation about public engagement is still about scientists better communicating their ideas to society. Less attention is devoted to bringing society's ideas to scientists," -- Sheila Jasanoff.
These comments were delivered as part of a National Academies event observing the 75th anniversary of Vannevar Bush’s 1945 report Science: The Endless Frontier. Dr. Bush argued that “ree play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own choice” would be sufficient for the expansion of knowledge that undergirds economic prosperity, national security, and the health and well-being of citizens.
Seventy-five years later Dr. Bush’s vision is under strain; blue-sky, ivory tower research alone is insufficient to solve the challenges facing the global citizenry. The unconscious bias of a relatively uniform scientific community has resulted in gaps in our knowledge and data which fail to serve populations not reflected in the lab. Programs to expand equity, diversity and inclusion are important, and they take time, but they will not be a panacea.
True public engagement offers opportunities to experience new and alternate viewpoints, to interweave other ways of knowing, and to build shared narratives that produce ownership of ideas, policies and programs. Public engagement is a means to ensure relevance, increase transparency, and build trust and social acceptance of scientific pursuits. Public engagement will be essential to identifying and addressing all aspects of the grand challenges that we face. Public engagement will be a core element of a renewed social contract.
Jeff Kinder & Rhonda Moore (Institute of Governance, Canada)
|
|
|
|
|
"Impact of Social Sciences and Humanities"
14-16 October
Online, hosted from Ottawa, Canada
Proudly presenting to you our fourth edition of the Impact of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) conference this year, we aim to foster a discussion on how one can assess and stimulate impact of SSH through an interdisciplinary approach.
During this virtual event, expect insightful talks and debates on the meaning of impact in context of different segments of society, indicators through which we can measure impact, collaboration opportunities with society stakeholders, how co-creations of knowledge through interdisciplinary collaboration may stimulate impact, and much more!
|
|
|
"Integrating Impact in A Research Strategy"
25-27 November
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
What is the societal impact of research investment? Most scientists, policy makers, research managers, and advisers are looking for ways to advance, assess and communicate the impacts of scientific research.
This hands-on, interactive course will build your skills, increase your knowledge and provide you with approaches to help identify the societal impacts of research investment. The course provides a platform to share a common understanding and language around societal impact, so that impact strategies can be integrated within institutional or regional research strategies. More information
|
|
|
|
"Impact of Science"
4-6 November
Online, hosted from Krakow, Poland
Our annual 'Impact of Science' conference brings together experts such as R&D evaluators, university managers, research councils, policy makers, funders, and other stakeholders of impact. This year this event will take place in an online environment due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The political momentum and current research eco-system in Poland make for an excellent and inspirational context to foster the worldwide debate on impact. The AESIS Network and its partners are excited to welcome you at the ‘Impact of Science 2020’ conference, hosted online from AGH University in Krakow.
|
|
|
"Access to EU Research Funding through Societal Impact"
7-11 December
Online, hosted from Brussels, Belgium
Research institutions, most notable Universities (of Applied Sciences) throughout the EU are increasingly in the position to apply for EU research funding. This 5-half-days online course invites research managers and administrators to profit from the knowledge of our Impact and EU experts to put their insights to practice. The course will map out recent insights and results on measuring the impact of EU research and outline how the Union defines societal and economic impact. More information
|
|
|
|
|
Creating Impact with evidence-based implementation
Julia Moore (The Center for Implementation, Canada)
As people around the world grapple with COVID-19, research is being conducted faster than ever before to address the impacts of the pandemic. But for science to lead to a societal impact, these findings must be implemented quickly and with high quality. In fact, the inability to implement change due to new evidence remains a large gap. There is growing interest in understanding how implementation science and research impact can be integrated to design, implement, spread, and scale science-based change initiatives more effectively. The Center for Implementation has just launched Inspiring Change 2.0: Creating impact with evidence-based implementation, a free online mini-course outlining the basics of how to apply implementation science to enhance your research impact. The mini-course only takes about 1.5 hours to complete. It comes packed with videos, online activities, and a handout with key points. If you are interested in how to use implementation science in your own work, access our free online mini-course here. The course open for enrollment on September 14th. More information
|
|
|
Knowledge Transfer on the Rise - Contributions of Universities regarding the Corona pandemic
Matthias Meyer (Stifterverband, Germany)
The COVID-19 pandemic poses special challenges for universities. While the rapid digitalization of university teaching has been the main topic of discussion so far, universities have also made significant contributions in other areas to dealing with the effects of the pandemic.
An evaluation by the Stifterverband of all news and press releases published by the German Science Information Service (idw) between January 1 and May 11, 2020 shows that the pandemic has been a major challenge for universities and that knowledge transfer is more important than ever before. Within a very short time, universities, administrative staff, students and scientists have developed creative solutions and made important contributions to solving aspects oft h global pandemic. The key findings were:
- Universities are making numerous contributions in dealing with the COVID 19 pandemic.
- The majority of the contributions are in the field of knowledge transfer - knowledge transfer is more relevant than ever.
- All disciplines contribute but the focus is on medicine and economics.
- Universities and scientists have reacted very quickly to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Faced with new challenges, knowledge transfer continues to develop.
The many recent contributions of Universities in dealing with the pandemic show how flexibly, quickly and diversely universities respond to social challenges. Confronted with these challenges, new impulses for research and teaching are emerging. Crises such as the corona pandemic can only be solved together - in a continuous exchange and dialogue between science and universities with their social partners. The evaluation (so far only available in German) can be found here. https://www.stifterverband.org/medien/wissenstransfer-im-aufschwung
|
|
Open Society and Open Mind
Sarah Brookhart (Association for Psychological Science, US)
|
|
|
What will it take to open up psychological science? This is a question that Shinobu Kitayama poses to members of the Association for Psychological Science (APS) in his July 2020 Presidential column in the APS Observer. Writing against the backdrop of the COVID19 pandemic and the fight against systemic racial injustice, Kitayama says that transparency is not enough. A truly open science must also lower the disciplinary and geographical barriers that limit the field’s ability to play a central role in addressing the urgent issues facing societies around the world.
|
|
|
What will it take to open up psychological science? This is a question that Shinobu Kitayama poses to members of the Association for Psychological Science (APS) in his July 2020 Presidential column in the APS Observer. Writing against the backdrop of the COVID19 pandemic and the fight against systemic racial injustice, Kitayama says that transparency is not enough. A truly open science must also lower the disciplinary and geographical barriers that limit the field’s ability to play a central role in addressing the urgent issues facing societies around the world.
Psychological science encompasses a diverse range of distinct areas characterized by artificial boundaries that are reinforced by institutional infrastructures. Kitayama calls on scientists to resist the human tendency to operate in silos and instead to strengthen connections among the diverse areas within psychological science and with neighboring disciplines. Similarly, he notes that psychology research must cross the social divides of culture and race if the discipline is to remain “vibrant and viable.” Ultimately, Kitayama points out, integrative science and globalization are inextricably linked in the study of the human mind and behavior: “Our psychological dynamics, grounded in both brain and genes, are inherently intertwined with society and culture.” The open science infrastructure must support the integration of disciplinary and cultural perspectives if psychological science is to move forward as a field that benefits society.
Link to the full article: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/open-society-and-open-mind
|
|
|
A collaborative conceptualization approach to understanding openness and collaboration in scientific research
Marion Poetz (LBG OIS, Austria)
|
|
Scientists and policymakers across different disciplines call for new ways of producing scientific research and sharing the resulting knowledge. To this end, open and collaborative approaches to scientific research and science-based innovation discussed and practiced under the umbrella of different concepts such as open science, citizen science, responsible research and innovation (RRI), technology transfer or third mission activities have received increasing attention. Yet too often these concepts get discussed in isolation, with knowledge about how and under what conditions to apply the practices associated with them scattered across research fields. To overcome this challenge, the LBG Open Innovation in Science Center initiated a unique experiment: 47 scientists from the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities co-created a novel and integrative conceptualization of the antecedents (i.e., drivers and barriers), contingencies, and outcomes of openness and collaboration in scientific research. Building on the resulting Open Innovation in Science (OIS) Research Framework (see figure), they collaboratively wrote a scientific article entitled “The Open Innovation in Science Research Field - A collaborative conceptualization approach” (available open access here).
Following OIS practices themselves, the 47 co-authors from 37 institutions and 13 countries equally shared decision rights in producing this article. “We took a from-scratch collaborative conceptualization approach, which began at the 2019 OIS Research Conference and continued with iterative rounds of offline and online discussing, writing, and editing”, says Susanne Beck, senior researcher at the LBG OIS Center and coordinating co-author of this article.
|
|
|
|
Children and Adults at home all day long: a world to share and recreate
Astrid Bengtsson (Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica, Argentina)
|
|
|
The project "Chicos y grandes en casa a toda hora: un espacio para compartir y recrear” (Children and adults at home all day long: a world to share and recreate), https://chicosygrandes.wixsite.com/inicio, is an interdisciplinary initiative of public communication of science that seeks to approach problems associated with a prolonged coexistence at home in the context of social isolation or social distancing in Argentina, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This initiative is addressed to children, their families, and educators. It articulates scientific knowledge considered timely with knowledge and practices that already exist at home. A set of more than 30 multimodal brief pieces has been created by the scientists in the team, illustrated by artists and published in social media and mass media. The epistemological, pedagogical and communicational approaches the present project stands on, as well as the set of materials produced are tools available for Biology educators.
We have had positive feedback, which is reflected in a growing number of followers in our networks, numerous interviews in the mass media and, as we have pointed out, in the retransmission of the communication pieces in 28 radio stations located in 12 provinces and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires. We also implemented activities that aim to build channels of interaction with those who listen, watch and read the communication pieces, such as the call "Art and humor in the face of pandemic and isolation" which invites children and adults to share graphic productions on some aspect related to this context from a humorous perspective. We have received contributions from people from the age of three. Their drawings both externalize and re-signify aspects of the new situations they are going through.
This interdisciplinary and comprehensive initiative not only is a reference material for children and their families, but also a space to share perspectives, experiences, concerns and productions. In the case of educators, we hope that these communication pieces to become a toolbox to be adapted in a flexible and dynamic way, in order to promote a dialogue with the experiences of daily life and thus re-signify what is being lived in each house-world.
|
|
University research-Excellence in ERA & the Engagement and Impact Assessment (EI)
Sara Howard (Australian Research Council, Australia)
|
|
|
The Australian Research Council (ARC) is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of its two national assessments of university research—Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA), and the Engagement and Impact assessment (EI), following the fourth round of ERA and first round of EI in 2018. ERA evaluates research quality, and EI assesses how well researchers engage with the users of their research, outside academia, and how they are translating their research into real world impacts.
|
|
|
|
The purpose of the review is to enable the ARC to:
- Simplify and streamline the programs
- Take advantage of recent developments in technology and big data
- Ensure the programs continue to reflect world’s best practice and
- Respond to the ongoing needs of the university sector, government and the public for a robust evaluation of Australian university research quality, impact and engagement.
Currently, the Review is open to public consultation with submissions closing on 12 October 2020. The review will be completed by mid-2021. More information on the review, including the ERA EI Review consultation paper can be found on the ARC website.
|
|
|
Open Access: how the value of humanities interesects with government policymaking and evaluation of societal impact
Zoe Bulaitis (University of Manchester, UK)
|
|
A new open access book, Value and the Humanities: The Neoliberal University and Our Victorian Inheritance (2020), traces the shift from liberal to neoliberal higher education from the nineteenth-century to the present in England. Specifically addressing how the value of the humanities intersects with government policymaking and evaluation of social impact, the monograph “draws out the Victorian antecedents of our current debates over universities, schools, museums, fiction and public policy, and so provides a deep and productive view of their past and current contexts” (review, Professor Robert Eaglestone, Royal Holloway). Rather than writing a singular defence of the humanities against economic rationalism, Zoe Hope Bulaitis constructs a nuanced map of the intersections of value in the humanities, encompassing an exploration of policy engagement, scientific discourses, fictional representation, and the humanities in public life. The book articulates a kaleidoscopic range of humanities practices which demonstrate that although recent policy encourages higher education to be entirely motivated by outcomes, fiscal targets, and the acquisition of employability skills, the humanities continue to inspire and aspire beyond these limits. As a result, Value and the Humanities offers a historically-grounded and theoretically-informed analysis of the value of the humanities within the context of the market.
Bulaitis’ open access monograph is available to download here.
You can also read a brief blog post ‘Challenging the Necessity and Inevitability of the Neoliberal University: Value and the Humanities in the Twenty-First Century’ in which the author discusses the motivation and aims of the book here.
|
|
|
The Measurement of "Interdisciplinarity" and "Synergy" in Scientific and Extra-Scientific Collaboration
Loet Leydesdorff & Inga Ivanova (Journal of the Ass. for Information Science and Technology (in print))
|
|
Problem-solving often requires crossing boundaries, such as those between disciplines. When policy-makers call for “interdisciplinarity,” however, they often mean “synergy.” Synergy is generated when the whole offers more possibilities than the sum of its parts. An increase in the number of options above the sum of the options in subsets can be measured as redundancy; that is, the number of not-yet-realized options. The number of options available to an innovation system for realization can be as decisive for the system’s survival as the historically already-realized innovations. Unlike “interdisciplinarity,” “synergy” can also be generated in sectorial or geographical collaborations. The measurement of “synergy,” however, requires a methodology different from the measurement of “interdisciplinarity.” In this study, we discuss recent advances in the operationalization and measurement of “interdisciplinarity,” and propose a methodology for measuring “synergy” based on information theory. The sharing of meanings attributed to information from different perspectives can increase redundancy. Increasing redundancy reduces the relative uncertainty; for example, in niches. The operationalization of the two concepts—”interdisciplinarity” and “synergy”—as different and partly overlapping indicators allows for distinguishing between the effects and the effectiveness of science-policy interventions in research priorities.
Find here the link to the full article
|
|
|
|
