The 21st century has witnessed a growth in the importance given to the third mission of Higher Education Institutions (HEI). This third mission refers to the socioeconomic engagement with the surrounding social and business fabric, namely in the form of knowledge transfer (KT) schemes and policies. Despite its widely-recognized importance, the Cultural and Creative Sector (CCS) has remained only marginally engaged with HEI, in part due to the lack of explicit policy by public actors to bring the two types of actors together. This article seeks to explore the institutional frameworks that have been developed for knowledge transfer from HEI to the CCS in selected regions of the Atlantic Area. Towards this goal, it first analyses some of the sectoral specificities of the CCS, identifying three feature which distinguish the sector: the entrepreneurial structure and organization of CCS; the type of knowledge, innovation and motivations of firms; and their absence of connections to HEI. The article seeks then to analyze to what extent existing policy on CCS and KT policies in the regions has tackled these specificities, through a qualitative analysis of reports, policy documents, and academic analysis of the regional economies, before proposing a model for understanding KT policy in the CCS sector, which serves as a preliminary line of inquiry into the knowledge relations in the CCS. Finally, these policy concerns are related to the perceptions of CCS practitioners, attempting to understand the primary concerns of these actors according to their regional context. The article highlights the existing disconnect between public policy, the current state of understanding of the CCS and the industry actors, urging for greater research and policy-development to promote innovation and socioeconomic growth.
Ontological issues lie at the heart of the epistemological, methodological and theoretical discussions over the workings and operations of citieshowever, as Castells and Zukin point out, they often find themselves mired in the midst of the praxis of urban studies, for reasons not entirely clear. In this work we attempt to trace a path through the ontology of urban studies, attempting to show the reasons for this apparent omission, as well as showing a possible line of convergence through the lens of systems theory, for a common ontology. We propose a set of analytical classes drawn from the literature, drawn from the need to discuss social phenomena, tracing some of the ontological compromises made in light of such entities. In line with that, we argue there is a need for a transparent phenomenological epistemology, tracing some methodological implications of such processes. We conclude by drawing some scientific and practical implications of these debates for a more general discussion of ontology in urban studies and research.
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Almeida, R. N. & David, N. (2019). Signs of heritage-an agent-based model of the dynamics of heritage categories. IEEE Transactions on
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.