Locating science in society across Europe: Clusters and consequences

Mejlgaard, Niels; Bloch, Carter; Degn, Lise; Nielsen, Mathias Wullum; Ravn, Tine

doi:10.1093/scipol/scs092

Cited by 32 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The second SLSE dimension concerns the broader culture of science communication in a country. SLSE3 draws on the qualitative results of the 2010-12 MASIS project assessing the science communication culture of a country as either consolidated, developing, or fragile (Mejlgaard et al 2012). SLSE4 is a composite indicator tracking, firstly, the number of members in the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) per thousand researchers within the country and, secondly, the number of citizen science publications emanating from a country per thousand researchers.…”

Section: Indicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research and innovation in Europe: A cross-country comparative analysis

Mejlgaard

Bloch

Madsen

2018

Science and Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this article is to contribute to the emerging attempts to foster empirical, quantitative approaches to Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), and to provide a low-resolution map of the European RRI landscape, which can serve as a vehicle for international learning. The article presents indicators of RRI aimed at characterising countries. It examines the empirical structure of the data collected in the ‘Monitoring the evolution and benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation’ (MoRRI) project and reports patterns across Europe. Factor analysis is applied to identify 11 empirically-anchored dimensions of RRI. Based on indices for these dimensions, cluster analysis reveals four distinct clusters of countries. These results point to diversity regarding the empirically-manifest components of RRI as well as diversity in the RRI profiles of the 28 European Union Member States.

show abstract

Section: Indicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research and innovation in Europe: A cross-country comparative analysis

Mejlgaard

Bloch

Madsen

2018

Science and Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…arts, management, religious studies). In 2012, however, a report by the European Commission identified Lithuania as having a “fragile” science communication culture (Mejlgaard et al, 2012). Lithuania scored low on national science communication infrastructure, marked by poor institutional infrastructure, range of actors involved, and a “low interest in communication from both the academic community and the general public.” Indeed, the institutional infrastructure and support for science communication in Lithuania is relatively modest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lithuanian scientists’ behavior and views on science communication

Valinciute

2020

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a snapshot on the state of thinking about science communication among Lithuanian scientists. It measures scientists’ views on public engagement, tests a set of engagement predictors, and explores perceived benefits and barriers to more frequent science–public interactions. Lithuanian scientists are similarly active participants in science communication as their counterparts abroad, but appear to have an understanding of science–public interactions focused on information dissemination. Age, career stage and attitudes to science communication are found to be slightly related to science communication frequency, which is consistent with similar studies conducted across different cultural contexts. Among the perceived barriers to more frequent engagement, Lithuanian scientists cite lack of time and lack of science communication traditions for such activities in the national academic environment. Implications for science communication in Lithuania are discussed.

show abstract

“…Expansion: the journey of the funding instrument to other contexts In the years to follow, cluster policies became increasingly as established as a funding design being used in different domains of activity of federal STI policy (see appendix for an overview) with differing purposes but similar designs (BMBF 2006a(BMBF , 2007b(BMBF , 2007c(BMBF , 2007d(BMBF , 2009(BMBF , 2014b. In particular, as funding documents reveal, the success of the InnoRegio program (success in the terms explained above) played a major role: The attention the initiative had generated in terms of press coverage and scholarly debate (Mejlgaard et al 2012), but also in the organizational dynamic through the introduction of new practices and procedures, has led to the decision to further employ the design and concepts of cluster policies for further programs targeting the socio-economic transformation of Eastern Germany.…”

Section: Innovation: the European Journal Of Social Science Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Today, these kinds of policies can be regarded successful in terms of global diffusion, they can be found anywhere across the globe (Fritsch 2005). The gain attention in the scholarly realm, as the scientific and professional literature assessing effects of cluster policies has grown rapidly (Mejlgaard et al 2012;Uyarra, Ribeiro, and Dale-Clough 2019;Uyarra 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovations in innovation policy: reconstructing the emergence, legitimation and dynamics of cluster policies in Germany

Blümel

2020

Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cluster policies are but one of the most well-known policy tools tosteer innovation in the realm of science and technology policy. While there is much research on the effects of cluster based funding for innovation and scholarly strategies, little is said about its emergence, its legitimation and its situatedness in societal discourses and professional practices. This article applies an 'instrument constituencies' perspective on cluster policies in science and innovation. Drawing on the case of Germany, it is argued that these policy instruments are not only legitimated by an academic literature but that their introduction also depended on very specific national constellations shaping the uptake of the instrument. It is also shown that the construction of the instrument cannot be separated from its implementation, thus contributing to the emergence of new communities of practice.

show abstract

Locating science in society across Europe: Clusters and consequences

Cited by 32 publications

References 5 publications

Responsible research and innovation in Europe: A cross-country comparative analysis

Responsible research and innovation in Europe: A cross-country comparative analysis

Lithuanian scientists’ behavior and views on science communication

Innovations in innovation policy: reconstructing the emergence, legitimation and dynamics of cluster policies in Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About