ISSN 1995-459X print E-ISSN 2312-9972 online ISSN 2500-2597 online English
Editor-in-chief Leonid Gokhberg
|
2011. vol. 5. No. 3
|
Strategies
|
4–16
|
Binay Kumar Pattnaik — Professor of Sociology, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. E-mail: binay@iitk.ac.in Address: Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, 208016, India The study analyses the impact of changing patterns of globalization on the diffusion of R&D in developing countries. The main drivers of R&D globalization are multinational companies (MNCs). In early stages of globalization, these companies were hesitant to extend their R&D base in the developing world due to weak knowledge-based assets, poor infrastructure, and limited markets. The changing context of competition and necessity of enhancing their performance, however, forced large corporations to be increasingly active in involving fast-developing countries into their own R&D and innovation projects. Emerging countries previously served as suppliers of low-waged workforce for MNCs. However, in due course, some of them, especially China, India, Brazil, Singapore, have built their own S&T capacities and become new R&D and innovation hubs. The paper distinguishes between internationalization, multinationalization and globalization. For globalization, it shows how R&D indicators for industrial enterprises, universities, and public research organizations, drawn from developed country data, can be applied for adaptation to evolution in developing countries. The paper conceptualizes the impact of R&D globalization in the following areas: the emerging international division of labour in R&D; the emerging flatter world technological regime; the multinationalization of R&D in developing country firms; the globalization of local R&D developed in firms of peripheral countries; and the off-shoring of R&D services by firms in developing countries. These formulations are based on a wide spectrum of reported empirical and secondary data from across developing countries. Placing the impact in the theoretical framework of the new dependence school, the author concludes that center-periphery relations are also evolving, eroding the distinctiveness of the concept of periphery. |
Science
|
18–32
|
Natalya Shmatko — Head, Division for Studies of Human Capital, HSE Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge. E-mail: nshmatko@hse.ru Address: 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, Russia, 101000 Changes in the structure and priorities of research funding and of educational activities accompany changes in the labour market for scientists, including newly induced mobility both on a national and an international level. The paper aims to operationalize the concept of social mobility, separating it from directly observable relocations. Second, it builds a structural model explaining the results of measured mobility. The analysis of Russian scientists’ social shifts provided in the paper is based on the data collected in the course of the “Monitoring careers of doctorate holders” project undertaken in the framework of the NRU-HSE basic research program in 2010. This study is a part of the Careers of Doctorate Holders international project. The project uses a multi-step stratified sample with respondent quotas based on degree, gender, age, research field, and geographical area. The paper identifies major social trends in scientists’ professional shifts (inter-sectoral, institutional, and international); their secondary employment; and their specialization shifts. It proposes a conceptual model of scientists’ social mobility–mobility being the final probability of transfers between various states of the mobility process–which is reconstructed on the basis of data describing relocations of doctorate holders. Given that it is empirically established that within the analysed sample, mobility conforms to Pareto’s Law, assuming retention of the probability flow, the paper presents a mathematical model of scientists’ mobility consistent with Pareto distribution. To explain mobility from the sociological point of view, the paper builds a scientific capital model, describing emerging social characteristics of doctorate holders. It establishes that the distribution of the scientific capital in the sample matches gamma distribution; it finds a power dependence between the scientists’ mobility and their scientific capital. These results provide a holistic picture of Russian scientists’ mobility, allowing a connection to be drawn between mobility and various social trends in the scientific community. The proposed model opens up an opportunity for a more integrated assessment of the mobility of doctorate holders. |
|
34–42
|
Olesya Kirchik — Leading Research Fellow, Research Laboratory for Science and Technology Studies, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics (Russia). E-mail: okirchik@hse.ru Address: 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, Russia, 101000 Science citation indices are increasingly referred to for assessing research performance and the efficiency of S&T policy. However, alongside evident advantages, are two serious shortcomings of citation indices: their focus on predominantly English-language publications that match specific criteria and the significantly large share of engineering disciplines and smaller share of humanities citations. In addition, the division of science communication markets into international and domestic introduces difficulties when comparing the publishing performance of scholars from different countries and complicates the interpretation of these data. As a result, indicators of publishing performance intrinsically do not reflect the state-of-the-art of national science — rather they demonstrate its internationally “visible” segment and the rate of internationalization for selected disciplines. The paper reveals reasons for these misalignments. The author presents a historical retrospective of the internationalization of science leading to a common language of scientific communication (English) and dominance by Anglo-American academic publishers. The paper looks specifically at Russia, with its predominantly locally oriented market for research publications. Russian science remains poorly integrated into international science. The paper examines Russia’s state and dynamics in contributing to international publications in this context: that of the global scientific communication system. It is noted that using bibliometric tools alone are not enough to reveal the full picture. Russian practices in publications and citations, features of its national system of scientific communications, and mechanisms for gaining reputation should be used in analyzing Russia’s contributions vis-à-vis other countries. |
|
44–57
|
Michel Le Gohebel — Project Leader, Centre for Social Innovation (Austria). E-mail: legohebel@zsi.at Address: Linke Wienzeile 246, A-1150 Wien Désirée Pecarz — Project Leader, Centre for Social Innovation (Austria). E-mail: pecarz@zsi.at Address: Linke Wienzeile 246, A-1150 Wien Katharina Handler — Research Fellow, Centre for Social Innovation (Austria). E-mail: handler@zsi.at Address: Linke Wienzeile 246, A-1150 Wien Klaus Schuch — Senior Research Fellow and Commercial Manager, Centre for Social Innovation (Austria). E-mail: schuch@zsi.at Address: Linke Wienzeile 246, A-1150 Wien This paper concerns the misalignments in science citation indexes, which are increasingly used to assess research performance and the efficiency of S&T policy. Alongside evident advantages of using citation indices are serious shortcomings: their focus on predominantly English-language publications that match certain publishing criteria, as well as the significantly larger share of engineering disciplines over humanities in publications. In addition, the co-existence of internally as well as externally oriented scientific communication markets creates difficulties for comparing the publishing performance of scholars from different countries and interpreting these data. As a result, indicators of publishing performance do not reflect the state-of-the-art in national science — rather they demonstrate its internationally “visible” segment and the rate of internationalization for selected disciplines. The paper associates the main reason for this misalignment in historical factors. Historically, international science uses a common language for scientific communication, and it is now dominated by Anglo-American academic publishers. Russia, the subject of this study, still has a predominantly locally oriented market for research publications, and Russian science remains poorly integrated into the international scientific process. The study argues that in assessing scientific contributions, a country’s integration in to the global scientific communication system must be considered as well as the structure and dynamics of international publications. In conclusion, it is added, that using bibliometric tools is not alone sufficient to assess scientific contributions. One must also consider national publication and citation practices, the national system of scientific communications, and mechanisms of acquiring a reputation in comparison with those of other nations. |
Master Class
|
58–69
|
Yanuar Nugroho — Research Fellow, Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester (UK). E-mail: Yanuar.Nugroho@manchester.ac.uk Address: The University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK Ozcan Saritas — Research Fellow, Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester (UK). E-mail: Ozcan.Saritas@manchester.ac.uk Address: The University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK In parallel with the increasing complexity and uncertainty of social, technological, economic, environmental, political, and value systems (STEEPV), there is a growing need for a systemic approach in Foresight. This paper proposes a methodological approach to demonstrate how the ideas of systems thinking can be applied in Foresight practice. The methodology is based on the joint use of horizon scanning, network analysis, and scenario methods. Horizon Scanning uncovers emerging issues and identifies future surprises and shocks. Network Analysis is a powerful approach to analyzing both the whole system of relations and parts of the system at the same time and hence it reveals the otherwise hidden structural properties of the systems. Network Analysis data allow for the elaboration of a series of Evolutionary Scenarios that not only are capable of giving a snapshot of a particular future, but also explaining the emerging transformation pathways of events and situations from the present into the future as systemic narratives. The main emphasis is given to network analysis as a tool for strengthening systemic foresight base. The authors propose two ways to incorporate Network Analysis in Foresight – by its straightforward inclusion as a methodological tool to analyze foresight data as well as by integrating network perspective into the entire Foresight process. In particular, it is noted that applying Network Analysis allows for better mapping of the issues under scrutiny of the Foresight exercise as well as stakeholders to be involved. During the action phase, network perspective can contribute to set up more effective collaboration and interdisciplinary actions. The application of the described approach is illustrated by the case of «Big Picture Survey» which is aimed at gaining more insights into prospective crucial issues, trends, drivers of change, weak signals, wild cards, and discontinuities, thus informing further ad hoc Foresight studies. |
Events
|
70–75
|
The second German-Russian Summer School devoted to the issues of S&T and innovation development took place on July 11-13,2011, inMoscow.The event was organized by the HSE Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge and Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research. The main discussion topics included: STI policy priorities in the context of global challenges, business innovation strategies, the dynamics of individual markets and industries, channels of knowledge dissemination between the institutions of an innovation system, methodology of measuringS&T and innovation. |
|
|