2 results
8 - An Interoperability Principle for Knowledge Creation and Governance: The Role of Emerging Institutions
- from Part III - Going Forward: Towards a Knowledge Governance Research Agenda
-
- By John Wilbanks, Creative Commons, Carolina Rossini, Harvard Law School
- Edited by Leonardo Burlamaqui, Ana Célia Castro, Rainer Kattel
- Foreword by Richard Nelson
-
- Book:
- Knowledge Governance
- Published by:
- Anthem Press
- Published online:
- 05 April 2013
- Print publication:
- 01 October 2012, pp 199-226
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This study examines the relationships among funders, research institutions, and the “units” of knowledge creation and local knowledge governance, which are hosted inside research institutions. Our goal is to uncover the knowledge spaces where commons-based approaches, peer production and modes of network-mediated innovation have – and have not – emerged and to examine the conditions under which these approaches either flourish or are discouraged. Our rationale is that the emergence of novel, democratized and distributed knowledge governance represent a meaningful complement to more traditional systems, with the potential to create new public knowledge goods accessible to a global civil society and spur innovation in previously unforeseen ways.
The first section of this chapter is an introduction to distributed knowledge creation and open systems for knowledge transactions (including but not limited to copyrighted and patented knowledge-embedded products; see Blackler 1995).
The second section contains a case study of the complex and interlocking system of relationships governing knowledge-embedded products in the field of genomics, as well as some experimental interventions to adjust these relationships with the goal of maximizing either the total knowledge output or the value captured from the knowledge products. Although we have focused our case study on genomics, which offers a rich set of varied knowledge products and cases for study, the rationale we present in this discussion is also applicable to a variety of areas, from educational resources to alternative energy related technology.
Chapter 25 - Policies for Capacity Development
-
- By Lynn Mytelka, United Nations University-MERIT, Francisco Aguayo, El Colegio de México, Grant Boyle, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Sylvia Breukers, Duneworks, Gabriel de Scheemaker, Conduit Ventures Ltd., Ibrahim Abdel Gelil, Arabian Gulf University, René Kemp, United Nations University-MERIT, Joachim Monkelbaan, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Carolina Rossini, University of São Paulo, Jim Watson, University of Sussex, Rosemary Wolson, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Staffan Jacobsson, Chalmers University of Technology, Upendra Tripathy, Government of India, John T. Wilbanks, The Ewing Marro Kauffman Foundation, Youba Sokona, United Nations Economic Commission
- Global Energy Assessment Writing Team
-
- Book:
- Global Energy Assessment
- Published online:
- 05 September 2012
- Print publication:
- 27 August 2012, pp 1745-1802
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Executive Summary
This chapter focuses on capacities and capacity development for energy transitions. The transitions put forward in GEA require a transformation of energy systems that demand significant changes in the way energy is supplied and used today, irrespective of whether the technologies involved are new to the world or to a country, its producers or users.
Energy transitions are, by definition, long-term, socially embedded processes in the course of which capacities at the individual, organizational, and systems levels, as well as the policies for capacity development themselves, will inevitably change. From this perspective, capacity development can no longer be seen as a simple aggregation of individual skills and competences or the introduction of a new “technology.” Rather, it is a broad process of change in production and consumption patterns, knowledge, skills, organizational forms, and – most importantly – in the established practices and norms of the actors involved, or what are called informal institutions. In other words, a host of new and enhanced capacities will be needed over time. Informal institutions are reflected in a range of beliefs and boundaries that shape choices about new energy technologies. These can include engineering beliefs about what is feasible or worth attempting and boundaries that shape the processes of choice, such as lines of research to pursue, kinds of products to produce, or practices of consultation and dialogue. They also emerge as “path dependence” in contexts where earlier investments result in high sunk costs, habits and practices are entrenched, and “expert views” are shaped by earlier thinking that narrows the range of choices to established technologies and evaluation techniques.