Jump to content
Exploring the Institutionalisation of Science Diplomacy / Case Study (I): Representational Model—The DWIH, Germany
Exploring the Institutionalisation of Science Diplomacy / Case Study (I): Representational Model—The DWIH, Germany
Contents
Chapter
Expand
|
Collapse
Page
1–24
Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis
1–24
Details
25–34
1. Introduction
25–34
Details
1.1. Research Focus
1.2. Research Design
1.3. Research Structure
35–54
2. Science Diplomacy Is en Vogue
35–54
Details
2.1. Science Diplomacy and the Obama Administration
2.2. Definitions
2.2.1. Conceptualisation by the Royal Society and AAAS
2.2.2. Contemporary Understanding of Science Diplomacy
2.2.3. The Long History of Science Diplomacy
2.3. Science Diplomacy Actors
2.4. Rationales for Countries to Engage in Science Diplomacy
2.5. The Science Diplomacy Toolbox
2.6. Challenges to Science Diplomacy Research
2.7. Conclusion
55–82
3. Science and Innovation Centres: Definitions and Concepts
55–82
Details
3.1. A New Instrument—Challenges in Researching SICs
3.2. Defining SICs
3.3. Conceptualising and Comparing SICs
3.3.1. Operating Countries (Sending Countries)
3.3.2. Target Countries (Receiving Countries)
3.3.3. Links to Diplomacy
3.3.4. Core Activities and Key Stakeholders
3.3.5. Governance Arrangements
3.3.5.1. Organisational Set-Up
3.3.5.2. Funding
3.3.6. Demarcations to Similar Institutions
3.4. Typologising SICs
3.4.1. Service-Oriented SICs
3.4.2. Representational SICs
3.4.3. Policy-Led SICs
3.4.4. Synthesis of the Typology
3.5. Conclusion
83–106
4. Towards a Conceptual Framework
83–106
Details
4.1. Policy Instruments: A Functional Understanding
4.1.1. Definition
4.1.2. Taxonomies
4.1.3. Instruments and Policy Design
4.2. A Renewed Focus on Policy Instruments
4.2.1. Instruments as Institutions
4.2.2. Instrumentation and Institutionalisation
4.2.3. A Heuristic Framework
4.2.3.1. Step 1: Analysing the Careers of SICs
4.2.3.2. Step 2: Use of SICs by Actors
4.3. Conceptualising Actor Rationales
4.3.1. Creating and Sustaining SICs
4.3.2. Rationales for Joining SICs
4.4. Conclusion and Discussion
107–128
5. Methodology
107–128
Details
5.1. Research Questions
5.2. Research Design
5.2.1. Typology Building
5.2.2. Comparative Research
5.2.3. Case Study Research
5.2.4. Selection Criteria
5.2.4.1. Similarities Between Germany and Switzerland
5.2.4.2. Differences Between Germany and Switzerland
5.3. Data Sources
5.3.1. Interviews and Personal Communications
5.3.2. Interview Sampling Method
5.3.2.1. Exploratory Phase (Phase I)
5.3.2.2. Consolidation Phase (Phase II)
5.3.3. Interview Processing
5.3.4. Documents
5.4. Data Analysis (Multi-Method)
5.4.1. Content Analysis
5.4.2. Open Coding: Gioia Methodology
5.5. Conclusion and Reflection
129–130
Case Study (I): Representational Model—The DWIH, Germany
129–130
Details
131–140
6. Description of the Current DWIH Network
131–140
Details
6.1. Principal Actors
6.2. Hybrid and Nested Governance Structure
6.2.1. Central Governance
6.2.2. On-Site Governance
6.3. Funding
6.4. Political Embeddedness
141–166
7. (Gradual) Institutionalisation of the DWIH
141–166
Details
7.1. Genesis of the DWIH
7.1.1. Launch of the Initiative Außenwissenschaftspolitik
7.1.2. Policy Entrepreneurs
7.1.3. Early Deliberations
7.2. Struggles Over the Institutional Set-Up
7.2.1. Ministerial Struggles Over Competence and Design
7.2.2. Agreeing on a Model (Format, Themes and Goals)
7.2.3. The Network
7.2.4. Debates on the Governance Structure
7.3. Critical Junctures in the Instrument’s Development
7.3.1. Closing the Cairo Office
7.3.2. The DWIH Revisited: Reorganisation in Response to an Audit
7.3.3. Expanding the Network
7.4. Findings and Discussion
167–206
8. Analysis of Actor Rationales for Participation (DWIH)
167–206
Details
8.1. Political Objectives
8.1.1. Branding and Visibility
8.1.2. Cooperation and Competition: Internationalisation
8.1.3. Economic Considerations and Innovation
8.1.4. Consolidating Science Diplomacy
8.1.5. Discussion
8.2. Key Stakeholder Rationales
8.3. Strategic Considerations: Maximising Impact
8.3.1. Increasing International Visibility
8.3.2. Access to Resources
8.3.3. Opportunities for Strategic (Re-)Positioning
8.3.4. Thematic Fit and Synergies
8.3.5. Precautionary Reasons
8.4. Sense of Collectivity
8.4.1. Support for the General Idea
8.4.2. Maximising the Impact of the Wider (Science) Landscape
8.4.3. Responsibility
8.5. Systemic Aspects
8.6. Limits to Participation
8.6.1. Concerns about Visibility
8.6.2. Cost-Benefit Considerations
8.6.3. Different Priorities
8.7. Findings and Discussion
8.7.1. Interim Analysis of Case Study (I): Instrumentation Effects
8.7.1.1. Aggregation Effects
8.7.1.2. Representation Effects
8.7.1.3. Appropriation Effects
207–208
Case Study (II): Service-Oriented Model—Swissnex, Switzerland
207–208
Details
209–218
9. Description of the Current Swissnex Network
209–218
Details
9.1. Principal Actors
9.2. Governance Architecture
9.3. Funding
9.4. Contextualisation
9.4.1. Bottom-Up Principle for Policy-making
9.4.2. Demarcations to Similar Institutions
219–244
10. (Gradual) Institutionalisation of Swissnex
219–244
Details
10.1. Genesis of Swissnex
10.1.1. Societal Developments
10.1.1.1. Globalisation and Internationalisation
10.1.1.2. Brain Drain
10.1.2. Political Momentum
10.1.3. Policy Entrepreneurs
10.1.3.1. Boston
10.1.3.2. San Francisco
10.1.4. Private Funding
10.1.5. Anticipation of the Model
10.1.5.1. Struggles With the FDFA
10.1.5.2. Reception Among Other Actors
10.2. Critical Junctures in the Instrument’s Development
10.2.1. Launch Phase (2000–2005): The Policy Entrepreneurs Era
10.2.2. Politically Initiated Expansion (2007–2014)
10.2.2.1. The Swissnex Committee
10.2.3. Consolidating the Network: Closure, Evaluation and New Formats
10.2.3.1. Closing the Singapore Location
10.2.3.2. Evaluation
10.2.3.3. Outlook and New Formats
10.2.4. Expansion and Reinvention
10.3. Findings and Discussion
245–270
11. Analysis of Actor Rationales for Participation (Swissnex)
245–270
Details
11.1. Political Objectives
11.1.1. International Branding and Positioning
11.1.2. Knowledge Transfer and Innovation
11.1.3. Internationalisation Efforts
11.1.4. Foreign Policy Goals
11.1.5. Conclusions
11.2. Key Stakeholder Rationales
11.3. Strategic Considerations: Maximising Impact
11.3.1. Access to Resources
11.3.2. Thematic Fit and Synergies
11.3.3. Precautionary Reasons
11.4. Sense of Collectivity
11.5. Systemic Aspects to Participation
11.6. Limits to Participation
11.6.1. Strategic Considerations
11.6.2. Cost-Benefit Considerations
11.6.3. Different Priorities
11.7. Findings and Discussion
11.7.1. Interim Analysis of Case Study (II): Instrumentation Effects
271–300
12. Comparative Analysis and Discussion
271–300
Details
12.1. Institutionalisation Patterns
12.1.1. Genesis: Patterns of Difference
12.1.1.1. Temporality and Different (Initial) Objectives
12.1.1.2. Timing: (Delayed) Policy Transfer
12.1.1.3. Design Processes: Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down Logic
12.1.1.4. Institutional Environment (Domestic and International)
12.1.1.5. Ministerial Struggles
12.1.1.6. Incremental vs. Simultaneous Opening of SICs
12.1.1.7. Sub-Conclusion
12.1.2. Evolution of the Instrument and Critical Junctures: Patterns of Alignment
12.1.2.1. Increased Political Steering
12.1.2.2. Audit Exercises
12.1.2.3. Renewed Political Focus
12.1.2.4. Stakeholder Support
12.1.2.5. Sub-Conclusion: Comparing the Institutionalisation
12.2. Actor Structures and Key Stakeholder Rationales
12.2.1. Patterns of Difference: Actor Structures and Involvement
12.2.2. Political Rationales
12.2.3. Patterns of Sense-Making: Rationales for Participation
12.2.4. Strategic Considerations
12.2.5. Sense of Collectivity
12.2.6. Systemic Aspects of Participation
12.2.7. Limits to Participation
12.2.8. Sub-Conclusion: Comparing Rationales for Participation
12.3. Conclusion
301–324
13. Conclusion and Reflection
301–324
Details
13.1. Key Findings
13.1.1. Characterisation of SICs (Sub-Question 1)
13.1.2. Longitudinal Analysis of Two SICs (Sub- Question 2)
13.1.3. Actor-Centred Perspective: Stakeholder Rationales (Sub-Question 3)
13.2. Contributions to Scholarship
13.3. Reflections on Science Diplomacy (Sub-Question 4)
13.3.1. A New Focus on Science Diplomacy Instruments
13.3.2. Science Diplomacy is National
13.3.3. Science Diplomacy Actors
13.3.4. Science Diplomacy Is Used by (Key) Stakeholders as a Platform to Convey Their Goals
13.3.5. Science Diplomacy Creates a Sense of Collectivity (in Research Ecosystems)
13.4. Reflections and Limitations
13.5. Avenues for Further Research
13.6. Conclusion
325–330
Appendix
325–330
Details
1. Data Sources: Case Study (I)—The DWIH, Germany
1.1. Overview: Interviews and Personal Communication
1.2. Overview: Documents (used in Section 8.1)
2. Data Sources: Case Study (II)—Swissnex, Switzerland
2.1. Overview: Interviews and Personal Communication
2.2. Overview: Documents (used in Section 11.1)
331–360
References
331–360
Details
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
CC-BY-SA
Access
Exploring the Institutionalisation of Science Diplomacy , page 129 - 130
Case Study (I): Representational Model—The DWIH, Germany
Autoren
Elisabeth Epping
DOI
doi.org/10.5771/9783748937982-129
ISBN print: 978-3-7560-0436-2
ISBN online: 978-3-7489-3798-2
Chapter Preview
Share
Current chapter
Complete document
Download citation
RIS
BibTeX
Copy DOI link
doi.org/10.5771/9783748937982-129
Share by email
Video schließen
Share by email Nomos eLibrary
Recipient*
Sender*
Message*
Your name
Send message
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.
