Suchergebnisse

This paper presents reports on discussions among an international group of science and technology studies (STS) scholars who convened at the US National Science Foundation (January 2015) to think about data sharing and open STS. The first report, which reflects discussions among members of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), relates the potential benefits of data sharing and open science for STS. The second report, which reflects discussions among scholars from many professional STS societies (i.e., European Association for the Study of Science and Technology [ EASST], 4S, Society for the History of Technology [ SHOT], History of Science Society [ HSS], and Philosophy of Science Association [ PSA]), focuses on practical and conceptual issues related to managing, storing, and curating STS data. As is the case for all reports of such open discussions, a scholar's presence at the meeting does not necessarily mean that they agree with all aspects of the text to follow.

AbstractThe global financial crisis of 2008 has shown that the present financial system involves global systemic risks. The dimension of these risks is hard to grasp with the conceptual tools that have been developed to tackle conventional risks like fire or car accidents. While modern societies know quite well how to deal with conventional risks, we have not yet been equally successful at dealing with global systemic risks. For managing this kind of risks, one needs to understand critical features of specific global systems where many human agents interact in ever changing complex networks. Here we apply two specific dimensions of complexity theory for dealing with global systemic risk in an integrated fashion: normal accidents and extended evolution. Both of them have successfully been applied to the analysis of systemic risks. As a paradigmatic example of global systemic risks, we focus on the global financial crisis that began in 2008, and suggest that the future evolution of the financial system could either see a further increase in complexity, or a reversal to a less complex system. We explore and contrast the implications of normal accident theory and extended evolution perspectives and suggest a four‐point research strategy informed by complexity theory for better understanding global systemic risks in financial systems.

AbstractSystemic risks are characterized by high complexity, multiple uncertainties, major ambiguities, and transgressive effects on other systems outside of the system of origin. Due to these characteristics, systemic risks are overextending established risk management and create new, unsolved challenges for policymaking in risk assessment and risk governance. Their negative effects are often pervasive, impacting fields beyond the obvious primary areas of harm. This article addresses these challenges of systemic risks from different disciplinary and sectorial perspectives. It highlights the special contributions of these perspectives and approaches and provides a synthesis for an interdisciplinary understanding of systemic risks and effective governance. The main argument is that understanding systemic risks and providing good governance advice relies on an approach that integrates novel modeling tools from complexity sciences with empirical data from observations, experiments, or simulations and evidence‐based insights about social and cultural response patterns revealed by quantitative (e.g., surveys) or qualitative (e.g., participatory appraisals) investigations. Systemic risks cannot be easily characterized by single numerical estimations but can be assessed by using multiple indicators and including several dynamic gradients that can be aggregated into diverse but coherent scenarios. Lastly, governance of systemic risks requires interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral cooperation, a close monitoring system, and the engagement of scientists, regulators, and stakeholders to be effective as well as socially acceptable.

Purpose
This paper aims to present an experience-based learning framework that provides a bottom-up, student-centered entrance point for the development of systems thinking, normative and collaborative competencies in sustainability.


Design/methodology/approach
The framework combines mental mapping with exploratory walking. It interweaves mapping and walking activities with methodological and theoretical inputs as well as with reflections and discussions. The framework aligns experiential activities, i.e. mental mapping and walking, with learning objectives, i.e. novice-level sustainability competencies. The authors applied the framework for student activities in Phoenix/Tempe and Hamburg/Lüneburg as part of The Global Classroom, a project between Arizona State University in the USA and Leuphana University of Lüneburg in Germany.


Findings
The application of the experience-based learning framework demonstrates how students started developing systems thinking (e.g. understanding urban systems as functional entities and across different domains), normative (e.g. using different sustainability principles) and collaborative (e.g. learning across disciplinary, social and cultural differences) competencies in sustainability.


Originality/value
The experience-based learning framework contributes to the development of curricular activities for the initial development of sustainability competencies in introductory-level courses. It enables students from different disciplinary, social and cultural backgrounds, e.g. in international education, to collaboratively start developing such competencies. The framework can be adapted to different educational contexts.

BACKGROUND: Emergence of new coronavirus variants and waning immunity may necessitate regular COVID-19 vaccine boosters, but empirical data on population willingness for regular vaccination are limited. METHODS: In August 2021, we surveyed 3,067 quota-sampled German-speaking adults residing in the D-A-CH region (Germany, Austria, Switzerland). Using multivariable adjusted ordered logistic regression models we calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) to assess factors associated with willingness to vaccinate annually against COVID-19. FINDINGS: Among 2,480 participants vaccinated or planning to get vaccinated, 82·4% indicated willingness to receive annual COVID-19 boosters. This willingness was higher in Austria (OR=1·47, 95% CI, 1·19–1·82; p < 0·001) and Germany (OR=1·98, 95% CI, 1·60–2·45; p < 0·001) versus Switzerland and increased with age. Having voted in the last national election (OR(opposition party voters)=1·51, 95% CI=1·18–1·92; p = 0·001 and OR(governing party voters)=1·57, 95% CI=1·28–1·93; p < 0·001, versus non-voters) and not regularly participating in religious meetings (OR=1·37, 95% CI=1·08–1·73; p = 0·009, versus participation at least monthly) were significantly associated with willingness to vaccinate, as was partial (OR=1·97, 95% CI=1·43–2·72; p < 0·001) or total (OR=5·20, 95% CI=3·76–7·19; p < 0·001) approval of COVID-19 mitigation measures (versus non-approval). By country, Austrians showed the strongest association of voting behavior and mitigation measure approval with willingness to vaccinate. INTERPRETATION: Targeted promotion programs informed by political and religious engagement and mitigation measure approval are needed to increase willingness to receive regular COVID-19 boosters. FUNDING: Medical University of Vienna, Department of Epidemiology, Danube University Krems, Department for Knowledge and Communication Management; Austrian Society of Epidemiology.

Navigating today's crises requires transcending one-dimensional, exclusively science-centered approaches. This article advocates a transdisciplinary strategy, integrating diverse perspectives to address complex issues like poly-crises. It emphasizes the potential of mutual learning
and knowledge co-generation between science and society for fostering creative, sustainable solutions within a multilayered innovation system.