FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2783294600> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2783294600 endingPage "11" @default.
• W2783294600 startingPage "4" @default.
• W2783294600 abstract "For eleven years, the Review of Policy Research has published research from a community of scholars examining the politics and policy of science and technology. For nearly all of its time with this editorial focus, RPR has also served as the official journal of the Science, Technology, and Environmental Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, and it remains one of a growing range of journals owned and supported by the Policy Studies Organization. RPR tackles a broad area of scholarship. Its remit encompasses substantive issues from climate change and health to e-government and big data, levels of government from cities to intergovernmental processes, and diverse theoretical perspectives spanning those that seek to explain policy learning, diffusion, and change to those that are keen to understand the policy and political forces driving technological innovations and their impacts. Questions around the role and impact of state, provincial, and municipal action on climate change have been frequently examined (e.g., Gore, 2010). Climate change has received consistent attention, with an average of five articles a year on the topic since 2007. RPR has also become an important journal for work examining policy and political dimensions of hydraulic fracturing as a widely used technology for extracting shale gas (see Boersma & Johnson, 2012; Davis, 2012). The journal is home, too, for research on information and communication technologies (ICT), from the relationships among blogs, media, and agenda-setting (McKenna, 2007; Wallsten, 2007) to how international organizations use ICT and with what effects (Amoretti, 2007). In sum, RPR's broad remit offers a rich space in which scholars can interrogate science, technology, and environmental issues from diverse disciplinary perspectives but with a common interest in the political and policy dimensions of these domains of human activity. I took over as editor in chief in July 2016. I follow Chris Gore and J. P. Singh, who each contributed immensely to the growth of the journal's prominence and strength as a high-quality outlet for scholarship. As the new editor in chief, I am taking this opportunity to review what RPR has accomplished in the last decade and what we can expect in the years to come. How does one measure a journal's overall significance? Impact factor paints one picture. Yet this does not offer a qualitative sense of the insights its articles have advanced. To offer a glimpse of such a perspective, let me review some of the core strands of intellectual engagement woven into RPR's last eleven volumes. It should be no surprise that the themes of science, technology, and environment all feature prominently. Figure 1 graphs the number of articles mentioning these themes in their keywords, title, or abstract. We see that they have each ebbed and flowed, but that they are all consistently represented in the journal's articles over the last eleven years. Number of Articles Mentioning Science, Technology, or Environment in their Title, Abstract, or Keywords These are overlapping themes. Numerous articles address intersections that involve, say, how technologies affect the environment, how scientific processes and scientists do or do not shape policy and political outcomes, or how policy and political processes shape science. Within these aggregate themes, there are a host of substantive issues discussed, although this is where the journal's interests concentrate more on certain issues. The attention is greatest on issues concerning energy and climate change. Energy as a whole has received nearly equal attention to the three core themes presented in Figure 1. Over 60 articles in the last eleven years deal with energy in some fashion, which encompasses research on specific types of power generation—wind (Laird, 2008), solar (Smith & Urpelainen, 2014), biofuels (L. A. German & Schoneveld, 2012), and renewables as an overall category (Rowlands, 2007)—to broader analyses of the energy sector and demand-side and grid management such as through smart metering technologies (Zhou & Matisoff, 2016). Intersections with technology are clear throughout this work. For instance, as I noted above, 15 articles have examined hydraulic fracturing, fracking for short, as an energy extraction technology. This began in 2012 with two papers. Boersma and Johnson (2012) reviewed the regulatory environment for fracking in the United States and Europe. In addition, they posed a series of critical research questions that, they argued, needed to be addressed, such as what are the risks of unintentional leaks of fracking liquids or methane, and whether and how shale gas could figure in a transition to a low carbon economy? Davis (2012) presented an early explanation for state-to-state differences in U.S. fracking regulation, drawing empirically on the experiences in Texas and Colorado. Every year since, at least one article has been published in RPR on fracking, meaning the journal has become a significant outlet for social science research on this technology. Recent articles have sought to explain varying public attitudes toward the technology (Alcorn, Rupp, & Graham, 2017), the failings of processes designed to determine its risks and benefits (Neville & Weinthal, 2016), and interjurisdictional variation in how the technology has been regulated (Arnold & Neupane, 2017; Carter & Eaton, 2016; Goldthau & LaBelle, 2016). The focus on energy is equaled only by the attention given to climate change. Here, a look back offers a sobering reflection on the state of play in U.S. federal climate policy. We see Selin and VanDeveer (2007) offering predictions about future U.S. climate policy, many dimensions of which currently seem further away than was ostensibly the case in 2007. Likewise, Hovi and Skodvin (2008) discuss the possibility of a U.S.-based agreement as a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, when we are now focused on the United States pulling out of yet another climate change agreement, the Paris Agreement. On the other hand, RPR has published many works concerned with the myriad other climate change policy actions and technological innovations that are occurring despite the slow pace of intergovernmental action and the shifting position of the U.S. government. This has been a vibrant area for the journal. For instance, Rabe's (2008) article called for more analytic attention to American states as jurisdictions in multilevel governance that mattered for the nature of U.S. climate change policy (as did Selin & VanDeveer, 2007). Numerous articles took up this charge, seeking to detail and explain the varied adoption and diffusion of climate change policies by U.S. states (Carley, 2011; Matisoff, 2008). In addition, this lens has turned to municipal governments in the United States and Canada (Gore, 2010; Krause, 2012); to how certain policies, such as cap and trade, spread (or do not spread) across distinct policy venues, both governmental and nongovernmental (Betsill & Hoffmann, 2011; Harrison, 2012; Rabe & Borick, 2012); and the ways in which different multilevel governance configurations (e.g., European Union vs. the United States) affect climate change activism and mobilization (Bomberg, 2012) and policy outcomes (D. M. Brown, 2012). Thus, RPR has both been a venue for sober reflection on the continued challenges for policy action on climate change, while also serving as a place to publish work delving into the many levers that might unlock a future with effective governance on this issue. Despite their dominance, climate change and energy are not the only issues addressed in the last eleven years. The broad area of natural resources, including water (Crow, 2010), forests (Davis, 2008), crops (L. German, 2014), and, to a much more limited extent, fisheries (Temby, Rastogi, Sandall, Cooksey, & Hickey, 2015), are topics examined in RPR. Issues surrounding pollution and waste are touched on too, and often, these issues intersect with other substantive themes—for instance, articles that examine the preparedness for and responses to oil spills, a pollution issue that concerns the energy sector, marine affairs, ocean resources, remediation technologies, and more (Kurtz, 2008, 2013). Disasters, from oil spills to tornadoes, are a related theme, with studies examining, among other things: the kinds of safeguards that are needed to appropriately respond to disasters (Santella, Steinberg, & Parks, 2009); safeguards that are actually adopted in reaction to disasters (Busenberg, 2008); and how post-disaster policy changes can be assessed through the lens of policy learning theories (O'Donovan, 2017). It is topics such as these that magnify the myriad intersections examined in RPR, and they point to issues of health, infrastructure, technology, and social and environmental justice that feature in RPR's last eleven volumes. Jordan (2008), for instance, takes a social justices perspective to examine pharmacogenomics as an instance of high-technology medicine. She argues that there is a need for policy analysis alive to the issues of social justice, and policy that specifically directs such technologies to ameliorate the persistent health disparities facing racial minorities. Health technology is also a concern when it comes to the rise of electronic health records, a trend that raises pressing questions about individual privacy and data security (C. L. Brown, 2012); or in relation to how regulatory approval processes can send mixed signals and steer the nature of health technological development toward some innovations and away from others (Lehoux, Daudelin, Denis, & Miller, 2017; Myers, Steding, & Mikolaj, 2018). Biotechnology, spanning health (Myers et al., 2018) and agriculture (Legge & Durant, 2010), further elucidates the overlapping themes RPR tackles. Indeed, this too has been a topic galvanizing continued interest, with nearly one article per year over the last eleven. Intersections are also ostensible in the journal's attention to science, scientists, and scientific processes as consequential for policy and political outcomes. We closed 2017 with a special issue on the limits and potential of the concepts of boundary organizations and boundary work as lens for understanding science-policy interactions in intergovernmental processes (Orsini, Louafi, & Morin, 2017; Compagnon & Bernstein, 2017), from the Arctic Council (Spence, 2017) to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (H. R. Hughes & Paterson, 2017). In addition, one cannot forget that technology and innovation are themselves a source of considerable interest to the contributors and readers of RPR. Early work in this area shed light on the limits and potential of ICT as a sole means to improve democratic governance (Bolgherini, 2007), an issue with great relevance in today's political climate. A more recent example is a paper by Sá and Grieco (2016) that explores why Brazil's National Institute for Space Research has transitioned toward an open-data model for its data. The broader technological realm has been a focus as well. Back in 2007, Taylor (2007) looked at the relationship between governance decentralization and technological innovation. He found that, despite theoretical arguments for a potential innovation benefit from decentralization, neither centralized nor decentralized government structures were related to higher levels of patent activity, scientific publications, and high-technology exports. Following this line of enquiry, Breznitz (2009) introduced a special issue on national institutions and the globalized political economy of technological innovation, an issue that delved into the comparative national and business contexts that affect the processes and outcomes of technological innovation. In this vein as well, Schmid, Brummer, and Taylor (2017) just recently contribute a paper that identifies military alliance with the United States as an underappreciated variable affecting country-to-country differences in levels of technological innovation. Alliances with the United States were found to increase the general level of technological innovation in the allying partner in all areas except military technologies. This brief and far from complete review of the last eleven years of research sheds light on the import of RPR as a home for scholars working on the politics and policy of science and technology. Authors writing on fracking and climate change from a multilevel governance perspective have made notable contributions to important academic and policy discussions about the future of energy and climate change policy. Although these issues have dominated, the true value of RPR comes from its ability to uncover the many intersections that exist among science and technology as they affect substantive issues from health, justice, environment, and more. I look forward to receiving more manuscripts that continue to engage with these critical issues. In light of this review, it will come as no surprise that the seven articles contained in this issue are well situated within the above-noted thematic threads. Health, science, technology, and energy—these are the broad topical areas examined by the articles. Castro Colina and Montpetit (2018) investigate how certain ideas about scientific excellence have worked to supplant the historical meaning of maize in Mexico and thereby created a potential policy change in the country's position on genetically modified organisms. Offering a different angle on scientific excellence, Doh, Jang, Kang, and Han (2018) have constructed an incredible database of academics in South Korea that allow them to examine the relationships between an academic's funding (both source and amount) and their varied scholarly outputs. On the intersection of technology, science, and health policy, Myers and others (2018) uncover competing policy windows for change in the nature of U.S. health-related biotechnology policy that have opened through the administrative functions of the FDA in proposing a new set of regulation for laboratory developed tests and the enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act. The latter was seen to push health-related biotechnology, while the former was seen as a check on this innovation. Studlar and Cagossi (2018) broaden the focus to look at what they term morality policies, issues such as abortion, capital punishment, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and assisted reproductive technologies. They investigate competing explanations for the varied ways these policies are treated by the United States and European countries. The last three articles turn to energy. Urpelainen, Yang, and Liu (2018) offer a large-N analysis of countries’ power sector reforms spanning from 1982 to 2008 to investigate whether reforms had benefits. They find that reforms expanded power generation capacity and reduce transmission and distribution losses. The next two articles are interested in agenda setting. T. Hughes (2018) refines our understanding of how external forces, such as focusing events, affect the entry and exit of issues on the policy-making agenda. The article focuses on changes to U.S. offshore oil and natural gas drilling policies that occurred in 2008. Lewallen (2018), by contrast, turns our attention to the structure of U.S. governmental committees to highlight how the Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee, chaired by Representative Ed Markey, was able to draw greater governmental attention to energy and climate change even though it lacked any authority to advance a legislative agenda. What can we expect for RPR's future? There is little doubt that RPR is now positioned as an important journal engaged with diverse policy and political dynamics and issues that are raised by science and technology. There are many reasons to be optimistic that the journal will continue to thrive in this role. The Policy Studies Organization, under Paul Rich's leadership, is a steadfast proponent of RPR, providing consistent support and facilitating advances for the journal, such as the new addition of Spanish and Chinese translations of the title, abstract, and keywords of published articles. The journal is incredibly lucky to have this support. Moreover, the Wiley team members that oversee the production of the journal are consummate professionals, ensuring that each issue is polished and seamlessly produced. RPR also benefits from its committed editorial board. Many of these individuals have served for ten or more years, and they have all been an invaluable source of advice and editorial opinion on manuscripts being considered by RPR. I would particularly like to thank a few outgoing board members. Thank you Dan Breznitz, Michael Geist, Kristine Kern, Frank Laird, Christopher May, and Margaret Wyszomirski for your immensely valuable contribution to the journal. In the months ahead, we will also be welcoming new members to the editorial board in an effort to enhance connections to the community of scholars RPR seeks to represent. The journal would also not be able to function without the incredible dedication of hundreds of reviewers who volunteer their time to help evaluate submitted manuscripts. Their work is fundamental. RPR lives and dies by the quality of these reviews; I am incredibly grateful to all the reviewers for their tremendous service to the journal. Finally, thanks to all the authors who submit work to RPR. It is your work that makes the journal a vibrant publication that deals with the topics and research you want to read about." @default.
• W2783294600 created "2018-01-26" @default.
• W2783294600 creator A5068021528 @default.
• W2783294600 date "2018-01-01" @default.
• W2783294600 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2783294600 title "Over a Decade of Scholarship on the Politics and Policy of Science and Technology" @default.
• W2783294600 cites W1525350239 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W1539830661 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W1546213773 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W1570295576 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W1663171464 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W1798813114 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W1857107429 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W1883482663 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W1897310778 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W1947412649 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W1981081566 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W1985083929 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W1991980772 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2025806755 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2070774450 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2073560262 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2108747004 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2114096637 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2116289420 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2122150340 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2125132671 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2126446231 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2126862646 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2128085964 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2137249082 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2141297479 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2148050220 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2153957138 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2154766661 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2156079125 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2156352223 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2163153804 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2164204440 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2277298482 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2477311739 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2520322156 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2547631519 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2547859870 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2557430871 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2601042215 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2610935337 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2611568004 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2649865883 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2739198648 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2741462109 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2746050179 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2748826504 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2749103398 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2751532661 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2751666626 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2752473746 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2753444319 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2767665785 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W2772108569 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W3123274853 @default.
• W2783294600 cites W3125731594 @default.
• W2783294600 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12277" @default.
• W2783294600 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2783294600 type Work @default.
• W2783294600 sameAs 2783294600 @default.
• W2783294600 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2783294600 countsByYear W27832946002021 @default.
• W2783294600 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2783294600 hasAuthorship W2783294600A5068021528 @default.
• W2783294600 hasBestOaLocation W27832946001 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConcept C148383697 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConceptScore W2783294600C144024400 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConceptScore W2783294600C148383697 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConceptScore W2783294600C17744445 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConceptScore W2783294600C199539241 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConceptScore W2783294600C2778061430 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConceptScore W2783294600C3116431 @default.
• W2783294600 hasConceptScore W2783294600C94625758 @default.
• W2783294600 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2783294600 hasLocation W27832946001 @default.
• W2783294600 hasOpenAccess W2783294600 @default.
• W2783294600 hasPrimaryLocation W27832946001 @default.
• W2783294600 hasRelatedWork W1932206522 @default.
• W2783294600 hasRelatedWork W1959377162 @default.
• W2783294600 hasRelatedWork W2042258497 @default.
• W2783294600 hasRelatedWork W2098573030 @default.
• W2783294600 hasRelatedWork W2153026786 @default.
• W2783294600 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2783294600 hasRelatedWork W2903772597 @default.
• W2783294600 hasRelatedWork W3134382238 @default.
• W2783294600 hasRelatedWork W325192878 @default.

• next