Podcasts about research policy

To kick off our big 15 year anniversary celebration, we're re-sharing two stories from the storytellers you, the fans, voted as your favorite stories. And the best part? You can see these storytellers, along with the other fan favorites, take the stage live on June 3, 2025, at Caveat in New York City during our special anniversary show and fundraiser. Learn more and grab your tickets here. Part 1: Maryam Zaringhalam's scheme to cheat her way into the smart class makes clear a huge flaw in the education system. Part 2: On the first day of grad school for her PhD, a fellow student tells Bianca Jones Marlin that she doesn't really belong there. Maryam is a molecular biologist by training who traded in her pipettes for the world of science policy and advocacy. She's on a mission to make science more open and inclusive through her work both as a science communicator and policymaker. She's a Senior Producer for the Story Collider in DC and previously served as the Assistant Director for Public Access and Research Policy at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy from 2023 to 2024. She has a cat named Tesla, named after the scientist and not the car. You can learn more about her at https://webmz.nyc. Dr. Bianca Jones Marlin is a neuroscientist and postdoctoral researcher at Columbia University in the laboratory of Nobel Laureate Dr. Richard Axel, where she investigates transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, or how traumatic experiences in parents affect the brain structure of their offspring. She holds a PhD in neuroscience from New York University, and dual bachelor degrees from St. John's University, in biology and adolescent education. As a graduate student, her research focused on the vital bond between parent and child, and studied the use of neurochemicals, such as the “love drug” oxytocin, as a treatment to strengthen fragile and broken parent-child relationships. Dr. Marlin's research has been featured in the Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Scientific American, and Discover Magazine's “100 Top Stories of 2015.” Dr. Marlin aims to utilize neurobiology and the science of learning to better inform both the scientific and educational community on how positive experiences dictate brain health, academic performance, and social well being. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Women's health is under-researched and under-funded, leading women to live longer in poor health than men. However, tackling this gap can boost lifespans and GDP, a fact Paula Bellostas Muguerza understands well. This global head of healthcare and life sciences at consulting firm Kearney, discusses the role that policy and collaboration can play in creating incentives for real change, and driving awareness and education. She'll talk about [w]Health, a special platform she helped found that has grown into a community of 350 organizations sharing best practices to bridge gaps and what leaders can do to make change happen for their own organizations.  About this episode:  Kearney: [w]Health: Prescription for Change: Policy Recommendations for Women's Health Research: Related podcasts:  How bridging design gaps in science and tech can tackle gender bias:  Tackling these surprising blindspots can bridge gender gaps in health, opportunity and more:  

Elizabeth Baker, Director of Research Policy for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, joins Lisa Dent to discuss the FDA’s decision to phase out some animal testing for biological products and drugs.

New Things Under the Sun is once again putting together a list of dissertation papers related to innovation. If you want your paper to be included, email the title, an abstract, and a link to the paper, to matt@newthingsunderthesun.com by the end of November.In this post, coauthored with Caroline Fry, we look at the evidence on the effects of training programs for scientists in lower and middle income countries (LMICs). This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial version of the) article Training scientists in low and middle income countries, originally published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles mentioned:Schreiber, Kelsey L., Christopher B. Barrett, Elizabeth R. Bageant, Abebe Shimeles, Joanna B. Upton, and Maria DiGiovanni. 2022. Building research capacity in an under-represented group: The STAARS program experience. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 44(4):1925-1941. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13310Fry, Caroline V., and Michael Blomfield. 2023. If you build it, they will come: The impact of clinical trial experience on African science. SSRN Working Paper. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4629654Fry, Caroline, and Ina Ganguli. 2023. Return on returns: Building scientific capacity in AIDS endemic countries. NBER Working Paper 31374. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31374Fry, Caroline Viola. 2023. Bridging the gap: Evidence from the return migration of African scientists. Organization Science 34(1). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1580Kahn, Shulamit, and Megan J. MacGarvie. 2016. How Important is U.S. Location for Research in Science? The Review of Economics and Statistics 98(2): 397-414. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00490Kahn, Shulamit, and Megan MacGarvie. 2016. Do return requirements increase international knowledge diffusion? Evidence from the Fulbright program. Research Policy 45(6):1304-1322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.02.002

Prior to the 2000s, many European countries practiced something called “the professor's privilege” wherein university professors retained patent rights to inventions they made while employed at the university. This was a “privilege” because the norm is for patent ownership to be assigned to the organization that employs an inventor; professors were an exception to this norm. American universities, in contrast, had long followed a different approach, where patent rights were typically assigned to the university, who managed commercialization efforts. Professors then split the proceeds of commercializing their inventions with the university.There had long been a sense that commercialization of university research worked better in America, and in the 2000s a number of European countries reformed their laws to move them closer in spirit to the American system. Professors lost their privilege and universities got more into the commercialization game. If the goal of this reform was to encourage more professors to invent things that could be commercialized, several papers indicate this policy was a mistake.This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial version of the) article Incentives to Invent at Universities, originally published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles mentionedHvide, Hans K., and Benjamin F. Jones. 2018. University innovation and the professor's privilege. American Economic Review, 108 (7): 1860–98. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160284Ejermo, Olof, and Hannes Toivanen. 2018. University invention and the abolishment of the professor's privilege in Finland. Research Policy 47 (4): 814-825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.001.Czarnitzki, Dirk, Thorsten Doherr, Katrin Hussinger, Paula Schliessler, and Andrew A Toole. 2017. Individual versus institutional ownership of university-discovered inventions. USPTO Economic Working Paper No. 2017-07. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2995672Valentin, F., and R.L. Jensen. 2007. Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. J Technol Transfer 32: 251–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-9015-xOuellette, Lisa Larrimore, and Andrew Tutt. 2020. How do patent incentives affect university researchers? International Review of Law and Economics 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2019.105883.

With two Directors at NFPA - Michele Steinberg and Birgitte Messerschmidt, I'm trying to find an answer to a burning question - "what really is the WUI problem?" The WUI is not just a line on a map with an X distance from the forest... In this episode we try to define what it is, and who is in danger. Instead of our usual conversations looking into characteristics of burning forests, or seeking the impact of detailing in construction, in this episode we try to take a birds eye view and identify the problem across the scales and frameworks. From seeking out good definitions and their impact on policymaking, through technical solutions up to creating new testing and certification systems. So where are the answers? Actions across the scales at homeowner - community - regional levels, in which they are interconnected and optimal. A fireproof house in the middle of wrongfully managed area will not be of great difference… As well as a dangerous premise at the edge of the forest… The outcome of a WUI fire incoming will be an outcome of propper actions taken at every level.We need new solutions. Scallable ones. We need better testing and standardization, new listings. We need to find ways to involve the private sector and create interesting pathways for fire safety engineers to work with people at risk, at whatever scale. The future looks promising, let's make sure we are a part of it. Some recommended resources I received from my eminent Guests:Impact of smoke in WUI fires: https://www.nfpa.org/en/news-blogs-and-articles/nfpa-journal/2024/02/13/research-column-spring-24Defining the WUI: https://www.nfpa.org/news-blogs-and-articles/nfpa-journal/2024/04/30/defining-the-wuiPreparing homes for wildfire (home ignition zone): https://www.nfpa.org/en/education-and-research/wildfire/preparing-homes-for-wildfireThe Firewise USA Recognition program: https://www.nfpa.org/en/education-and-research/wildfire/firewise-usa/become-a-firewise-usa-siteOutthink Wildfire policy initiative: https://www.nfpa.org/en/Education-and-Research/Policy-and-Action/Outthink-Wildfire ----The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

On this episode, Heather Higginbottom, Head of Research Policy and Insights for JPMorgan Chase, joined Dr. Kathleen McInnis to discuss how she has anchored her work in humanizing the process behind refugee resettlement – from implementing special immigrant visas for Afghans while working at the U.S. Department of State to working with the Australian government resettling refugees on the islands of Naura and Manus. Heather has held senior positions at the highest levels of government, CARE USA, and now at JP Morgan Chase. This episode is made possible through general support to Smart Women, Smart Power.   https://www.csis.org/events/humanizing-refugee-resettlement  

The panel «State-of-the art: research, policy, expertise» is part of the “Climate Security and its Challenges” conference, organized by the Centre FrancoPaix of the Raoul Dandurand Chair and the Climate Security Association of Canada.With:Simon Dalby, Wilfrid Laurier UniversityMarcus King, Georgetown UniversityCullen Hendrix, Peterson Institute for International EconomicsSharon Burke, EcosphericsKatie Woodward, CCASCOEModerator: Bruno Charbonneau, Royal Military College Saint-JeanMore details about the conference: https://dandurand.uqam.ca/evenement/climate-security-and-its-challenges/

This episode brings Austrian economics into the gender identity discussion. We get into a lot of messy and fascinating questions about gender, identity, and social structures.  Read the paper here: https://cosmosandtaxis.files.wordpress.com/2023/10/malamet_novak_ct_vol11_iss11_12_epub.pdf Mikayla Novak is senior fellow with the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. She is the author of Inequality: An Entangled Political Economy Perspective (2018) and Freedom in Contention: Social Movements and Liberal Political Economy (2021). Her research work has been published in a range of academic journals, including Research Policy, Constitutional Political Economy, Review of Austrian Economics, Journal of Institutional Economics, and Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice. Mikayla's research interests include Austrian and evolutionary economics, public choice, entangled political economy, economic sociology, public finance, and regulatory economics. And listeners will recognize Akiva Malamet, a returning guest to the show. Akiva previously appeared on our June 2020 episode of Mutual Exchange Radio to discuss his work on Nationalism and Identity Formation. He is a contributing editor at Unpopulist and an MA candidate at Queens University, and a long-time friend of C4SS. 

The Citizen's Assembly on Drug Use says it wants to see a whole-government approach to the issue to help stem the increase in drug addiction. The group has published its final report, following what it calls the most comprehensive examination ever undertaken of drugs use in Ireland." The Assembly agreed on 36 recommendations on how to tackle the issue, including a degree of decriminalisation of some drugs for personal use. To discuss this further on Friday's Morning Focus, Alan Morrissey was joined by Michael Guerin, addiction counsellor at Cuan Mhuire in Bruree, and Julie McKenna, Novas' MidWest Head of Research Policy, who's involved with homeless drug programmes in Clare. Photo (c) by Getty Images Pro via Canva

While we have previously explored the question of narcissism and the dark triad of personality traits on the Brain for Business podcast, the question of how narcissistic leaders impact on overall organisational performance is something we are yet to consider in great detail. Yet this is exactly what our guests today, Professor Thanos Verousis of Vlerick Business School and Professor Pietro Perotti of the University of Bath, examine in a recent paper co-authored with Shee-Yee Khoo of Bangor Business School and Richard Watermeyer of the University of Bristol. To do this they examine the narcissism of university vice chancellors in the context of the overall performance of their universities. While this might perhaps seem a little obscure to those outside academia, Vice Chancellors are ultimately the CEOs of large and complex organisations and the transferrable insights are many.Key findings include:The appointment of a highly narcissistic VC leads to an overall deterioration in research and teaching performance and concomitantly league table performanceKey potential mechanisms explaining this include excessive financial risk taking and empire-buildingThe findings are consistent with the view that narcissism is one of the most prominent traits of destructive leadershipThere are practical implications for leadership recruitment and the monitoring of leadership practices in the higher education sector The article discussed - Vice-chancellor narcissism and university performance – can be accessed here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733323001853 About our guests…Thanos Verousis is a Professor in Sustainable Finance at Vlerick Business School, Associate Editor at the Journal of Futures Markets and the European Journal of Finance. In his research he is particularly interested in understanding behavioural biases and decision-making in finance, especially with respect to departures from the classical rational expectations theory. Thanos also works on Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications in finance, especially in applications involving machine learning and robo-advising. You can find out more about Thanos's research here: https://sites.google.com/site/thanosverousis/Pietro Perotti is a Senior Lecturer, or Associate Professor, at the University of Bath. Pietro researches the capital market consequences of accounting information, financial reporting quality and market microstructure. Pietro's research has been published in a range of leading journals including Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. Research Policy, Journal of Accounting Literature, Journal of Empirical Finance and Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting.You can find out more about Pietro's research here: https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/persons/pietro-perotti Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What do we mean by “innovation”? Why do we need it? How can companies and societies encourage it? To answer these questions, Pedro Pinto interviews Niron Hashai in this episode of “It's Not That Simple”, a podcast by the Francisco Manuel dos Santos Foundation. An expert on innovation and entrepreneurship, Hashai is a Full Professor at the Arison School of Business, The Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel. He currently serves as the school's Dean. Hashai obtained his BSc in Computer Science from the Technion and his MBA and PhD from Tel Aviv University. His research was published in top strategy, management, international business, and innovation journals, including Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management, Research Policy, Strategic Management Journal and Strategy Science, and he on the boards of the Strategic Management Journal, Journal of International Business Studies, and the Global Strategy Journal, among others. Before joining the Interdisciplinary Center, Hashai was a tenured faculty member at the School of Business Administration of the Hebrew University, where he also served as Vice Dean, Head of the Asper Center for Entrepreneurship, Head of the Strategy and Entrepreneurship area, the Academic Director of the EMBA program and held the Albertson-Waltuch Chair in Business Administration. Hashai is also a visiting Professor at the University of Manchester and an associate member at the John H. Dunning Research Centre, University of Reading. He has also held visiting positions at the Stern School of Business, New York University, the Blavatnik School of Government, the University of Oxford and Leeds University Business School. Hashai is co-founder and advisory board member of the Israel Strategy Conference (ISC). In this episode, Hashai explains how innovation is born of an openness to “disobey your superiors”, while also being able to collaborate with your coworkers. He stresses the importance of risk-taking and of one's willingness to fail to innovate, while “not failing too much”. Hashai also describes what a “culture of innovation” looks like: he gives some examples of companies that innovated and thereby improved their businesses, before examining the kind of corporate structure that can foster that kind of innovation. Later in this episode, he also discusses the dangers of “innovation for innovation's sake” Finally, he considers the potential benefits and dangers of Artificial Intelligence, in a conversation well worth listening to. More on this topic The Future of Foreign Direct Investment and the Multinational Enterprise, Niron Hashai (with Ravi Ramamurti, eds.) 2011 FDI, International Trade and the Economics of Peacemaking, Niron Hashai (with Tamar Almor, eds.), 2000 Niron Hashai's study on “Within-industry diversification and firm performance” Niron Hashai's study on “Sequencing the Expansion of Geographic Scope and Foreign Operations by 'Born Global' Firms” Niron Hashai's study on “How Outsourcing Affects Technological Knowledge Exploration Niron Hashai's study (with Sarit Markovich) on “The Effect of Competition Level and Startup Innovativeness”

In this episode of Beyond the Jargon, Karen talks with Dr. Lisa Schelbe, Director of the Child Well-Being Research Network and Associate Professor at Florida State University, about the importance of collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and practitioners—and why that collaboration is sometimes difficult to achieve.  "Transition to Adulthood for Youth Leaving Care Can Be Made Smoother, Safe"https://youthtoday.org/2019/06/transition-to-adulthood-for-youth-leaving-care-can-be-made-smoother-safer/ 

Join us today on a special podcast episode discussing the JAG June 2023 Special Issue: "New Horizons in Ageism Research: Innovation in Study Design, Methodology, and Applications to Research, Policy, and Practice". Featuring discussion with Liat Ayalon, Angela Kydd and Ittay Mannheim. You can find the special issue here: Volume 42 Issue 6, June 2023

Are you interested in how cities and entrepreneurship are connected? Summary of the article titled Entrepreneurship in cities from 2021 by Sam Tavassoli, Martin Oschonka, and David B. Audretsch, published in the Research Policy journal. Since we are investigating the future of cities, I thought it would be interesting to see how cities influence entrepreneurship and vice versa. This article presents which are the best performing cities in terms of knowledge spillovers and economic performance. As the most important things, I would like to highlight 3 aspects: The extent of density and diversity matters greatly in shaping economic vitality – meaning quality entrepreneurship. It is not just firms and industries that matter for knowledge spillovers, but ultimately the people who differ from one another not just in terms of human capital but in their personalities too, which is a key ingredient driving knowledge spillovers. What may really matter is how people in cities unlock their agentic tendencies to help turn a favourable city environment into economic outputs. You can find the article through this link. Abstract: Impactful, growth-oriented entrepreneurship is a major research and policy focus. Building on arguments put forward by Jane Jacobs more than 50 years ago, we propose that local knowledge spillovers in a city are enhanced by human agency in that city (e.g. local psychological openness). This effect is critically amplified by the catalyst function of a favorable structural city environment that not only connects these agentic people (via urban density), but also facilitates the production and flow of new knowledge for these connected agentic people (via a diverse industry mix). This three-way interaction effect was confirmed in our empirical investigation of quality entrepreneurship across the MSAs (cities) in the US, using a large-scale dataset of the psychological profiles of millions of people. Local openness shows a robust positive effect on the level of quality entrepreneurship. This effect is further strengthened by a favorable structural city environment (i.e. high density and diversity) by up to 35%. Reviving Jacobs' people focus, the results indicate that the best performing cities in terms of knowledge spillovers and economic performance are those that are not only home to, and attract, agentic people, but also empower these people by means of a physical and industrial city landscape that enables them to act in more innovative and entrepreneurial ways, as envisioned by Jacobs. We discuss the policy implications of our findings and an agenda for future research. Connecting episodes you might be interested in: No.090 - Interview with Professor Matthew McCartney about economic sides of cities; No.108 - Interview with Dr Anthony Kent about economic geography; No.129 - Interview with Alan Donegan about entrepreneurship and city connections; You can find the transcript through this link. What wast the most interesting part for you? What questions did arise for you? Let me know on Twitter @WTF4Cities or on the wtf4cities.com website where the shownotes are also available. I hope this was an interesting episode for you and thanks for tuning in. Music by Lesfm from Pixabay

People rag on peer review a lot (including, occasionally, New Things Under the Sun). Yet it remains one of the most common ways to allocate scientific resources, whether those be R&D dollars or slots in journals. Is this all a mistake? Or does peer review help in its purported goal to identify the science most likely to have an impact and hence, perhaps most deserving of some of those limited scientific resources?A simple way to check is to compare peer review scores to other metrics of subsequent scientific impact; does peer review predict eventual impact?A number of studies find it does. This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial version of the) article What does peer review know?, originally published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles mentionedLi, Danielle, and Leila Agha. 2015. Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science 348(6233): 434-438. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa0185Park, Hyunwoo, Jeongsik (Jay) Lee, and Byung-Cheol Kim. 2015. Project selection in NIH: A natural experiment from ARRA. Research Policy 44(6): 1145-1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.03.004.Card, David, and Stefano DellaVigna. 2020. What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Economics Journals. The Review of Economics and Statistics 102(1): 195-217. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00839Siler, Kyle, Kirby Lee, and Lisa Bero. 2014. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. PNAS 112(2): 360-365. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418218112Teplitskiy, Misha, and Von Bakanic. 2016. Do Peer Reviews Predict Impact? Evidence from the American Sociological Review, 1978 to 1982. Socius, 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023116640278

It's absolutely bonkers we don't talk more about Nigerian research policy! Have you ever said that to yourself or your colleagues? No! Well, you should. Nigeria is Africa's largest economy and the country with the largest population on the continent as well. And in 2050 it will have the 3rd largest population in the world. So an important country that will only grow in importance. We were slightly embarrassed that we knew next to nothing about the country's research policy and used the country's presidential elections as an occasion to learn more, so we had a chat with Dr Mustapha Popoola Ayo, who's quite the expert on the topic. And we talked research policy broadly, infrastructure, funding and international collaboration. It is an inspirational and informative chat. This is not our last episode exploring research policies in countries we don't necessarily talk about in that context. There will be more to follow.This episode was produced and edited by Arthur Deligne.You can read more about Mustapha's new project at: www.s2nigeria.comYou can find him on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mustapha-ayo-phd-01599061/Or on Twitter as:  @greeners_s2bThanks for listening. Please share, rate, review and follow us on Twitter @Divrespod .If you're interested in our work with diversity and internationalisation in research, please visit www.diversiunity.com.

Chatting to Dr. Denise Mifsud about her experiences in leadership was an absolute treat. Denise is currently Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Bath, and has over two decades of practitioner experience in education settings in both teaching and high-level leadership roles within the Maltese Ministry for Education. Denise brings a unique viewpoint through her experiences working in research, policy, and practice and is extremely generous in sharing her knowledge about this "triage". She speaks about the importance of choosing the good, leading from the ground, and the need to work towards social justice and equity in schools.

University of Colorado-Boulder professors Jeff York and Brad Werner distill entrepreneurship research into actionable insights. CREATIVE DISTILLATION Jeff York | Associate Professor | Research Director
jeffrey.york@colorado.edu Brad Werner | Instructor | Teaching Director
walter.werner@colorado.edu Deming Center for Entrepreneurship | CU Leeds School of Business
303.492.9018 | deming@colorado.edu -- EPISODE 38: Desiree Pacheco (IESE) on Social Movements, Entrepreneurial Action and the US Solar Energy Industry This time, we're still at The Deming Center in CU's Leeds School of Business, discussing academic research with Desiree Pacheco, Assoc. Prof. of Entrepreneurship AT IESE in Barcelona, Spain, and co-author of a paper titled, “Social movements and entrepreneurial activity: A study of the US solar energy industry." The paper is published in Research Policy. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Theodore-Khoury/publication/363565142_Social_movements_and_entrepreneurial_activity_A_study_of_the_US_solar_energy_industry/links/633357e45d1e2d53d9a0f566/Social-movements-and-entrepreneurial-activity-A-study-of-the-US-solar-energy-industry.pdf Learn more about Desiree Pacheco: https://www.iese.edu/faculty-research/faculty/desiree-pacheco/ Learn more about CU's Deming Center for Entrepreneurship: https://deming.colorado.edu Comments/criticism/suggestions/feedback? We'd love to hear it. Drop us a note at CDpodcast@colorado.edu. Thanks for listening. -
An Analog Digital Arts Production for the Deming Center for Entrepreneurship
Produced, recorded and edited by Joel Davis "Whiskey Before Breakfast" [Traditional] performed by Jeffrey York and Brad Werner. Recorded, mixed and mastered by George Figgs.

Talent is spread equally over the planet, but opportunity is not. Today I want to look at some papers that try to quantify the costs to science and innovation from barriers to immigration. Specifically, let's look at a set of papers on what happens to individuals with the potential to innovate when they immigrate versus when they do not. (See my post Importing Knowledge for some discussion on the impact of immigration on native scientists and inventors)This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial version of the) article Innovators Who Immigrate, originally published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles Mentioned:Agarwal, Ruchir and Patrick Gaule. 2020. Invisible Geniuses: Could the Knowledge Frontier Advance Faster? American Economic Review: Insights 2(4): 409-24. https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20190457Agarwal, Ruchir, Ina Ganguli, Patrick Gaule, and Geoff Smith. 2023. Why U.S. immigration matters for the global advancement of science. Research Policy 52(1): 104659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104659Gibson, John and David McKenzie. 2014. Scientific mobility and knowledge networks in high emigration countries: Evidence from the Pacific. Research Policy 43(9): 1486-1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.005Kahn, Shulamit, and Megan J. MacGarvie. 2016. How Important is U.S. Location for Research in Science? The Review of Economics and Statistics 98(2): 397-414. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00490Shi, Dongbo, Weichen Liu, and Yanbo Wang. 2023. Has China's Young Thousand Talents Program been successful in recruiting and nurturing top-caliber scientists? Science 379(6627): 62-65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq1218Prato, Marta. 2022. The Global Race for Talent: Brain Drain, Knowledge Transfer, and Growth. Job market paper. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4287268

This episode will be hosted by Elvira Uyarra, Professor of Innovation Studies at Alliance Manchester Business School. In recent years, and in response to major societal challenges such as climate change, migration, or food and energy security, innovation policy has both broadened its scope for action and widened the goals it is expected to address. This implies a shift from generic and primarily R&D-based innovation support measures towards a new (or third) ‘generation' of innovation policy - variously referred to as challenge-led, mission-orientated or transformative innovation policies. A more targeted and challenge-oriented innovation policy should, it is argued, help to deliver desired, and not just more, innovations. This implies a more active role of the state in funding risk-taking activities and in creating - not just correcting - markets. Whilst there is much agreement that bolder, more customised and directional policies are needed to tackle the societal challenges of our time, there is less consensus about how such policies should be implemented in practice. Drawing from her personal research journey, Professor Uyarra will discuss the rationales, challenges and particularly the key role of ‘place' in this new policy agenda. Elvira Uyarra is Professor of Innovation Studies at Alliance Manchester Business School (University of Manchester) where she is also Director of the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research. Her research sits at the intersection between innovation studies, policy studies and regional studies and has in the last few years focused on topics such as the role of universities in regional development, the role of regions in new generation innovation policies and the innovation impacts of public procurement. She has authored more than 40 scholarly articles in leading journals in geography, innovation studies and management, including Research Policy, Technovation, Regional Studies and Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Her work has been funded by the UK Research Council, international organisations (such as EU, OECD, IADB), and numerous national and regional bodies internationally. She is a Fellow of the Regional Studies Association (RSA) and editor of the journal Regional Studies. This episode will be facilitated by Philip McCann, Professor of Urban & Regional Economics at Alliance MBS.

The conversation continues between Professor Paul Dimitri, our Vice President for Science & Research, and Emily Arkell, Director of Research & Policy, as they dive into one of our aims of the College strategy 2021-24. In the first part, Paul outlined the state of child health research in the UK. Now he looks at what we can do about it - from recognising the need to focus on children to capitalising on new technologies that can revolutionise patient care. He discusses what the College is doing, including our national clinical audits, the quality improvement resource, QI Central, partnership in the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit and range of fellowships and awards. And he gives an insight into how he started in research, and how you might, too! Our 2023 research awards are open for applications until 19 December - take a look and apply! Download transcript We'd love to hear what you think about our podcasts - and what you want us to produce next. Our survey takes just five to 10 minutes! Complete our survey

Pasha Mahmood is a Professor at the National University of Singapore (NUS) Business School where he studies and works with multinational firms and local enterprises on their emerging market strategies. He is a member of the World Economic Forum's international panel of experts, acting as the co-curator for the ASEAN Transformation Map. Pasha obtained his B.A. in Economics from Oberlin College and his Ph.D. from Harvard University. Prior to joining academia, he had worked as a management consultant for Gemini in Chicago. From 2012 to 2015, Pasha was a Professor of Strategy and Innovation at the IMD Business School in Switzerland. He has also held several Visiting Professor appointments at universities such as Waseda and Hitotsubashi in Japan, and St. Gallen in Switzerland. Pasha's work looks at the interface between innovation and strategy in the context of emerging markets. He won the Haynes Prize by the Academy of International Business (AIB). In 2014, Pasha also won the Aspen Award by the Aspen Institute for promoting sustainable business models in his research and teaching. His recent case on bKash, a fintech firm in Bangladesh, won the bestselling case award in 2021 from Ivey Publications. Pasha's research has been published at leading management journals including Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS), Management Science, Organization Science, Research Policy, Strategic Management Journal, etc. He has also served as an Area Editor for JIBS from 2010-2013 and as a Senior Editor for the Management Organization Review from 2013-2015. Literature, history, coffee, and train rides are some of his passions. It is the opportunity to be useful to his students and colleagues that excites Pasha the most about his job as a business school professor. Visit https://www.aib.world/frontline-ib/ishtiaq-pasha-mahmood/ for the original video interview.  

We consider the importance of research to clinical practice in child health. This is the first of a two-part conversation between Professor Paul Dimitri, our Vice President for Science & Research, and Emily Arkell, Director of Research & Policy - and the fourth of our 'in conversation' series on the College strategy 2021-24. One of our aims is to harness knowledge, data and intelligence to improve the quality of care in paediatrics, and we do this through a range of quality improvement programmes and support of child health research. Almost a quarter of England's population is under 20 years of age, but they consume just 11% of the NHS budget. Just 5% of health research in the UK over a recent five-year period was on children and young people, and there are fewer clinical academic paediatricians than 10 years ago. So how can we encourage investment in child health research? Download full transcript We'd love to hear what you think about our podcasts - and what you want us to produce next. Our survey takes just five to 10 minutes! Complete our survey Look out for part 2 soon!

Zongyuan Zoe Liu, fellow for international political economy at CFR, leads the conversation on global economics. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to today's session of the Fall 2022 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have Zongyuan Zoe Liu with us to talk about global economics. Dr. Liu is a fellow for international political economy at CFR. She previously served as an instructional assistant professor at Texas A&M's Bush School of Government and Public Service in Washington, D.C. And before that, she completed postdoctoral fellowships at the Columbia-Harvard China and the World program and the Center for International Environment and Research Policy at Tufts University. She served as a research fellow and research associate at many institutions—the Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies, NYU's Stern Center for Sustainable Business, and at the Institute for International Monetary Affairs in Tokyo. Dr. Liu is the author of Can BRICS De-dollarize the Global Financial System?, published by Cambridge University Press; and Sovereign Funds: How the Communist Party of China Finances its Global Ambitions, forthcoming in 2023 by Harvard University Press. So we will stay tuned for that. So, Dr. Liu, thank you very much for being with us. This is a very broad topic, but it would be great if you could give us your analysis of the state of the global economy today. LIU: Yeah, thank you very much, Irina, for inviting me to do this. I really, truly appreciate the opportunity to engage with our college and national universities, both the faculties and the students. This makes me feel I'm very much still part of the academia community. So thank you very much, Irina, and thank you, everybody, for tuning in today. So I wanted to begin by saying that as an economist one thing that I learned is that we are very bad at making forecasting. And, once that forecasting is already very bad, but—and forget about the long run. But that being said, I hope our conversation today can at least exchange some perspectives in terms of how we think about global economy and how we think about some policy-relevant natures. So the first—I will begin by saying two statement, and then I will delve into it. The first statement I would say that I'm afraid that geopolitics probably would make economic forecasting, which is already a very difficult business, but geopolitics would likely make this business even more difficult going forward. And this is because global economic prospect will be more influenced by geopolitics and geopolitical tensions, in addition to pure supply and demand. So that is to say, for our—all our college students and our graduate students, who are either pursuing a political science degree, international relations, or economics, or anybody who are vaguely interested in understanding global economics, now this is the time to realize, well, the models may not—the models had their limitations before, and their limitations are probably going to be even more pronounced going forward. The pure supply-demand dimensions—price is set in certain ways—probably are not necessarily going to go that way. One such example would be the European Union and the United States are considering putting a price cap on Russian oil. And what does that mean? That probably means, well, it almost feel like for a long period of time there was this global cartel called the OPEC or OPEC+. These are the so-called sellers' cartel. And they have the power, the monopolistic power almost, in terms of setting the price of oil in the global market. But now we are probably going to see the other part of the story, which is what about a global buyers' cartel? And that is essentially what a price cap means. So long story short, I think geopolitics would play a lot into our analysis of global economics forecasting going forward. And then my second sort of quick statement would be in terms of global economic status today. I would say the key—like, let me take a step back. When we think about economic development, we tend to think about factors of production. Like, for our—again, for our students who probably learned this at the beginning of the semester, this is the time to refresh your concept. But key factors of production—one is resource, the other is technology, and then the other is labor. In terms of resources, you can think about natural resources as well as capital. So these three fundamental factors of production, I would say, they are all going through a period of changes. And these changes are not necessarily in a good way. So that, long story short, a lot of the changes now in global economic conditions may not necessarily be good. And I'm happy to go into a detailed analysis of why resources are not necessarily changing in a good way, or technology, or in terms of labor and demographics. But I'm also happy to stop here and then sort of answer questions or explain further going forward as well. FASKIANOS: Great. We will go to all of you to ask your questions. (Gives queuing instructions.) So we already have a question. It's from Fordham University. Raised hand. So you're going to tell us—have to tell us who you are and unmute yourself, or accept the unmute prompt. There you go. Q: Can you hear me? FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: OK, great. Yes, so I'm a third-year student at Fordham University. My name is Valerie Bejjani. And my question for you, Dr. Liu, pertains to your paper—your Cambridge-published paper—about non-dollar alternatives, which I find very fascinating. And it made me think about something I read for an international political economy class about how Keynes first introduced a non-dollar alternative called the bancor during the Bretton Woods Conference, but the U.S. shot it down. So I was curious about your opinion on this, whether you think it was a mistake for the U.S. not to accept it, and what you think the implications—the historical implications are for BRICS countries today that are trying to devise their own non-dollar alternatives? LIU: Thank you very much, Valerie, for your great question. And I have to—since we're on the record—I just have to say, this is not a planted question. (Laughs.) And I very much appreciate that you've given me the opportunity to talk about the research that I did before. So just a quick background about that research that I did, I finished the research last year—yeah, last year in the summer, in July. So when I submitted my manuscript, there was a review process, right? And then that was the moment when not everybody were interested in SWIFT, in SPFS, in China's cross-border banking—Cross-Border Payment System, or CIPS. So a lot of these alphabetic soups that everybody here are familiar with now, last year before Russia's invasion of Ukraine nobody was even interested. And one of the reviewers was even telling—had a comment there saying that, well, you know, don't necessarily think that these are good examples that deserve to—so many real estate. (Laughs.) But and then my publisher somehow engineered it such that my—that Cambridge publication came out right on the day of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which was—that was—as a researcher, you probably can never hope the timing in that way. So going back to your question, Valerie, I would say I highly appreciate that you raised the question. And I respect that—highly respect that you are already getting yourself familiarized with Keynesian and all the other historically speaking alternative monetary system or monetary concept as well. So that's all good. So keep doing what you are doing now and I look forward to continuing our conversation going forward. So your question, if I understand it correctly, so is it a good idea for the United States to shut it down, right? So I mean, if I were—I was obviously not in the policymaking room in those days, but I can certainly understand why the United States would want to maintain the dollar's dominant currency status in the global financial system. That's because if you are able to—if the dollar were the dominant currency, in the existing dollar—in the existing global financial system, that basically means on the one hand we can issue debt cheaply. And that literally means the U.S. Treasury is the proxy for risk re-asset. That has huge implications not just for our government debt and our physical expenditure. It also has a tremendous amount of stabilizing factor for our domestic financial institutions and the expansion of our banks in the international market. So from both public perspective and the international perspective, those are good. And the United States has, from a policymaking perspective, all our financial policymakers had their right to shut it down. Now, but if you ask this question from an alternative perspective—say, if you ask the question for—to, let's say, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney—former governor. If you ask him, he would probably tell you, well, this is a terrible idea that the United States would shut it off, because he specifically said in 2019 at the Jackson Hole symposium, when all the major central bankers were gathered in the big hall and talking about monetary policies, he was the one standing in front of everybody saying that, well, it's a terrible idea to have one single currency, which is the U.S. dollar, to dominate the global financial and monetary system. That is the reason why the system is not stable, hence we need to have an alternative system. Like a basket currency or something like that. So, if you ask people like him, he would be—like, be in favor of the diversity—of a more diversified global monetary system. And again, if you ask the countries like China or, for that matter, Russia or Iran, they would be way much more in favor of a much more diversified monetary system as well. And that may not necessarily, from, exchange rate perspective, exchange rate risk is an important aspect, but the more important aspect probably is from the geopolitical hegemonic power of the U.S. dollar. Which means, the U.S. sanctioning power really resides in the dollar being the dominant currency. So right now, we hear about U.S. can sanction Russia, sanction other countries. How that is being executed, it is literally being executed by our banks no longer processing the bank transactions of all the Russian banks. Hence, when people talk about kicking Russia off the SWIFT system, it's not just that the transaction cannot go out. It literally means in practice nobody can send a message with Russian banks. Like, there was no communication. So the entire dollar system is based upon the SWIFT system, which 90 percent of the messaging to process the transactions are using dollar. And then, because the expansive power of our U.S. banks, it literally means all international trade literally has to be settled—the settlement has to be done by U.S. bank, who has U.S. dollars. And in order to access that transaction mechanism, only SWIFT can get the job done. You also have to literally tap into either the Fedwire System or the CHIPS system, which is the clearinghouse system based here in New York. So in order for this whole system—in order to have this whole system to make your dollar payment work, you literally have to maintain on the one hand a connection, on the other hand have connections with the dollar settlement system. And that's why when Russia was kicked out of SWIFT, a lot of other countries who are not necessarily on the good side of the United States started to get worried because people used to think, well, kicking somebody—kicking some banks off the SWIFT system is almost the financial version of a nuclear bomb. It's the nuclear option of cutting somebody from the international financial system, of which the U.S. dollar is the dominant currency, the primary invoicing currency as well. And then on the other hand, lesson learned from this sanction experience, especially from the perspective of China, is that, well, previously we've already laid out a lot of this planning system—meaning the infrastructure used to internationalize the renminbi, such as the China—the China's CIPS system. Policymakers inside China started to wonder, well, since the planning is already there, it's not too much to ask just to add additional function. So the previously, from a functional-wise, China's renminbi payment infrastructure is really not about bypassing sanctions, because in my research I realized when—I interviewed people who actually participated in the designing of the system. And I remember talking to three people on three different occasions, and they all mentioned one point, which is without the CIPS system, the international using of renminbi, really—the user experience was really, really terrible. And the reason it was terrible was simply because there are more than two thousand of small and medium-size banks in China. You are familiar with the big four—ICBC, Bank of China and all that—but those are the major banks. More Chinese bank—more than two thousand of the smaller Chinese banks, they don't have a direct connection with the SWIFT system. Which basically means in order to make transactions across border, it really takes time and the cost of transactions are extremely high. Therefore, in order to improve user experience, they literally had to design a system that can facilitate this cross-border transaction. But when geopolitics plays into it, especially since 2018 when U.S.-China trade war started to get really escalated to a higher level, a lot of those conversations started domestically. And then Russia's invasion of Ukraine really accelerated this whole process. So I hope that sort of give you a broader—it's a long answer, but I hope that gives you a deeper understanding of what has been going on, and what are the—what are the instrument—the functions of the instrument. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. I'm going to take a written question from Abraham—he goes by Abe—Borum. Dr. Liu, you mentioned OPEC within the context of NATO and the U.S. efforts to limit Russia energy policy. What are the second- to third-order effects on other sectors of global markets? And Abe is a graduate student at the National Intelligence University. LIU: Abe, that's a great question, I have to say. And I would strongly encourage everybody here, especially our undergrad and graduate students—to think not just the first-order or direct impact, but also the second-order effect. So I appreciate this question, because then you give me a little bit opportunity to elaborate on why I think on the natural resource aspect our global economy is not necessarily heading towards the right direction. So just tie back into Abe's question to begin with, right now since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the hydrocarbon prices, and more specifically oil prices, oil prices have been increasing. Although in recent—in recent weeks, it has relatively been stabilized a little bit, but it's still way much higher than pre-pandemic, that would be 2019, right, Irina? 2019, right? (Laughs.) My timeline is all blurred. So I checked this morning, price might have changed slightly. But when I checked it this morning Brent today, this morning when I checked, it was trading about $88 per barrel. And remember in 2019 what the price was? That was something around—the average price in 2019, that was $64. So we are literally talking about more than $20 per barrel more expensive. And then WTI, that is, what, U.S. benchmark, right? WTI was trading at $96 per barrel – close to 96 (dollars). Like 95.99, something like that. And in 2019, Brent was trading on average $57 per barrel. So close to double. So higher energy prices, that basically would directly translate into higher production costs across the board for energy—because every sector need energy, whether it is electricity, whether it is other types of energy. So it directly translate into higher electricity prices. This is important for the United States. This is very relevant for the European Union as well. So higher production costs would literally raise the price of the output. And that is going to further exacerbate the inflationary pressure. And that is going to make the Federal Reserve, and the ECB, and the Bank of England measures to curb inflation even more difficult. And then on the other hand, I also wanted to mention that right now the added layer of geopolitics making this even more difficult. We already see this happening, which is, Biden made his trip to Saudi Arabia, but it did not get the intended consequence or intended result, which is trying to get Saudi Arabia and OPEC in general to stabilize the global oil market. And OPEC+, about a week ago, decided that they are going to cut their production by about two million barrels per day. That is about the daily consumption of, I believe it's China, or something like that. So from that perspective, by limiting production, that is going to further—that is from a pure supply/demand perspective, right? If we hold supply—we hold demand constant and if you reduce the supply, that is going to further raise the upward pressure for the prices. So geopolitics is probably going to further put upward pressure for the prices as well. And then finally, the final point I would want to make there is that right now OPEC countries—OPEC+ countries in particular—they might be—have this existential threat, which is the net zero transition. Right now, what is most valuable for Russia, or for Iran, for UAE, for Saudi Arabia—their most valuable export comes from hydrocarbon. It could be oil. It could be natural gas. So in the long run, when the entire global economy moved to zero dependence on hydrocarbon, that basically means for Russia—that's probably more close to 70 percent of their GDP and government revenue. That is going to be gone. Think about how the Russian economy can make up that much amount of revenue in the short run? That's very difficult to think about, especially these days. And this can be applied for countries like Saudi Arabia as well. Therefore, these countries—these hydrocarbon-exporting countries—they have this existential threat. Which is their most valuable export might become no longer valuable in the long run. So that's why they are—they are inherently very interested in carving a closer relationship and, more importantly, a relatively stable relationship with their stable buyers. And the buyers these days are going to not necessarily be the United States because, you've heard all these stories about the U.S. are energy independent and so on and so forth. But, you know, we can—that's a different story. And when people say U.S. is very largely energy independent, there are so many reasons that argument can be rebutted. But let me just say, U.S. does not necessarily consume a lot of energy from—exported by Saudi Arabia. But who does? China and India. So right now, China's largest energy—in terms of volume—largest energy supplier is Russia. But in terms of pure monetary value that China actually pays, and the largest receiver of Chinese money for energy, that is Saudi Arabia. Therefore, earlier this year you probably read the news about Saudi Arabia might consider allowing renminbi to pay for Saudi oil. There might be more opportunity in there, because they might be very interested, especially MBS, because of all his behaviors, might expose a lot of the Saudis individuals under U.S. sanctions. And on the other hand, China already established a renminbi denominated oil futures market. And that—although, the volume today is relatively—the volume today is relatively low, but the growth is very rapidly. So if all these major oil-exporting countries hypothetically—if they decided to suddenly switch their—the pricing of their oil overnight into renminbi instead of the dollar, we could potentially see the dollar's pricing power and invoicing power in global trade would be diminished. And that is because the infrastructure, the facility is already there. Although the volume of renminbi-denominated oil futures is still relatively low, the plumbing is there. And once you have the plumbing there, there is no way to go back. So now what the United States should do is to make sure that everybody is still very much interested in maintaining the existing dollar-based system and maintaining the pricing of commodity using U.S. dollar. And that brings in the discussion about putting an oil price to Russian oil instead of just a wholesale sanction of Russian oil. As long as we are putting a price cap to it, that basically means we are—yes, we are hurting Russian export, but still we are allowing Russian oil flowing into the international market. That still makes the dollar's pricing power in global commodities relevant. So from that perspective, I think it's the right move to preserve the dollar system. But on the other hand, those countries that are not—again, not necessarily on the geopolitical good side of the United States, they do have the intention to hedge against the risk of being sanctioned. And they need the—they need buyers to buy whatever that they have are valuable today. I hope that makes sense to you. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. I'm going to take the next question, a spoken question, from Dr. Seebal Aboudounya, an associate lecturer at the University of College London. You can correct me on the pronunciation of your name. Q: Yes. Hi. The pronunciation is perfect. Thank you very much. So I have two students here from the international public policy program. And they would like to ask questions. So I will just hand over to them. Thank you. Q: Hi, professor. I'm Cici and I'm a graduate student from UCL. I'm really glad you can give me a speech and answer my questions. And I want to ask questions about Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). As we all know, that Belt and Road Initiative has employment more than ten years, since 2013. And it seems as the most important foreign policy for China and their President Xi. And it has already achieved many success. So I want to ask, what's the core purpose of Belt and Road Initiative, and how can we evaluate it? And do the countries in BRI view it in a positive or a negative way? Thank you. Q: Thank you very much. And the second student will now ask a question. Q: Hi, Doctor. My question is, what's the future of global economy under the impact of Ukraine war, China-U.S. competition, and COVID-19? Thank you. Q: Thank you very much. LIU: All right. Thank you very much, Professor Aboudounya. And let me just being with the first question from Cici, right? Thank you very much, Cici, for asking this important question. And I'm so glad that you are asking something about BRI, because I do think it's important for people to understand this whole Chinese initiative. You are absolutely right that the BRI is a very important Chinese foreign policy initiative. And I would even say that the BRI is—or, the Belt and Road Initiative—is Chinese President Xi Jinping, his signature foreign policy initiative during his first two terms. Now he just recently got his—as the general secretary of the party—he just got this third term. So we'll see how BRI being played out going forward. But at least during his first term as the president of China and as the party general of the Chinese Communist Party, that was his signature foreign policy initiative, or grand strategy, if you will. So in terms of what it is and how we think about it, those are great questions. So there are very simple answer to say—to describe what BRI is. You can think about it as a global-spanning infrastructure project. So that's what it looks like. If you just put—if you just—if we have an Excel spreadsheet and we just look at, at least all the—every single project that BRI has been doing, it's really about infrastructure. And more specifically, more than 70 percent of BRI infrastructure projects are related to energy, are energy-related infrastructure projects. Therefore, you can also think about BRI as infrastructure orientated and combined with the idea of establishing China's access to global energy resources. And then, if you think about it from China's domestic perspective, why Xi Jinping decided to start this BRI initiative and what are the connections of the BRI with previous Chinese policies? I would say the reason—fundamental reason why Xi Jinping started this BRI was because of the fundamental domestic problem which is the overcapacity in China's production sector, especially steel, concrete, and a lot of these infrastructure-related sectors. And that takes place after global financial crisis, and then China's spending four trillion—four trillion yuan to stimulate its economy, and it created the major overcapacity issue at home. And the international economy—or international demand or demand from outside of China was not enough—or especially the Western market like United States or European market, they were not growing as fast to be able to absorb China's overcapacity. Therefore China really have to think about how to distribute in a broader global market to solve its overcapacity issue. So Xi Jinping, in one of his meetings, he had this saying—and I think it's very revealing, so I quote him. So he did say this, and I translate it, obviously, into English. So he said: Our overcapacity problem might be other countries—might be beneficial to other countries. In other word, we are producing a lot of this stuff that we do not use, and we are losing money. But if we are able to sell it to other countries, that might be good for them and good for us, as well. So that was—could we—if we give him the benefit of the doubt, is that a good way—is that a good intent? Sure. If we give him the benefit of the doubt, if everything he implemented perfectly, that could be mutually beneficial. And indeed, if you look at all these BRI forums or BRI summit, a lot of these are related to improve their connectedness, solve overcapacity issue, and even BR specific government-to-government level industrial production coordination fund. In other word, if government are establishing lots of money to coordinate—so much you are going to produce, how much I am supposed to produce. The idea is really to tackle the problem of overcapacity. But again, reality when you are looking at how this is being implemented, nowadays it varies. There's a very good Rhodium Group report that you probably—if you just google Rhodium Group BRI, they have this report analyzing the BRI lending. And that's where BRI really come into—really encountered a lot of problem. So you are probably familiar with the whole narrative of the data trap, so depending upon who you are talking to—so if you talk with—if you talk to Chinese project managers, or if you talk to Professor Deborah Bräutigam at SAIS/Johns Hopkins who runs the China Africa Research Initiative—if you talk to folks like them, they might tell you, well, you know, it's really not about the data trap but really speaks to the fact that China is really, really inexperienced in terms of the development finance and in terms of lending, and that the reason is that they really have a limited capacity to do, on the one hand, the environmental impact assessment. Many of these—you will be shocked. Many of these projects they do not even have a real environmental impact assessment. And on the other hand, because a lot of these lendings are directly being lent out by Chinese policy banks—and more specifically, if you look at Africa, that would be China import and export bank, they have a limited capacity to evaluate all these business plans. And I remember talking to a project manager in Mali, so I asked him, have you interacted with all those folks on how you do your—how you do your bidding in order to get the money. So this person, he was very frank with me, and he said, well, I understand how the—I understand how they want the number to look like in order to give me the loan, so I just cook the numbers so that I can get the loan. In other word, there is not necessarily an internally robust risk management process in getting out of these loans. Therefore, am I surprised to see that so much of Chinese—so much of China's BRI loan now are in trouble, like in countries like Zambia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and a couple of others.   So am I—am I surprised about that? I'm not surprised because if you followed this and if you realized that there is a lack of the internal risk management process, that's the result you are going to get. And it is also because of the debt, combined with the contract term, which is when you are signing a contract like—it's like, I go to the bank and I say, I am Zoe, and I bank with Charles Schwab or Bank of America. Hey, I'm going to buy a house, so how about you lend me the money. This is literally the way how contract negotiating works. And then, guess what? The banks are going to say, hey, Zoe, I do not know who you are, although you look like a good person. I do not want to lend you the money at this rate. I'm going to lend you the money, and you have to put down a collateral. So collateral is the idea that, in case I, Zoe, can no longer pay back my loan, I literally have to give up some sort of tangible asset to the bank. Now in the case of Sri Lanka, that was what happened to Hambantota. So long story short, is that combined with the collateralization of this BRI debt really feeds this debt trap narrative because, well, if it looks like you are setting the countries up to debt, and you are collateralizing their critical infrastructures, this looks like debt trap to many observers. So I can't—I have a lot of sympathy to this debt trap narrative, but really, when we think about BRI debt and how BRI is being implemented, we really need to think about two sides: on the one hand, the policy side; and the other side is really about implementation, because without implementation the policies are only a piece of paper, isn't it? So, I really encourage you to look more specifically into the details, and if you are interested in learning more about BRI, there are a lot of data set that are available. On the one hand, William & Mary—William & Mary have the aid data. If you just google William & Mary and google aid data, you will see their entire data related to BRI. And then the other website that—I would have to say, my colleague and I here at the Council, we have this BRI tracker. My colleague Benn Steil, he run—he had this BRI tracker. So you can take a look at that. And then the Council also published a BRI report last year—last year, right, Irina? We have a BRI Task Force report, so definitely check that out. And then finally there is also Boston University has the global policy institute. They have this China—they have a specific China-oriented research team, and they have—they also run seminars occasionally, and webinars—you can sign up for it and you can have access to their research. We also have this BRI data, so make sure that you check those out so that you can look at all the contract, you can look at what are the—where exactly—at what level project are being implemented. I hope that sort of covered the ground for that with BRI. And then go back to the other question—the other question about the future of global economy, especially the impact on Ukraine. I really appreciate this question as well because it's—it's really dear to my heart, too, and the research in itself is dear to my heart and to many of my colleagues here at the Council. And then, on the other hand, we also—everybody are surprised about how fast and how coherent the sanctions on Russia were able to take place. It used to be like—I myself included—like when the Europeans decided—the European Union decided, basically the next day after—following the U.S. sanctions, they basically decided that they are going to do the same. I was like, oh, gee, looking across the Atlantic, I don't think I understand you guys. It almost feel like you guys could never agree on anything anytime soon, but now, it's like overnight there is this agreement on sanction of Russia. I feel like, oh, this is unprecedented. So from that perspective, I do think the—Russia's war on Ukraine, it reunited the U.S. alliance system, and from economic perspective, I think it's very important in the sense that a lot of the economic differences that we used to have—for example, the Eurozone or, in particular, the ECB might have interest in letting the euro play a bigger role in the global system and all that. So a lot of these are—a lot of these disagreement are going to be surpassed by the priority, which is to address Russia's aggression in Ukraine. And then on the other hand, we are also seeing that, yes, European Union, despite of their heavy dependence on Russian oil and gas—and Russian gas in particular, they are willing to participate in setting a deadline to say by this—by the end of this year we are going to phase out Russia's—our dependence on Russian energy. And in that context, it is good for American energy industry in the sense that we can—here in the United States we can—in the context of making sure that our domestic energy security is secured, right, or we can't export our LNG to our—to meet the need of our European allies. So that is another good aspect of it, and then in terms of—and then finally, I would—along the line of energy I would also say this probably is also going to accelerate the transition to net zero in terms of technology and putting more resources into this technology related to energy transition. That might be related to hydrogen. Canada is already exporting its hydrogen energy to Germany and German trains are now—some German trains are now run on hydrogen power. It would be cool to check it out—how it looks, right? So that means, from energy perspective at least we are seeing the realignment of this energy supply, energy demand dynamic. And because energy is so important for production and for energy growth, that is sort of a stabilizing factor. But that being said, still we are not—I am not saying that the Europeans aren't going to—are no longer having problems. And the Europeans are still going to have problems and the IMF revised downward European growth prospect next year. They downgraded to—even further to a lower point. I believe it's point—it used to be—it used to be about 1.3 in the energy outlook earlier in July, but I think this time—a few days ago when I checked again, there are new economic outlook. They've revised it down for EU—European advanced economies that it was revised down to .06 percent growth. From that perspective combined with high inflation, literally we are seeing that Europe—the advanced European economies—or broadly speaking, Eurozone as a whole—probably are going to head towards, maybe recession is a very, very harsh word, but it definitely going to run into serious economic troubles. So in the long run, this is not a good—this is not good looking. And in the short run, at least, this is not good looking, right, and in the—if we broaden the horizon back, focusing on the economy. Another factor that constrained European growth are, in particular, let's say, the major powerhouses like Germany. A critical part of that is, they are suffering from two issues. One is their cost of electricity is simply too high, and I'm talking about this relative to—it's much higher than the United States for sure, but they are not—they are much higher than China, as well. So China energy per kilowatt is in the magnitude of 0.002 or 0.003 magnitude. And where is Germany? Germany is something like ten times of that. We are talking about .38 per kilowatt. So that basically means if your fundamental electricity cost is high, and when energy price goes up higher, electricity price is also going to go up high, and then your entire manufacture industry is going to face a higher cost. And that, combined with demographic challenges, refugee challenges, it simply means that the government are going to have a whole lot of difficult time to deal with their expenditures. So again, both from energy perspective, from cost-of-production perspective, from the demographic perspective—aging population, refugee problem—and on top of that you probably would also have to think of—take care of the aging population, meaning added social welfare costs and pension costs, so those are—those mean slowing economy, especially on advanced economies, are not necessarily looking nice. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Isaac Alston-Voyticky, who has written a question but also said, happy to ask it, so why don't you unmute yourself, please, and give us your affiliation. Q: Hello, my name is Isaac Alston-Voyticky. I am at CUNY School of Law and CCNY's Colin Powell School. I am actually graduating this semester, so—(laughs)—anyway, so my question is you posed the three classic core components of economics. Would you think in the modern day, given the immaterial nature of so much of our global market and marketplace, that knowledge as the foundation of neoclassical economics, plays an equal role as a component of modern economics? And I mean that obviously in the concept that knowledge is known, unknown, real, surreal, and unreal, of course. But also, to your first kind of opening point when you said that, you know, it's really hard for economists to model out and do predictions. When we talk about improving data sets and analysis across like IPE, international affairs, you know, implementation of international law, one of the issues we have is a lot of our economic models are still too variable-based, and that we haven't really gone past that. So if we think about it from the quantum computing, we have X, Y, Z, and T, and that's just your bare, you know, next level. And I would imagine we can do that if we find the right components so, hopefully—and, I mean, I don't know what kind of answer you have, but I'm very interested to hear. LIU: Yeah, Isaac, first of all, congratulations for getting—you are in CUNY, right? And so you are right here in the neighborhood, so you know—right? So feel free to—feel free to, on the one hand definitely check out our award-winning website, and then if me or our colleagues could be of help, just feel free to stop by. And so these are two great questions obviously, and you touch upon a lot of the complaints and the frustrations that I have with modeling—(laughs)—right? So the first question, knowledge, I fully agree with you that so far our economic models have not been able to fully appreciate, or fully absorb, or fully model the role of knowledge; for that matter, even finance. Finance, at least has this term called the intangible asset when you are evaluating a firm, and therefore your mergers and acquisitions, you pay the so-called goodwill based upon how much you value the intangible asset; meaning like knowledge, expertise, and so on, so forth—so patent and all that. So from that perspective, I think the knowledge is definitely going—knowledge is definitely going to be extremely more important going forward, and I say that both—from three aspects. The first is knowledge can improve the quality of your human resources, which touch upon basically the labor force which reverts back to one of our three factors of production. And then knowledge also is necessary for technology, and that is another factor of production. And then finally the other would be knowledge, technology, and other resources. So resources, there is capital and non-capital, meaning natural resource and all that. And there are—then the confounding factor of knowledge is being played more here because better financial expertise—well, obviously, depending upon how you use it, but sometimes, financial expertise tend to run itself in trouble. It outsmart itself; it's not necessarily good. But if we are able to—if we have better knowledge about financial market, about our debt—I go back to your second question—better data about financial market and better knowledge to improve our use of natural resources or the efficiency—improve the efficiency. Or the next day, if we all have a battery and move toward renewables—these are going to be extremely—go back to the Schumacher model—these are going to be extremely disruptive, but in a very good way. But the reason I am cautious about, you know, we may not necessarily going there overnight is because, on the one hand—technology R&D takes some time, it's expensive, but then on the other hand, it's just in the processing, the implementation part. It's really—a lot of geopolitical factors plays into it because when we think about knowledge, knowledge and the technology, those are the things that we tend to think they tend to diffuse themselves, like knowledge—you exchange knowledge, and that's the foundation of new knowledge being created. You stand on the giant's shoulders, right? Knowledge and technology tend to diffuse itself, and right now what we are observing is, on the one hand, there are a lot of—there are a lot of export controls towards certain countries, and then on the other hand, countries like China are also—are trying very hard to lower the cost of the relatively cheaper technology, right, or the less advanced technology. And that basically means if a country can or—especially a country like China can quickly achieve economies of the scale, are able to find an alternative that is cheaper but at a lesser technology, but will still get the job done, then probably that—in the short term, it can service China and also service a lot of developing economies. But for a country like China, that is not necessarily good in the long run. And then on top of that, because of export controls, because of a lot of geopolitical tensions between China and the rest of the world, but the long-run trajectory over China's indigenous development capacity is still there; China's people—there are still U.S.-trained Chinese scientists going back to China, but it is going to tremendously slow China down and making it very difficult and very costly. So if we think that, for the past forty years or so—or for the past twenty years since China joined WTO, if we believe that cheap Chinese goods tend to be—tend to benefited the rest of the world in many ways, then a slowed-down Chinese economy is bad news for the global economy, probably more true than not. China is the largest trading partner for more than 120 countries in the world, so if Chinese economy slow down, that have major ramifications for the rest. And then go back to your second question with regard to, you improve the database and in terms of modeling the limitations—that's a frustration that I have nowadays. Yes, the model themselves—oftentimes I go into a meeting, listen to a talk—especially in the econ papers, the econ paper would begin with—it's very sterilized. You begin with assumptions, and then you talk about your independent variables, your dependent variables. Right now we are really in a world where your independent variables can be—your independent variables might be suddenly changed because of geopolitics, or because of some disruptive technology, or simply because supply chain means you used to be able to get rare earth, but then if you are Japan in 2007, you were no longer able to get rare earth reliably from China. So those are going to significantly shift your calculation. Therefore I would say, I really don't have a good answer in terms of how to improve at researcher perspective, but hopefully, as you said, quantum computing, artificial intelligence might help us to get as much better information as possible. But that being said, quantum—a lot of these quantum computing and artificial intelligence is—it used to be the case that a lot of statistics are garbage in, garbage out. Hopefully, our AI and the quantum computing, as we train themselves, they can learn better than the human beings. I'm not exactly comfortable about saying that, but that's my hope. FASKIANOS: I have some—a written question from Todd Barry, adjunct professor at Hudson County Community College in New Jersey. Is it possible that China would turn inwards and switch an economy to import substitution industrialization, producing all goods domestically, without imports, like Latin America tried to in the 1970's? LIU: Right, that's a great question, and when you were asking that I was immediately thinking about the Chile and its car industry. And that was a disaster. The East Asian model, in terms of the import substitution—that's the East Asian miracle, especially applicable to, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea to a certain extent, as well. In the case of China I would say I would be really hesitant to—in retrospect if we have this conversation twenty years down the road, I would be really, really—I would be really sad to realize that this year is the moment—or October is the—October 2022 is the moment when China started to turn inward because that is going to be disastrous for China's long-term growth. China's decade-long of double-digit growth benefitted from an open economy, benefitted from being able to trade with the rest of the world, and the United States actually welcomed China into the global system. Therefore I would be very, very sad to see this is the moment. Now is there a—is there the risk? I do see the risk, and I do see the narrative there, especially with President Xi Jinping's emphasis on domestic circulation. If you think—I would argue—in my latest publication with the CFR.org, I made this argument to say the important—the dual circulation, especially the domestic circulation, it is a departure from previous going-on strategy because going out is starting from Jiang Zemin to Hu Jintao. These are really the idea of prioritizing the international market. It's really about using international market to develop the Chinese economy. And dual circulation is a departure from that. It's not to totally abandon globally—the global market, but it really is—it prioritizes domestic market: domestic demand, domestic supply, domestic technology and—domestic technological innovation capacity, and making international market relatively supplementary. And if even—and Xi Jinping even—if Xi Jinping even intend to make the international market more dependent on China's domestic market, meaning making the rest dependent more on China. So there is the narrative there. However, in practice, I don't—I don't see how Chinese companies are able to do this because the Chinese company—a lot of Chinese companies, especially multinational Chinese companies, they still need to have access to global capital, global technology. And although it becomes—especially on the technology side has become increasingly difficult. But it is to the benefit of the Chinese company, Chinese people, and China's long-term growth potential to maintain an open economy. But there is the chance that might not happen, and if we think—if we do believe that Xi Jinping has a timeline with reference to Taiwan, then he—obviously, if there is a war breaking out, then obviously there will be consequences, and we can imagine Western sanctions, and that basically means the Chinese economy is going to be severely isolated from the global system. So from that perspective, right now a lot of these zero-COVID policies are very much—the way that I think about it is it could be interpreted as it's a drill, or it's a preparation to make sure that China is developing internal capacity to be able to absorb as much sanction shock as possible. But I don't think that—I do not think Xi Jinping is going to make up a decision and going to make a move to Taiwan, say, tomorrow. As long as we can kick the can down the road, I think that's good. FASKIANOS: Out of time, and I am sorry to say that we couldn't get to all the questions, but we appreciate it. Zoe did mention a few resources that our task force on the Belt and Road Initiative, as well as the Belt and Road tracker—we dropped the link in the chat, but we'll also send a follow-up note with links to some of those things. She also does a lot of writing on CFR.org In Briefs and articles, so you should go to CFR.org. And you can follow her on Twitter at @zongyuanzoeliu. So I encourage you all to do that. This has been a terrific hour, so thank you again, Zoe. We appreciate it. LIU: Thank you, Irina, for having me. And I really do appreciate this opportunity to engage with every participant here. If I did not get a chance to answer your questions, or if you have other questions, just feel free to reach out to Irina or feel free to reach out to me. We are here, and the Council really appreciate and the—really appreciate the colleges and student, and the Council actually—we do a lot of stuff related to education, you know—not just at a college level. We also do at high-school level— FASKIANOS: High school— LIU: —middle-school level, and even—we also even have games for kids. So if you haven't tried those out yet, just try it out. FASKIANOS: Thank you, Zoe. So our next academic webinar will be on Wednesday, November 9, at 1:00 p.m. (EST) with Lauren Kahn, who is here at the Council, on military innovation and U.S. defense strategy. And again, I just wanted to shout out. We have our CFR fellowships application deadline for educators is available. You can check it out at CFR.org/fellowships. The deadline is October 31 so it's right around the corner. Follow us at @CFR_Academic. And again, go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org. So thank you all for being with us. Have a great rest of your day. (END)

This podcast episode focuses on the Center for Justice Research & Policy at the University of South Florida and features Center leaders Drs. Bryanna Fox and Edelyn Verona who discuss the development of the Center, examples of programs, future directions, how to advocate for change, and more! Guests: Dr. Bryanna Fox, Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, College of Behavioral and Community Sciences, and Dr. Edelyn Verona, Professor, Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, University of South Florida

Kaz Asakawa is Professor of Global Innovation Management at Graduate School of Business Administration, Keio University, Japan.  Kaz received his Ph.D. and M.Sc. from INSEAD, France, his MBA from Harvard Business School, and his BA summa cum laude in Political Economy from Waseda University, Japan.  His research interest lies in the areas of global innovation and global R&D management of multinational corporations.  His research appeared in many major scholarly journals including Journal of International Business Studies, Global Strategy Journal, and Journal of World Business.  He was elected a Fellow of the Academy of International Business in 2015.  He was elected Vice President Program of AIB in 2021. Kaz served as an Associate Editor of Global Strategy Journal and a Senior Editor of Asia Pacific Journal of Management.  He is a consulting editor of Journal of International Management, and he serves on the editorial board of many scholarly journals, including Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of World Business, and Research Policy. Kaz served as a Track Chair and a Teaching Roundtable Chair at AIB, an AIB Japan Chapter Chair, and a Chair of the Temple AIB Best Paper Award Selection Committee.  He served as President of Japan Academy of Multinational Enterprises (AMNE).  He was appointed a Faculty Fellow at the Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI) at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan. Visit https://www.aib.world/frontline-ib/kazuhiro-asakawa/ for the original video interview.

For decades, the office was the default way to organize workers, but that default is being re-examined. Many workers (including me) prefer working remotely, and seem to be at least as productive working remotely as they are in the office. Remote capable organizations can hire from a bigger pool of workers than is available locally. All in all, remote work seems to have been underrated, relative to just a few years ago.But there are tradeoffs. I've written before that physical proximity seems to be important for building new relationships, even though those relationships seem to remain productive as people move away from each other. This podcast narrows the focus down to the office. Does bringing people together in the office actually facilitate meeting new people? (spoiler: yes) But I'll try and get more specific about how, when, and why this happens too.This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial draft of the) post Innovation at the Office, originally published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles Mentioned:Allen, Thomas and Gunter Henn. 2007. The Organization and Architecture of Innovation. Routledge Publishing. Link.Miranda, Arianna Salazar and Matthew Claudel. 2021. Spatial proximity matters: A study on collaboration. PLoS ONE 16(12): e0259965. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259965Catalini, Christian. 2017. Microgeography and the Direction of Inventive Activity. Management Science 64(9) https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2798Roche, Maria P., Alexander Oettl, and Christian Catalini. 2022. (Co-)Working in Close Proximity: Knowledge Spillovers and Social Interactions. NBER Working Paper 30120. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30120Hasan, Sharique, and Rembrand Koning. 2019. Prior ties and the limits of peer effects on startup team performance. Strategic Management Journal 40(9): 1394-1416. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3032Appel-Meulenbroek, Rianne, Bauke de Vries, and Mathieu Weggeman. 2017. Knowledge Sharing Behavior: The Role of Spatial Design in Buildings. Environment and Behavior 49(8): 874-903. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516673405Kabo, Felichism W., Natalie Cotton-Nessler, Yongha Hwang, Margaret C. Levenstein, and Jason Owen-Smith. 2014. Proximity effects on the dynamics and outcomes of scientific collaborations. Research Policy 43(9): 1469-1485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.007

On this week's episode, take a listen to Ploughshares Fund President Emma Belcher's conversation with Fiona Hill, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Hill discusses the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Putin's nuclear threats. On Early Warning, Lauren Billet talks with Emma Claire Foley, Senior Associate for Research & Policy at Global Zero. She discusses her new report on the real cost of ICBMs and discusses pathways for moving beyond these dangerous weapons.

Vulnerable Communities: Research, Policy, and Practice in Small Cities (Cornell UP, 2022) examines the struggles of smaller cities in the United States, those with populations between 20,000 and 200,000. Like many larger metropolitan centers, these places are confronting change within a globalized economic and cultural order. Many of them have lost their identities as industrial or commercial centers and face a complex and distinctive mix of economic, social, and civic challenges. Small cities have not only fewer resources but different strengths and weaknesses, all of which differentiate their experiences from those of larger communities. Vulnerable Communities draws together scholars from a broad range of disciplines to consider the present condition and future prospects of smaller American cities. Contributors offer a mix of ground-level analyses and examinations of broader developments that have impacted economically weakened communities and provide concrete ideas for local leaders engaged in redevelopment work. The essays remind policy makers and academics alike that it is necessary to consider cultural tensions and place-specific conflicts that can derail even the most well-crafted redevelopment strategies prescribed for these communities. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Vulnerable Communities: Research, Policy, and Practice in Small Cities (Cornell UP, 2022) examines the struggles of smaller cities in the United States, those with populations between 20,000 and 200,000. Like many larger metropolitan centers, these places are confronting change within a globalized economic and cultural order. Many of them have lost their identities as industrial or commercial centers and face a complex and distinctive mix of economic, social, and civic challenges. Small cities have not only fewer resources but different strengths and weaknesses, all of which differentiate their experiences from those of larger communities. Vulnerable Communities draws together scholars from a broad range of disciplines to consider the present condition and future prospects of smaller American cities. Contributors offer a mix of ground-level analyses and examinations of broader developments that have impacted economically weakened communities and provide concrete ideas for local leaders engaged in redevelopment work. The essays remind policy makers and academics alike that it is necessary to consider cultural tensions and place-specific conflicts that can derail even the most well-crafted redevelopment strategies prescribed for these communities. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Vulnerable Communities: Research, Policy, and Practice in Small Cities (Cornell UP, 2022) examines the struggles of smaller cities in the United States, those with populations between 20,000 and 200,000. Like many larger metropolitan centers, these places are confronting change within a globalized economic and cultural order. Many of them have lost their identities as industrial or commercial centers and face a complex and distinctive mix of economic, social, and civic challenges. Small cities have not only fewer resources but different strengths and weaknesses, all of which differentiate their experiences from those of larger communities. Vulnerable Communities draws together scholars from a broad range of disciplines to consider the present condition and future prospects of smaller American cities. Contributors offer a mix of ground-level analyses and examinations of broader developments that have impacted economically weakened communities and provide concrete ideas for local leaders engaged in redevelopment work. The essays remind policy makers and academics alike that it is necessary to consider cultural tensions and place-specific conflicts that can derail even the most well-crafted redevelopment strategies prescribed for these communities. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Vulnerable Communities: Research, Policy, and Practice in Small Cities (Cornell UP, 2022) examines the struggles of smaller cities in the United States, those with populations between 20,000 and 200,000. Like many larger metropolitan centers, these places are confronting change within a globalized economic and cultural order. Many of them have lost their identities as industrial or commercial centers and face a complex and distinctive mix of economic, social, and civic challenges. Small cities have not only fewer resources but different strengths and weaknesses, all of which differentiate their experiences from those of larger communities. Vulnerable Communities draws together scholars from a broad range of disciplines to consider the present condition and future prospects of smaller American cities. Contributors offer a mix of ground-level analyses and examinations of broader developments that have impacted economically weakened communities and provide concrete ideas for local leaders engaged in redevelopment work. The essays remind policy makers and academics alike that it is necessary to consider cultural tensions and place-specific conflicts that can derail even the most well-crafted redevelopment strategies prescribed for these communities. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Vulnerable Communities: Research, Policy, and Practice in Small Cities (Cornell UP, 2022) examines the struggles of smaller cities in the United States, those with populations between 20,000 and 200,000. Like many larger metropolitan centers, these places are confronting change within a globalized economic and cultural order. Many of them have lost their identities as industrial or commercial centers and face a complex and distinctive mix of economic, social, and civic challenges. Small cities have not only fewer resources but different strengths and weaknesses, all of which differentiate their experiences from those of larger communities. Vulnerable Communities draws together scholars from a broad range of disciplines to consider the present condition and future prospects of smaller American cities. Contributors offer a mix of ground-level analyses and examinations of broader developments that have impacted economically weakened communities and provide concrete ideas for local leaders engaged in redevelopment work. The essays remind policy makers and academics alike that it is necessary to consider cultural tensions and place-specific conflicts that can derail even the most well-crafted redevelopment strategies prescribed for these communities. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We welcome YOU back to America's leading higher education podcast, The EdUp Experience! It's YOUR time to #EdUp In this episode, YOUR guest is Amanda Janice Roberson, Director of Research & Policy, Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), & David Baime, SVP for Government Relations for the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), YOUR host is Dr. Joe Sallustio, & YOUR sponsor is Fierce Education! What is the college transparency act & why is it one of the most important acts YOU have yet to hear about? Listen in to #EdUp! YOU will see the organizations across the country supporting CTA listed in this letter (& YOU may also be interested in this thread on Twitter). If YOU would like to join in this call to pass CTA, YOU can sign up HERE! Amanda Janice Roberson is the Director of Research & Policy at the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). In this role, she manages research, policy, & advocacy projects for the research team, centering on postsecondary data, metrics, & infrastructure, college affordability, & value. She is an active member of the Association for Institutional Research & enjoys engaging with members of the postsecondary data community. Before joining IHEP, Amanda served as the assistant director for the Scholarship Fund of Alexandria, managing the scholarship program, guiding students through college financial aid processes, & tracking outcomes of program participants. David Baime serves as senior vice president for government relations for the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). In this role, he directs the national advocacy efforts for the nation's close to 1,200 community colleges & their students. Prior to joining AACC, he served as director of education funding for the National Association of Independent Colleges & Universities. He has also worked as assistant director of government relations for the Association of American Medical Colleges. Thank YOU so much for tuning in. Join us on the next episode for YOUR time to #EdUp! Connect with YOUR #EdUp Team - Elvin Freytes & Dr. Joe Sallustio ● Join YOUR #EdUp community at The EdUp Experience! We make education YOUR business! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/edup/message

In a recent paper published in the journal Research Policy, Professor Louise Mors of Copenhagen Business School, together with Professor David Waguespack of the University of Maryland explore the collaboration process undertaken by research teams. In particular they consider situations where teams are geographically dispersed and the challenges of coordination they face. A key, intriguing finding: dispersed teams tend to succeed fast, but fail slow! Louise Mors is a Professor of Strategic and International Management at the Copenhagen Business School and has also been on the faculty at the London Business School. She has a PhD from INSEAD in France and was a post-doc at the Sloan School at MIT. With a focus on large, global firms, Professor Mors' research examines the relationship between senior managers' informal networks, organization design and performance. Recently her work has also examined the role of female directors on corporate boards. Professor Mors' work has been published in the top strategy and management journals, such as the Strategic Management Journal, Organization Science and the Academy of Management Journal. You can find out more about Louise's research into teams here: https://hbr.org/2021/05/research-dispersed-teams-succeed-fast-fail-slow And on her CBS page: https://www.cbs.dk/en/research/departments-and-centres/department-of-strategy-and-innovation/staff/lmsi

Undergraduate students are now into their 5th virtual semester online.  Profs regularly complain about online learning, and so do students.  What has worked well with online learning, and what has not?  What are students really missing when it comes to campus life?  In this episode of GDP we hear from 3 global students in global health about the pros and cons of taking a degree mostly online.  How has it changed their perspective on higher education?  How have they managed to stay engaged?  What do they plan to do next? Sophie Geernaert is a second year studying Health Promotion at Dalhousie University. She is in this program's Research and Policy stream and conducting her honors thesis in Environmental Epidemiology. She studied online for four semesters of University while living in Washington D.C. but have finally moved to Halifax in hopes of an in-person semester. To feel a part of Dalhousie University, she became the President of the Health Promotion Society and the Trip Coordinator for Dalhousie University's branch of the MEDLIFE Movement. Allie Luscombe, is in second year of the BSc Health Promotion program at Dalhousie University, with a focus on Research Policy. She is passionate about youth mental health advocacy, psychology, politics and, of course, health promotion! She is currently the secretary of the Health Promotion Society. This semester unfortunately marks her fifth semester online, and she has not had a single in-person class thus far in her post-secondary education. She attended  online classes from her hometown in rural Newfoundland last year and has been back and forth from Newfoundland and Halifax these past two semesters. She has worked in a walk-in clinic during the pandemic while attending my classes online and offered administrative support for several mass vaccination clinics in my hometown. While she is glad she got to spend an extra year at home, she is hopeful that she will have a chance to attend in-person classes in the coming fall semester Urmi Sheth is a  second year student of the global health program at York University with a specialization in global health policy, management, and systems. She is passionate about advocacy and created a virtual global health magazine to promote equity-centred dialogue around global health issues. She also started a volunteer-led organization called Our Sustainable Vision to educate youth and raise awareness about the importance of the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as provide a platform for involvement. She has done almost all of university online! Follow Dr. Bob on Twitter: @Professor Huish

These days every organisation wants its teams to be more entrepreneurial and innovative. From holacracy to skunk-works and MBO to self-managing teams, a wide range of approaches have been tested over time. Yet what are the key variables that drive greater performance in entrepreneurial teams? In a recent paper published in the journal Organization Science, Professor Linus Dahlander and colleagues explored the way that entrepreneurial teams are organised and structured. By looking at two key variables – autonomy over who to work with or what to work on – Dahlander and colleagues identified some key approaches that leaders and organisations can use to help their teams be more creative and innovative. Linus Dahlander is a professor at the European School of Management and Technology - ESMT Berlin, Director of Research, and the holder of the Lufthansa Group Chair in Innovation. He received his PhD in from Chalmers University of Technology and undertook post doctoral studies at Stanford University. He was previously an assistant professor and an Advanced Institute of Management Research Fellow with the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Group at Imperial College Business School. Linus teaches in the areas of innovation, entrepreneurship, and networks, and is also a consultant and advisor to startups, large multinationals as well as government organizations on issues around innovation and networks. In 2017, Linus was recognized as one of the Best 40 Under 40 Professors by Poets & Quants. In his ongoing research Linus investigates how new ideas and innovations are developed in networks and communities. The ongoing projects use large-scale analysis of networks, which he integrates with a deeper appreciation for what content flows through networks. Linus seeks to study novel questions which can advance the academic literature, and which at the same time focus on issues that can affect how managers think about their business to help them make better decisions. Linus' research has been published in the Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Organization Science, Research Policy, and Strategic Management Journal among others. He served as an Associate Editor for the Academy of Management Journal in the 2013-2016 editorial team. The articles discussed in the interview can be accessed here: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/orsc.2021.1520 (Boss, V., Dahlander, L., Ihl, C., & Jayaraman, R. (2021). Organizing Entrepreneurial Teams: A Field Experiment on Autonomy over Choosing Teams and Ideas. Organization Science.) https://hbr.org/2021/12/when-autonomy-helps-team-performance-and-when-it-doesnt

Sumantra (Shumone) Ray is a Licensed Medical Doctor as well as a Registered Nutritionist (Public Health), with special interests in Nutrition Education in Health Systems and Cardiovascular Disease Prevention. Since 2008 he has been Founding Chair and Executive Director of the NNEdPro Global Centre for Nutrition and Health, headquartered in Cambridge and working across twelve regional networks across six continents including a highly active Indian contingent. In 2018 he became the Co-Founder and Chair of BMJ Nutrition, Prevention and Health. Shumone is a Director of Research in Cambridge and a Bye-Fellow of Fitzwilliam College at the University of Cambridge. He holds Visiting Professorships in Imperial College London School of Public Health, Ulster University Schools of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences as well as further afield in Wollongong Australia. He is also Honorary International Dean for the Lord Rana Foundation Charitable Trust's Cordia Colleges in Punjab, India. In this conversation we talk about:  - Nutrition education in healthcare - New nutrition education methods such as The Mobile Teaching Kitchen - The importance of linking nutrition research, policy, and clinical practice - much, much more Within the University of Cambridge TIGR2ESS Programme, Shumone is Co-Lead of Flagship Project 6 seeking to Impact Wellbeing in Rural and Urban Communities by exploring the relationships between education and empowerment, lives and livelihoods, better food and nutrition leading to improved health and economic outcomes. FP6 evaluates theories of change spanning the assessment of needs through to piloting innovative intervention models. FP6 and the NNEdPro Global Centre for Nutrition and Health, led by Shumone has co-developed and adapted the award-winning ‘Mobile Teaching Kitchen' or MTK intervention for use. BMJ paper - https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/02/bmjnph-2020-000072  NNEdPro - https://www.nnedpro.org.uk/ MTK - https://www.nnedpro.org.uk/mtk Article - https://www.nnedpro.org.uk/post/a-13-year-journey-towards-implementing-improved-medical-nutrition-education-in-the-uk-and-beyond COVID-19 microsite - https://www.nnedpro.org.uk/coronavirus IANE - https://iane.online/  

In this episode, Dr Alessandro Corda, current Director of the QUB Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice(ICCJ), interviews four of the Institute's former Directors - Prof Graham Ellison, Prof Shadd Maruna, Prof Kieran McEvoy and Prof John Jackson.

In this episode, Dr Alessandro Corda, current Director of the QUB Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice(ICCJ), interviews four of the Institute's former Directors - Prof Graham Ellison, Prof Shadd Maruna, Prof Kieran McEvoy and Prof John Jackson. They reflect on the first 25 years of research, policy, and community engagement at the ICCJ at Queen's University Belfast. Guests share memories and discuss the past, present and future of doing Criminology & Criminal Justice work in Northern Ireland, the island of Ireland and beyond.

Justus Baron (PhD) is a Senior Research Associate at the Center on Law, Business, and Economics at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law. His previous research positions include Mines ParisTech, Cerna (2009-2012) and Sciences Po Paris, Department of Economics as an Adjunct lecturer and researcher (2012-2013). He has also served as a visiting researcher at the Hitotsubashi University, Institute of Economic Research and Technische Universität Berlin, Chair of Innovation Economics. Justus met Tim during his PhD in 2009, when they worked together in Berlin and Paris. In 2009 they were among the first economists to use patent declarations data from SSOs such as ETSI, IEEE or ITUT to empirically study the interplay of patents and standards. Today, Justus' research on technology standards and SEPs has been published in leading academic journals, including Research Policy, the Journal of Economics, Management, and Strategy, and the International Journal of Industrial Organization. Justus has authored several policy reports on FRAND licensing and standards organizations, in particular for the European Commission; and he was a member of the European Commission's SEP Expert Group. Just recently the European Commission (DG GROW) has commissioned a new study to a consortium led by Justus and Tim and other consortium members, assisting the European Commission with an “Economic Impact Assessment on Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)”. In the Podcast Justus elaborates on the topics that this empirical research study will cover, including the identification of potential inefficiencies and costs both for SEP holders and standard implementors in the process of agreeing to a FRAND license. Justus addresses several of the big questions around SEP licensing, such as what stage in the value chain SEPs will be licensed and how one can define a FRAND rate. Justus also sheds light on questions like how should regulators such as the EU Commission be involved and who defines the standards on how FRAND should be negotiated? Should standards organizations be involved in SEP determination or FRAND rate discussions? Such questions of governance must be answered by studying the impact of regulation and what incentivizes these sets. Justus feels that as an empirical economist, he can contribute to a better understanding of some complex aspects of FRAND and SEP licensing. Transparency about SEP issues is important, but here transparency also means to be transparent about the limitations of data and empirical analysis. In the end, the available information is never perfect and we have to consider that in any analysis that we do. In his work for the European Commission's SEP Expert Group, it was very important to reflect different views and to produce a balanced report. In order to keep that balance, the report reflects many individual experts' viewpoints and specific recommendations, rather than aiming for a consensus view on inherently controversial issues. That in the end may have also been why some criticized the European Commission's SEP Expert Group final report as falling short of resolving some of the open controversies. Justus is among the leading economists that study SEPs, and he believes the next years will be even more interesting when the licensing of SEPs for IoT will start to pick up.  

Q and a with an Epidemiologist. The host for this show is Minara Mordecai. The guest is Dora Ilyasova. Join us for a conversation with Dora Ilyasova, Ph.D, MSPH, a distinguished public health researcher and epidemiologist with the MTX group. We unpack current research related to COVID-19, such as the benefits of ventilation, co-morbidity factors, and projections for the future of the virus. The ThinkTech YouTube Playlist for this show is https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQpkwcNJny6ll0bTOmb2IriDyTWwXqKfC

You may not have heard of today's guest but, if you're active on social media, you're likely to encounter her work. Dr. Dominiqua Griffin is the Co-founder and CEO of Black Women PhDs, which bridges the formal and informal spaces for Black women along their doctoral journey. There's plenty of focus on the challenges of pursuing doctoral and post-doctoral studies, but in today's episode, we zoom in on how to maximize the joy of doing something you are passionate about. Dr. Griffin describes how her experience growing up in a dual culture household in the Bronx has shaped her identity and brought special insights that she brings to her research and work. Next, she tells us why she chose a doctoral program with both comparative and international education pieces, how she found support in an all-female cohort, and what she has come to define as community: being around people who have your best interests at heart. Dr. Griffin touches on her work doing an ethnographic study in Barbados, how she completed her studies in five years, and offers an imperative piece of advice to anyone approaching their studies: find joy! She reveals her biggest points of pride, from creating a powerful community at Black Women PhDs to practicing advocacy and connecting with others along the way. We talk about what motivated her to start her passion project and how she manages with a plate piled very high. In closing, Dr. Griffin tells us a bit about the Ambassadors Program and its international clusters, also offering some final words of wisdom: rely on your community, do what brings you joy, and just go for it! We hope you join us. Connect with Dr. Dominiqua Griffin on  LinkedIn,  and at Black Women PhDs , Black Women PhDs on Facebook, Black Women PhDs on Twitter, and Black Women PhDs on Instagram.If you are a Black woman interested in joining the Cohort Sistas community or you're looking for more information on how to support or partner with Cohort Sistas, please visit our site at www.cohortsistas.com.Find us on Twitter and Instagram, and don't forget to follow the Cohort Sistas podcast, rate, and leave us a quick review wherever you're listening.

Host Casandra Grundstrom is joined by special guest Professor Jonny Holmström. Jonny is a professor of Information Systems at Umeå University, co-director, and co-founder of the Swedish Center for Digital Innovation (SCDI). He writes, consults, and speaks on topics such as digital innovation, digital transformation, and digital entrepreneurship. His work has appeared in journals such as Communications of the AIS, Design Issues, European Journal of Information Systems, Information and Organization, Information Systems Journal, Information Technology and People, Journal of the AIS, Journal of Information Technology, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, Research Policy, and The Information Society. In this episode, we discuss the culture of IS, ranging from culture shocks in different IS environments, to publishing culture as evident in publishing practices, what we choose to study, and why we choose to study it. Ultimately reflecting on three pillars: research, teaching, and service.  Shoutout to these other great podcasts, check them out!This IS Research podcast with Jan Recker and Nick Berente10 Minutes IS paper podcast with Blair WangTalking about organizations podcastSIGPhil with Mijalche SantaEthnography Atelier with a network of organizers  (a great recent find!)References:Holmstrom, J. (2021). From AI to digital transformation: The AI readiness framework. Business Horizons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.03.006Holmström, J., Magnusson, J., & Mähring, M. (2021). Orchestrating Digital Innovation: The Case of the Swedish Center for Digital Innovation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 48(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04831Lanamäki, A., Porra, J., & Hirschheim, R. (2017). A Call to Write the Nordic Information Systems Research Field History. Viewing the Scandinavian way through a career retrospectives lens. Scand. J. Inf. Syst., 29(1), 1.Lyytinen, K., Baskerville, R., Iivari, J., & Te'eni, D. (2007). Why the old world cannot publish? Overcoming challenges in publishing high-impact IS research. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 317-326.Virtual Nordic ISS Seminar Consortium

A webinar as part of the "Shaping Conversations on Interdisciplinary Research" series, organised by the SHAPE-ID project. Shaping Conversations on Interdisciplinary Research We are pleased to announce the second in our series of webinars on the integration of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences in inter- and transdisciplinary research. Some of these events will stage broader conversations, with invited panellists from the SHAPE-ID community, consortium and Expert Panel. Others will focus on SHAPE-ID project results and on how to increase the uptake of recommendations from the project. This webinar will take up one of the recommendations made in our recently published SHAPE-ID Policy Brief: that to increase the participation of the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (AHSS) in interdisciplinary research (IDR) and transdisciplinary research (TDR), policy makers and funders must work to involve researchers more substantially in programme design and evaluation. However, similar recommendations have been made many times already with limited impact. What are the challenges of implementing this recommendation and how can policy makers, researchers and Universities make progress on this front? Is this challenge specific to improving pathways to IDR and TDR or is it a more general problem with the interface AHSS researchers have built with policy makers? Our invited panel of researchers, policy makers and science policy advisers, including SHAPE-ID's Dr Jack Spaapen (Senior Policy Advisor at the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences), Dr Jennifer Edmond (Associate Professor of Digital Humanities at Trinity College Dublin and President of the Board of Directors of the pan-European research infrastructure for the arts and humanities, DARIAH-EU) and Mary Doyle (TLRH Public Policy Fellow), will discuss these issue with chair Professor Jane Ohlmeyer, followed by an interactive Q&A from the audience.

For this special collaborative episode recorded via Zoom on May 6, 2020, we partnered with the Democracy Works podcast to explore the dynamic and sometimes tense relationship between peer-reviewed scientific research and public policy decision-making. And we discuss how these tensions have been brought to the forefront by the coronavirus pandemic. Our discussion focuses on the work of our guest Taylor Scott, Associate Director of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration at Penn State and Primary Investigator on a Huck-funded research project titled "Rapid Translation of Research into Coronavirus Policy Response." We are also joined by Michael Berkman, Director of The McCourtney Institute for Democracy, and Jenna Spinelle, host of the Democracy Works podcast.Relevant Links:Rapid Translation of Research into Coronavirus Policy ResponseResearch-to-Policy CollaborationChild Maltreatment Solutions NetworkDemocracy Works Episode ft. Frances E. Lee: Does Congress Promote Partisan Gridlock?Guests:Taylor Scott – Associate Director, Research-to-Policy Collaboration; Research Assistant Professor, Edna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research CenterMichael Berkman – Director, McCourtney Institute for Democracy and Professor of Political ScienceJenna Spinelle – Communications Specialist, McCourtney Institute for Democracy; Host, Democracy Works Podcast

My guest today is Stefan Thomke, the William Barclay Harding Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. Thomke's research is focused on the process, economics, and management of experimentation and testing in the context of innovation management. Thomke's highly cited research has been published as research articles, case studies and notes extensively in books and leading journals such as California Management Review, Harvard Business Review, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Management Science, Organization Science, Research Policy, Sloan Management Review, Strategic Management Journal and Scientific American. The topic is his book Experimentation Works: The Surprising Power of Business Experiments. In this episode of Trend Following Radio we discuss: Experimentation Works Overcoming Cultural Issues Brainstorming Think Outside the Box High Velocity Jump in! --- I'm MICHAEL COVEL, the host of TREND FOLLOWING RADIO, and I'm proud to have delivered 10+ million podcast listens since 2012. Investments, economics, psychology, politics, decision-making, human behavior, entrepreneurship and trend following are all passionately explored and debated on my show. To start? I'd like to give you a great piece of advice you can use in your life and trading journey… cut your losses! You will find much more about that philosophy here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/trend/ You can watch a free video here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/video/ Can't get enough of this episode? You can choose from my thousand plus episodes here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/podcast My social media platforms: Twitter: @covel Facebook: @trendfollowing LinkedIn: @covel Instagram: @mikecovel Hope you enjoy my never-ending podcast conversation!

We came across Prof. Helveston first in this piece in Axios on prospects for EVs and AVs in China given a rule change on how foreign carmakers must operate in the country. The rule had required joint ventures with Chinese firms for all foreign car companies looking to make and sell vehicles in China. Now it's easier for foreign carmakers and aerospace firms to own factories in China. According to Prof. Helveston's research, the rule may have hindered tech transfer from the global brands while simultaneously spurring innovation in China's domestic EV market, one of the most vibrant in the world. In this episode we walk through this 2019 research paper in the journal "Research Policy" by Prof. Helveston documenting the phenomenon. The paper includes interviews with more than 50 people, from industry and government, lots of data on vehicle sales in China, and four case studies of independent domestic EV firms in China. Prof. Helveston is joined in this episode by Puneet Sinha, past guest of the show and frequent blogger on the topic of EVs. Here's one look at how electrified cities of the future will look and sound. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

On our latest episode of the Governance Podcast, Professor Mark Pennington interviews Professor Frans Berkhout of King's College London on his latest book about climate governance. Tune in for a rich discussion on the limits of international coordination and how local experimentation can solve global commons dilemmas. Subscribe on iTunes Subscribe to the Governance Podcast on iTunes today and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. The Guest Frans Berkhout is Executive Dean of the Faculty of Social Science and Public Policy and Professor of Environment, Society and Climate at King's College London. He joined the Department of Geography at King's in 2013. From 2013-2015 he was Director of the Future Earth programme, based at the International Council for Science (ICSU) in Paris. Before that, Prof Berkhout directed the Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) at the VU University Amsterdam in The Netherlands and led the Amsterdam Global Change Institute. He has also held posts at SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, and was Director of the UK Economic and Social Research Council's Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Technologies programmes. Among other advisory roles, Professor Berkhout was a lead author in the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (2014) and a member of the Social Science Panel of the Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. He sits on the editorial boards of Research Policy, Global Environmental Change, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Current Opinion on Environmental Sustainability, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions and The Anthropocene Review. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us on facebook or twitter (@csgskcl). Skip Ahead  00:45: What was the motivation for your latest book? 5:15: What is experimentation in your framework? Is climate governance experimentation different from scientific experimentation? 10:15: Can you combine top down and bottom up approaches to climate governance? 15:25: Why do people at the local level take action on climate change? 19:35: How do local networks of experimentation get off the ground and get connected globally? 21:30: Some say that focusing on an experimental approach can serve as an excuse for a lack of coordination on climate change policy at the global scale. Others say global coordination is too slow and cumbersome. Can we reconcile this tension? 27:25: Do we always want local experiments to ripple out to a broader scale? Would they stop having contextual relevance? 31:45: What evidence do we have that local experiments are having a broader, more global effect? 35:00: Are we abandoning global coordination? Is there still a role for international policy? 39:17: What role does interdisciplinarity play in the study of climate change governance? 42:18: Do we have examples of networks of academic actors that experiment in social science approaches to climate governance? 45:03: What are the next research avenues for climate governance? 45:45: Are social scientists equipped to oversee the experiments? Are academics themselves complex enough to understand governance?