Das Repertorium Academicum Germanicum (RAG). Ein digitales Forschungsvorhaben zur Geschichte der Gelehrten des alten Reiches (1250-1550)

This article aims at presenting an already existing research project. The Repertorium Academicum Germanicum (RAG) is supposed to be a "Who’s who" of the graduated and noble scholars of the late medieval Empire. It is designed to record biographical and social data of graduated theologians, jurists, physicians and Masters of Art as well as data of nobles from universities between 1250 and 1550. Furthermore, the project focuses on their examinations, networks, fields of activity in ecclesiastical and secular offices as well as their achievements and legacies (books, treatises, tombs etc). Right now, over 49.000 prosopographic entries are stored in the RAG database, partly available online (www.rag-online.org) and combined with digital maps (infographics), which already provide a basis for research in academic mobility determined by the top scholars of the time. In a next step, it should be possible to draw conclusions not only about personnel and knowledge transfer from university to society, its effects on political systems, daily life, the emergence of new occupational groups and professions, but also about cultural exchange within Europe.

Ethics in science: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Knowledge as a resource: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science (Lubchenco 1998; WBGU 2011 and 2012) towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production as a contribution to the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal (UNESCO 2005). This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al 2008; Jäger 2009; Adger and Jordan 2009; KFPE 2012). UNESCO (2010) points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer (Standing and Taylor 2007; Zingerli 2010). Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity (Wiesmann et al 2011). To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route (Mukhopadhyay et al 2006) – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach (Pohl et al 2008; Stock and Burton 2011), I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS): Experience with a transdisciplinary tool in the NCCR North-South programme

Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS) are small transdisciplinary projects which bring scientific research insights from the NCCR North-South into policy and practice. They are implemented by researchers from different disciplines in collaboration with non-scientific actors. PAMS aim to implement and test approaches, methods and tools developed in research, in order to identify promising strategies and potentials for sustainable development. In this sense, they are solution-oriented. This paper will provide insights into our experience with PAMS, with a special focus on the implementation of transdisciplinarity and its outcomes. From 2001 to 2010, 77 PAMS were implemented in Africa, Asia and Latin America. An internal evaluation of the first 55 projects was conducted in 2006. Results of this evaluation led to a refinement and improvement of the tool. A second internal evaluation is currently underway in the NCCR North-South. This evaluation will provide an overview of 22 new PAMS. We will look at partners involved, project beneficiaries, activities implemented, outcomes achieved, and lessons learnt. In the first evaluation, transdisciplinarity was considered as “a form of collaboration within scientific fields … and as a form of continuous dialogue between research and society” (Messerli et al., 2007). The evaluation report concluded that this understanding of transdisciplinarity was not satisfactorily applied in the 55 projects. Only about half of the PAMS addressed mutual exchange between researchers and society. Some involved only one specific field of research and clearly lacked interdisciplinary co-operation, and most often knowledge was transferred mainly unilaterally from the scientific community to society, without society having any effect on science. It was therefore recommended to address transdisciplinarity more carefully in Phase 2 PAMS. The second evaluation, which is currently under way, is analysing whether and how this recommendation has been met, based on criteria defined in the NCCR North-South’s Outcome Monitoring Strategy. The analysis is focusing on partners with whom researchers interact and investigating whether practices have changed both in research and society. We are also exploring the role of researchers in PAMS. Preliminary results show that researchers can assume different roles, from direct implementation, mediation, and promotion of social learning between different actors, to giving advice as neutral outsiders.

Indigenous knowledge related to climate variability and change: insights from droughts in semi-arid areas of former Makueni District, Kenya

This article describes the indigenous knowledge (IK) that agro-pastoralists in larger Makueni District, Kenya hold and how they use it to monitor, mitigate and adapt to drought. It examines ways of integrating IK into formal monitoring, how to enhance its value and acceptability. Data was collected through target interviews, group discussions and questionnaires covering 127 households in eight villages. Daily rainfall data from 1961–2003 were analysed. Results show that agro-pastoralists hold IK on indicators of rainfall variability; they believe in IK efficacy and they rely on them. Because agro-pastoralists consult additional sources, the authors interpret that IK forms a basic knowledge frame within which agro-pastoralists position and interpret meteorological forecasts. Only a few agro-pastoralists adapt their practices in anticipation of IK-based forecasts partly due to the conditioning of the actors to the high rainfall variability characteristic of the area and partly due to lack of resources. Non-drought factors such as poverty, inadequate resources and lack of preparedness expose agro-pastoralists to drought impacts and limit their adaptive capacity. These factors need to be understood and effectively addressed to increase agro-pastoralists’ decision options and the influence of IK-based forecasts on their decision-making patterns. The limited intergenerational transfer of IK currently threatens its existence in the longer term. One way to ensure its continued existence and use is to integrate IK into the education curriculum and to link IK with formal climate change research through the participation of the local people. However, further studies are necessary to address the reliability and validity of the identified IK indicators of climate variability and change.

On producing and sharing knowledge across boundaries: experiences from the interfaces of an international development research network

The number of large research networks and programmes engaging in knowledge production for development has grown over the past years. One of these programmes devoted to generating knowledge about and for development is National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North–South, a cross-disciplinary, international development research network funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Producing relevant knowledge for development is a core goal of the programme and an important motivation for many of the participating researchers. Over the years, the researchers have made use of various spaces for exchange and instruments for co-production of knowledge by academic and non-academic development actors. In this article we explore the characteristics of co-producing and sharing knowledge in interfaces between development research, policy and NCCR North–South practice. We draw on empirical material of the NCCR North–South programme and its specific programme element of the Partnership Actions. Our goal is to make use of the concept of the interface to reflect critically about the pursued strategies and instruments applied in producing and sharing knowledge for development across boundaries.

The Emergence of Partnership Networks in the Enterprise Application Development Industry - A Global Corporation Perspective

Currently, dramatic changes are happening in the IS development industry. The incumbent system developers (hubs) are embracing partnerships with less well established companies (spokes), acting in specific niches. This paper seeks to establish a better understanding of the motives for this strategy. Relying on existing work on strategic alliance formation, it is argued that partnering is particularly attractive, if these small companies possess certain capabilities that are difficult to obtain through other arrangements than partnering. Again drawing on the literature, three categories of capabilities are identified: the capability to innovate within their niche, the capability to provide a specific functionality that can be integrated with the incumbents’ systems, and the capability to address novel markets. These factors are analyzed through a case study. The case represents a market leader in the global IS development industry, which fosters a network of smaller partner firms. The study reveals that temporal dynamics between the identified factors are playing a dominant role in these networks. A cyclical partnership model is developed that attempts to explain the life cycle of a partnership within such a network.

Potential for virus transfer between the honey bees Apis mellifera and A. cerana

Viruses seem to play a key role in European honey bee, Apis mellifera health, and have a much broader host spectrum than previously thought. Few studies have investigated interspecific virus transfer within the genus Apis. The introduction of A. mellifera into Asia exposed endemic Apis species to the risk of obtaining new viruses or viral strains and vice versa. To investigate the potential for host shifts, virus prevalence and sequences were monitored over three years in single and mixed-species apiaries hosting introduced A. mellifera and endemic Apis cerana. Deformed wing virus (DWV), Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV), black queen cell virus (BQCV), and sacbrood virus (SBV) were found, but not KBV, VDV-1, ABPV, or CBPV. Virus infections and prevalence were generally lower in A. cerana compared to A. mellifera, and varied over the years. The sequence data provided evidence for interspecific transfer of IAPV, BQCV, and DWV, but SBV strains seem to be species specific. Prevalence and sequence results taken together indicate that interspecific transfers of viruses are rare, even if honey bees are kept in close proximity. We discuss the pattern observed in the context host specificity and resistance. Our understanding of the extent of these exchanges is limited by a lack of knowledge on the mechanisms of adaptation of viruses to different hosts.