Search results

Cyber threats present constantly evolving and unique challenges to national security professionals at all levels of government. Public and private sector entities also face a constant stream of cyberattacks through varied methods by actors with myriad motivations. These threats are not expected to diminish in the near future. As a result, homeland security and national security professionals at all levels of government must understand the unique motivations and capabilities of malicious cyber actors in order to better protect against and respond to cyberattacks. This chapter outlines the most common cyberattacks; explains the motivations behind these attacks; and describes the federal, state, and local efforts to address these threats.

Traditional studies in the sociology of science have highlighted the self-organized character of the academic community. This article focuses on recent interrelated changes that alter that distinctive governance structure and its related patterns of competition and cooperation. The changes that we identify here are contractualization and large-scale cooperative research. We use different data sources to exemplify these new patterns and discuss the illustrative role of research clusters in German academia. Research clusters as funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) are both a highly prestigious scarce good in the competition for reputation and resources and a means of fostering cooperation. Our analysis of this German example reveals that this new institutional configuration of universities as organizations, academic researchers, and the state has a profound effect on organizational practices. We discuss the implications of our empirical findings with regard to collegiality in academia. Ultimately, we anticipate a further weakening of collegial bonds, not only because universities and the state have become more active in shaping the nature of academic competition and cooperation but also because of the increasing strategic and individualistic orientation of academic researchers. In the final section, we summarize our findings and address the need for further research and an international comparative perspective.

Economic and social inequality in Mexico presents a challenge in the transformative recovery of the country. This chapter aims to identify opportunities and multi-actor actions in the different scenarios of economic growth and sustainable development for Mexico in the coming years. We managed to propose public policy recommendations for the country by building future scenarios along with the participation of representatives from government, business, civil society and academia. A regenerative Mexico by 2030 requires policies that encourage private, domestic and foreign investment; regulatory frameworks for investment in clean technologies; implementation of tax incentives to promote a green economy and cooperative and inclusive models, such as the social and solidarity economy. Inclusive and collaborative multi-actor actions among the country's sectors become the common denominator of future scenarios for Mexico from an optimistic, resilient and hopeful perspective for its population.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how research teams serve as building blocks for collaboration at a field level, and how these building blocks are assembled by a network of interacting organizations. The field setting is a medical sciences consortium in Australia established to encourage collaborative and entrepreneurial research among government, industry, research centers and university units. This consortium is examined as a case study. The analysis demonstrates how collaboration evolved at three interacting levels: research team, organization and interorganizational field.

The main findings are: (1) Intellectual property (IP) acts as the key orienting agent in this field to align the behavior of various stakeholders and leverage collaborative and entrepreneurial activity. (2) Tensions between the different ways that the commercial and public sector actors value IP serve to structure the interfaces among the consortium, the member organizations and the research teams. (3) The consortium is a key infrastructural element in the creation of collaborative capital in the Australian biotechnology field studied. The main contribution of the study is to highlight the nature of collaborative capital at a field level and begin to explore its implications.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

Taiwan serves as a case study to investigate the association between the expansion and reform of higher education and the growth of science production. More specifically, what driving forces facilitated the growth of science production in different types of Taiwanese universities and other sectors, from 1980 to 2011.

The contribution charts differential contributions to overall production. Taiwanese data from Thomson Reuters’ Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) is analyzed to show the expansion of the higher education system and its relationship to the production of science. The author uses sociological organization theories to facilitate our understanding of how and why the landscape of science production changed.

Results show that the growth of science production is associated with processes of isomorphism and competition within the higher education system. Findings also suggest that universities quickly seized upon external opportunities and turned themselves into what is known as the “knowledge conglomerate.” Unique organizational features bolster universities’ position as the driving force behind advancing national innovation.

This study extends previous research by examining multiple sectors of higher education, using longitudinal and recent data, and highlighting themes that have been ignored or overlooked, such as competition and collaboration among universities and industry partners.

As historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) endeavor to establish niches in the higher education marketplace, we see a surfeit of HBCU executives, administrators, alumni, faculty, and student voices leading the public discourse about how twenty-first century solutions are being sought to serve the needs of an increasingly ethnically and culturally diverse educational sector. Journalistic missives and research produced in academia examine and often define HBCUs struggling to garner federal/external research dollars, struggling to attract, engage, and support diverse student populations, lacking innovation, failing to promote and foster cooperation and interdisciplinarity, and failing to promote esprit de corps among faculty. These missives are often the result of externally produced news stories which permeate because of a lack of engagement among traditional media outlets and journalists with “on-the-ground” thought leaders working with HBCU students and students themselves.

Featuring the collaborative efforts of racially diverse faculty from multiple disciplines, producing research and providing service to racially, culturally, and geographically diverse students, the student service-based research project discussed in the chapter aims to provide differential academic and employment-support services to transition HBCU students with learning disabilities leading to improved college completion and employment outcome by emphasizing cooperation in the classroom and through extracurricular activities. Further, it accomplishes something equally critical to its research-based outcomes – a model of collaboration and cooperation other HBCUs should seek to replicate for the sake of its students, faculty, and institutional reputations.

The program described in this chapter is just one example of programs that serve students and exemplify the mission of HBCUs, while demonstrating innovation, collaboration, and leadership, that creates an opportunity to counter-narrate pernicious stereotypes about HBCUs. The federally-funded, innovative student services/success program I examine in this chapter – a collaborative, multidepartment, and interdisciplinary program emphasizing cooperative learning at a southern flagship HBCU – challenges these pernicious narratives head on. Raising attention and awareness of the program’s existence is important not only to highlight the university’s attempts to promote student success, but is also another clarion call for HBCUs to do all within their power to promote their own successes at attracting, retaining, and promoting students’ success while finding creative ways to develop faculty and promote interdisciplinarity and collaboration. Doing so benefits all HBCU students regardless of their race, cultural affinities, or level of preparedness for college, and benefits all faculty, be they in the much-vaunted science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields or often lesser-valued, but equally crucial fields in the humanities, education, and the arts.

This chapter discusses some issues of diversity in hazard mitigation when just recovery is considered or not. Justice in hazard mitigation becomes crucial considering unequal distribution of resources, systemic racism, and social vulnerability to hazards. While there has been research on just recovery, there is little or no evidence of research that examines the issue of equity and justice in hazard mitigation, This chapter discusses what hazard mitigation is, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 focusing on the planning process, public involvement in the planning process, some planning theories on vulnerability, and building the case for achieving and striving for justice and equity in promoting diversity in hazard mitigation. The chapter makes some recommendation on how to achieve diversity in hazard mitigation.

In this chapter, guest author Dr. Randy Burd discusses the conditions that both promote and hinder innovation in the life sciences. Burd presents his personal observations of how the traditional academic model fails to fully encourage academic innovation, and in doing so illuminates the cultural gap between the academy and industry. He follows this constructive critique of the current system with the suggestion that social entrepreneurship represents a productive middle ground where both traditional bench science flourishes and academic innovation is celebrated.