Abstract
This paper investigates interactions between institutional adaptation and the transformation of science and innovation systems by analysing change and adjustment in post-socialist science academies. Two leading examples are examined: the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). A heuristic framework of institutional change markers is applied to the analysis of nanotechnology research in both countries. We draw on bibliometric sources, interviews and secondary sources. We find that while the two Academies share a common past as the dominant research agents in their respective systems, their current positions and trajectories now differ. The nanotechnology case shows that CAS has adapted to China's modernisation, engaged in central government policy initiatives, and interacted with other research performers. CAS remains central to the Chinese research system, and has rejuvenated and expanded its resource base. RAS, on the contrary, has taken a protectionist stance: it still dominates the Russian research system and has a strong nanotechnology position, enforced by its gatekeeper control over journal publication. Nevertheless, RAS has faced difficulties in internal modernisation, leading to the external imposition of reforms and further role diminishment. The paper offers comparative insights into processes of institutional adaptation and highlights how key institutions can influence system transition.
Highlights
The capabilities, organisational modes, and practices of public, private, and non-profit institutions, including universities, national laboratories, and academies, are central to the operation and performance of science and innovation systems (OECD, 1997; Edquist and Johnson, 2000)
How do such changes interactions occur and how can we conceptualise and assess the processes involved? In this paper we address these questions by analysing the dynamics of the interaction between change in the science academies of Russia and China with the
In Russia, while there is a steady growth of publications and some systemic reforms produced some positive overall dynamics, especially for universities, Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) has shrunk in size and its research is increasingly concentrated in a few central centres
Summary
The capabilities, organisational modes, and practices of public, private, and non-profit institutions, including universities, national laboratories, and academies, are central to the operation and performance of science and innovation systems (OECD, 1997; Edquist and Johnson, 2000). It is reasonable to conjecture that changes in key institutions can have the capacity to transform their systems, while at the same time through feedback loops these institutions may be changed by transition of the systems within which they are embedded. How do such changes interactions occur and how can we conceptualise and assess the processes involved? The Soviet Academy's legacy is embedded in its successor, the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) It provided a model replicated by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the National Academy of Sciences of Vietnam, the Academia Sinica of Taiwan, and science academies in Eastern Europe, among others. These research organisations oversee functions of scientific knowledge production, accreditation as well as honorary functions of appraisal for outstanding researchers (Graham, 1998)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
