城市知识共享类型:从系统文献回顾到综合模型

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Jet Bakker, Peter Scholten, Jan Fransen, Ellen Minkman
{"title":"城市知识共享类型:从系统文献回顾到综合模型","authors":"Jet Bakker, Peter Scholten, Jan Fransen, Ellen Minkman","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scae008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides insight into how the conceptualization of urban knowledge sharing has developed. Based on a structured review and categorization of the literature, we identify three forms of knowledge sharing in and between cities that are distinctly different: knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, and knowledge co-creation. We find that the three forms have different boosts and barriers, whereby the complexities of knowledge sharing and hence the capacities required of the actors are lowest for knowledge transfer and highest for knowledge co-creation. We would therefore like to qualify the recent emphasis given in literature to co-creation; with its complexities and required capacities, it is not to be considered a panacea for solving all urban problems. We propose a model within which knowledge transfer and exchange are more suitable for less wicked problems and may sometimes fruitfully reduce complexities.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A typology of urban knowledge sharing: from a systematic literature review to an integrated model\",\"authors\":\"Jet Bakker, Peter Scholten, Jan Fransen, Ellen Minkman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/scipol/scae008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper provides insight into how the conceptualization of urban knowledge sharing has developed. Based on a structured review and categorization of the literature, we identify three forms of knowledge sharing in and between cities that are distinctly different: knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, and knowledge co-creation. We find that the three forms have different boosts and barriers, whereby the complexities of knowledge sharing and hence the capacities required of the actors are lowest for knowledge transfer and highest for knowledge co-creation. We would therefore like to qualify the recent emphasis given in literature to co-creation; with its complexities and required capacities, it is not to be considered a panacea for solving all urban problems. We propose a model within which knowledge transfer and exchange are more suitable for less wicked problems and may sometimes fruitfully reduce complexities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae008\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文深入探讨了城市知识共享概念化的发展过程。在对文献进行结构化回顾和分类的基础上,我们确定了城市内和城市间三种截然不同的知识共享形式:知识转移、知识交流和知识共创。我们发现,这三种形式具有不同的推动力和障碍,其中知识共享的复杂性以及对参与者能力的要求在知识转让中最低,而在知识共创中最高。因此,我们希望对近期文献中对共同创造的强调加以澄清;由于其复杂性和所需能力,我们不能将其视为解决所有城市问题的灵丹妙药。我们提出了一种模式,在这种模式下,知识转让和交流更适用于不太棘手的问题,有时还能有效降低复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A typology of urban knowledge sharing: from a systematic literature review to an integrated model
This paper provides insight into how the conceptualization of urban knowledge sharing has developed. Based on a structured review and categorization of the literature, we identify three forms of knowledge sharing in and between cities that are distinctly different: knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, and knowledge co-creation. We find that the three forms have different boosts and barriers, whereby the complexities of knowledge sharing and hence the capacities required of the actors are lowest for knowledge transfer and highest for knowledge co-creation. We would therefore like to qualify the recent emphasis given in literature to co-creation; with its complexities and required capacities, it is not to be considered a panacea for solving all urban problems. We propose a model within which knowledge transfer and exchange are more suitable for less wicked problems and may sometimes fruitfully reduce complexities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Science and Public Policy is a leading refereed, international journal on public policies for science, technology and innovation, and on their implications for other public policies. It covers basic, applied, high, low, and any other types of S&T, and rich or poorer countries. It is read in around 70 countries, in universities (teaching and research), government ministries and agencies, consultancies, industry and elsewhere.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信