This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 26, 2025. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
Copy path4.html
136 lines (136 loc) · 4.08 KB
/
4.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
<!doctype html>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8" />
<title>Organizational Integrity: balancing turnover vs. longevity</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="style/stories.css" />
</head>
<body>
<h2>Organizational Integrity: balancing turnover vs. longevity</h2>
<h3>Storyline</h3>
<p>
Looking further at organizational dynamics
reveals other things
about the evolution of the IPCC.
Designed as self-governing institution,
the IPCC essentially reproduces itself
with everyone of its ARs;
if we wanted to understand the institution,
we might look rather at the 5 ARs
as 5 different IPCCs,
stitched together
by an evolving set
of procedures and rules,
as well as a rotating cast
of authors, chairmen,
technical support units and Secretariat staff.
It is impressive how the institution
achieves its work
with relatively light bureaucracy
and voluntary coordination
between hundreds of scientists.
One of the informal elements
that assures that
“things hold together”
is the repeat participation
of authors from previous reports.
At the same time,
the institution officially encourages
frequent turnover of its members
to try and ensure
a wider range of participation.
This storyline looks at the interplay
between roles and responsibilities
of the authors,
as well as their longevity in the institution.
An analysis of the institution
as network and self-regulatory organization
but importance of experience
in sustaining the functionality
of its output.
</p>
<h3>Questions</h3>
<ul>
<li>
1) Who are the authors
that have participated
in more than 1,2,3 or 4 ARs?
</li>
<li>
2) Who are the authors
that have participated
in more than 1,2,3 or 4 ARs
while holding at least
1 of the three elected roles
in the IPCC
in each AR
(CLA, LA, RE)?
</li>
<li>
11) What are the individual trajectories
of those authors
that have participated
in over 14 chapters
in the IPCC?
How do these trajectories compare?
Are there similar trends
in terms of roles held;
country of affiliation; etc?
</li>
<li>
what are the differences between WGs
of this phenomenon?
</li>
</ul>
<h3>Data Attributes</h3>
<ul class="item">
<li>roles</li>
</ul>
<h3>Visualization</h3>
<p>
What does it mean to pass between ARs? [REPEAT Protocol Above]
</p>
<p>
Build lists of these individuals
(define each population; i.e = {>1 AR + CLA/LA/RE})
and analyse:
</p>
<ul class="item">
<li>Institutional affiliation (compared w/overall IPCC)</li>
<li>Country affiliation (compared w/overall IPCC)</li>
</ul>
<p>
How would we characterize these individuals?
</p>
<ul class="item">
<li>
Are these contributors more “interdisciplinarity”?
<br/>
Compare their “interdisciplinarity” measures
with those of the total population of the IPCC
</li>
<li>
Do they have more responsibility
(compared w/overall IPCC)
</li>
<li>
Do they have consistent participation
within certain thematic domains?
(i.e. are certain subjects
more open to “longevity”;
if so, which?)
</li>
</ul>
<nav>
<ol class="roman" start="5">
<li><a href="5.html">Diversifying the Knowledge Base?</a></li>
</ol>
</nav>
<footer>
<a href="http://www.projetmedea.fr/">MEDEA Project</a>
<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC-BY</a>
<a href="http://www.ensad.fr/en">Arts Déco</a> &
<a href="http://www.medialab.sciences-po.fr/">Sciences Po</a>
</footer>
</body>
</html>