Entrepreneurship and Governance in the Scotch Whisky Knowledge Commons

2021 ◽  
pp. 195-216
Author(s):  
Michelle Albert Vachris ◽  
Kyle Vachris
2021 ◽  

Knowledge commons facilitate voluntary private interactions in markets and societies. These shared pools of knowledge consist of intellectual and legal infrastructures that both enable and constrain private initiatives. This volume brings together theoretical and empirical approaches that develop and apply the Governing Knowledge Commons framework to the evolution of various kinds of shared knowledge structures that underpin exchanges of goods, services, and ideas. Chapters offer vivid and illuminating case studies that illustrate this conceptual framework. How did pooling scientific knowledge enable the Industrial Revolution? How do social networks underpin the credit system enabling the Agra footwear market? How did the market category Scotch whisky emerge and who has access to it? What is the potential of blockchain-ledgers as shared knowledge repositories? This volume demonstrates the importance of shared knowledge in modern society.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Madison ◽  
Brett M. Frischmann ◽  
Katherine J. Strandburg

This chapter describes methods for systematically studying knowledge commons as an institutional mode of governance of knowledge and information resources, including references to adjacent but distinct approaches to research that looks primarily to the role(s) of intellectual property systems in institutional contexts concerning innovation and creativity.Knowledge commons refers to an institutional approach (commons) to governing the production, use, management, and/or preservation of a particular type of resource (knowledge or information, including resources linked to innovative and creative practice).Commons refers to a form of community management or governance. It applies to a resource, and it involves a group or community of people who share access to and/or use of the resource. Commons does not denote the resource, the community, a place, or a thing. Commons is the institutional arrangement of these elements and their coordination via combinations of law and other formal rules; social norms, customs, and informal discipline; and technological and other material constraints. Community or collective self-governance of the resource, by individuals who collaborate or coordinate among themselves effectively, is a key feature of commons as an institution, but self-governance may be and often is linked to other formal and informal governance mechanisms. For purposes of this chapter, knowledge refers to a broad set of intellectual and cultural resources. There are important differences between various resources captured by such a broad definition. For example, knowledge, information, and data may be different from each other in meaningful ways. But an inclusive term is necessary in order to permit knowledge commons researchers to capture and study a broad and inclusive range of commons institutions and to highlight the importance of examining knowledge commons governance as part of dynamic, ecological contexts


Author(s):  
Herminio Bodon ◽  
Pedro Bustamante ◽  
Marcela Gomez ◽  
Prashabnt Krishnamurthy ◽  
Michael J. Madison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Madelyn Rose Sanfilippo ◽  
Brett M. Frischmann ◽  
Katherine J. Strandburg
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 1410
Author(s):  
Martina Daute ◽  
Frances Jack ◽  
Irene Baxter ◽  
Barry Harrison ◽  
John Grigor ◽  
...  

This study compared the use of three sensory and analytical techniques: Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA), Napping, and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) for the assessment of flavour in nine unmatured whisky spirits produced using different yeasts. Hierarchical Multiple Factor Analysis (HMFA) showed a similar pattern of sample discrimination (RV scores: 0.895–0.927) across the techniques: spirits were mostly separated by their Alcohol by Volume (ABV). Low ABV spirits tended to have heavier flavour characteristics (feinty, cereal, sour, oily, sulphury) than high ABV spirits, which were lighter in character (fruity, sweet, floral, solventy, soapy). QDA differentiated best between low ABV spirits and GC-MS between high ABV spirits, with Napping having the lowest resolution. QDA was time-consuming but provided quantitative flavour profiles of each spirit that could be readily compared. Napping, although quicker, gave an overview of the flavour differences of the spirits, while GC-MS provided semi-quantitative ratios of 96 flavour compounds for differentiating between spirits. Ester, arenes and certain alcohols were found in higher concentrations in high ABV spirits and other alcohols and aldehydes in low ABV spirits. The most comprehensive insights on spirit flavour differences produced by different yeast strains are obtained through the application of a combination of approaches.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-142
Author(s):  
Inna Kouper ◽  
Anjanette H Raymond ◽  
Stacey Giroux

AbstractMaking decisions regarding data and the overall credibility of research constitutes research data governance. In this paper, we present results of an exploratory study of the stakeholders of research data governance. The study was conducted among individuals who work in academic and research institutions in the US, with the goal of understanding what entities are perceived as making decisions regarding data and who researchers believe should be responsible for governing research data. Our results show that there is considerable diversity and complexity across stakeholders, both in terms of who they are and their ideas about data governance. To account for this diversity, we propose to frame research data governance in the context of polycentric governance of a knowledge commons. We argue that approaching research data from the commons perspective will allow for a governance framework that can balance the goals of science and society, allow us to shift the discussion toward protection from enclosure and knowledge resilience, and help to ensure that multiple voices are included in all levels of decision-making.


2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna Ravi Srinivas

AbstractThe experience of the indigenous communities regarding access and benefit sharing under the national regimes based on provisions of Convention on Biological Diversity and Bonn Guidelines has not been satisfactory. The communities expect that noncommercial values should be respected and misappropriation should be prevented. Some academics and civil society groups have suggested that traditional knowledge commons and biocultural protocols will be useful in ensuring that while noncommercial values are respected, access and benefit sharing takes place on conditions that are acceptable to the communities. This proposal is examined in this context in the larger context of access and benefit sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity and implementing prior informed consent principles in access and benefit sharing. This article examines knowledge commons, provides examples from constructed commons in different sectors and situates traditional knowledge commons in the context of debates on commons and public domain. The major shortcomings of traditional commons and bicultural protocol are pointed out, and it is suggested that these are significant initiatives that can be combined with the Nagoya Protocol to fulfill the expectations of indigenous communities.


2009 ◽  
Vol 115 (3) ◽  
pp. 198-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Berbert de Amorim Neto ◽  
B. K. Yohannan ◽  
T. A. Bringhurst ◽  
J. M. Brosnan ◽  
S. Y. Pearson ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document