@misc{Wenzel2016,
  author    = {Wenzel, Bertolt},
  title     = {Organizing coordination in fisheries and marine environmental management: Patterns of organizational change in Europe},
  series = {Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America},
  volume    = {134},
  journal   = {Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0964-5691},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.10.012},
  pages     = {194 -- 206},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Over the past decade, an increasing number of public organizations involved in marine governance in Europe have adapted their formal coordination structures for fisheries and marine environmental management. This study examines why the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), DG FISH of the European Commission, the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (IMR), and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) have changed their sectoral structures into organizations with a geographical focus on marine ecosystems. The study finds that the gradual convergence of formal coordination structures for fisheries and marine environmental management is driven by coercive, normative and mimetic processes of isomorphism. The structural changes reflect an organizational adaptation to a changing institutional environment and an Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM) focusing on regional marine areas, cross-sector integration and coordination. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{MielkeVermassenEllenbecketal.2016,
  author    = {Mielke, Jahel and Vermassen, Hannah and Ellenbeck, Saskia and Milan, Blanca Fernandez and Jaeger, Carlo},
  title     = {Stakeholder involvement in sustainability science-A critical view},
  series = {Global biogeochemical cycles},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Global biogeochemical cycles},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {2214-6296},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.001},
  pages     = {71 -- 81},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Discussions about the opening of science to society have led to the emergence of new fields such as sustainability science and transformative science. At the same time, the megatrend of stakeholder participation reached the academic world and thus scientific research processes. This challenges the way science is conducted and the tools, methods and theories perceived appropriate. Although researchers involve stakeholders, the scientific community still lacks comprehensive theoretical analysis of the practical processes behind their integration - for example what kind of perceptions scientists have about their roles, their objectives, the knowledge to gather, their understanding of science or the science-policy interface. Our paper addresses this research gap by developing four ideal types of stakeholder involvement in science - the technocratic, the functionalist, the neoliberal-rational and the democratic type. In applying the typology, which is based on literature review, interviews and practical experiences, we identify and discuss three major criticisms raised towards stakeholder involvement in science: the legitimacy of stakeholder claims, the question whether bargaining or deliberation are part of the stakeholder involvement process and the question of the autonomy of science. Thus, the typology helps scientists to better understand the major critical questions that stakeholder involvement raises and enables them to position themselves when conducting their research. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}