Search results

Cyber resilience has emerged as an approach for seaports to deal with cyberattacks; it emphasizes ports’ ability to prepare for an attack and to keep operating and recover quickly. However, little research has been undertaken on the challenges of governing cyber risks in seaports. This study aims to address this gap.

Governing cyber resilience is shaped by distributed responsibilities, uncertainties and ambiguities. The authors use this conceptualization to explore the governance of cyber risks in seaports, taking the Port of Rotterdam as a case study and analyzing semistructured interviews with stakeholders, participatory observation and policy documents and legislation.

The authors found that many strategies for governing cyber risks remain dedicated to protecting computer systems against cyberattacks. Nevertheless, port stakeholders have also developed strategies in anticipation of disruptions. However, these strategies appear informal and uncoordinated due to a lack of information exchange, insufficient knowledge regarding cyber risks and disagreement about how to make the Port of Rotterdam cyber resilient. What mainly hampers the cyber resilience of the port is the lack of a comprehensive regulatory framework and economic incentives. The authors conclude that resilience is merely an ideal at the Port of Rotterdam, meaning related governance strategies remain incremental and await institutionalization.

This paper offers insights into the cyber resilience of critical socio-technical systems, which have been underexposed in cyber resilience debates, but, when exploited, can manifest in large-scale disruptions.

States that the participation of men and women in the German academic and scientific system is unequally distributed. Shows that the higher the status at the university, the lower the female proportion and that women also choose different subjects to men. Asks why more men choose science and engineering and what social cognitive characteristics do women show who opt for a “male” subject. Presents the theoretical background to the above before providing some insights using surveys carried out in Germany.

Discussion of scientific progress in science philosophy texts suggests that aggressiveness and selfishness on the part of scientists is associated with high productivity. It is argued that the behaviour that appears to be the most improper actually facilitates the manifest goals of science. This article shows that the making of the 1930s generation of a sample of eminent economists was shaped by a high sense of co‐operation; continuing collaborative contact in the form of dual authorships of books and articles, joint teaching assignments, and review and support of each other′s writings, but very little of the intensive, relentless competition one finds among natural scientists. The difference stems not so much from the fact that economics is a soft science, but rather from the degree of maturity of the discipline. The 1930s generation of economists was fortunate to enter the field at a time when it was ready for its take off.