IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v40y2011i3p341-354.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what?

Author

Listed:
  • Roelofsen, Anneloes
  • Boon, Wouter P.C.
  • Kloet, Roy R.
  • Broerse, Jacqueline E.W.

Abstract

One of the challenges for public-private R&D collaborations in emerging scientific fields is to actively include the demand side. Insight in how to facilitate learning between stakeholders is, however, lacking. In this paper we present an approach to facilitate and analyse learning processes in multi-stakeholder interactions within public-private research consortia working on new science and technologies. The learning processes that took place during dialogue meetings within the framework of the Dutch Ecogenomics Consortium were analysed, including a reflection on the actual effects. The results show that a carefully structured dialogue method facilitates learning between researchers, users and policy-related participants, and that this learning to some extent is anchored within the Ecogenomics Consortium. At the same time, the results point to the challenges of translating learning into action.

Suggested Citation

  • Roelofsen, Anneloes & Boon, Wouter P.C. & Kloet, Roy R. & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., 2011. "Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 341-354, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:3:p:341-354
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(10)00234-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robinson, Douglas K.R. & Rip, Arie & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007. "Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 871-879, July.
    2. Lyall, Catherine & Bruce, Ann & Firn, John & Firn, Marion & Tait, Joyce, 2004. "Assessing end-use relevance of public sector research organisations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 73-87, January.
    3. Edler, Jakob & Georghiou, Luke, 2007. "Public procurement and innovation--Resurrecting the demand side," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 949-963, September.
    4. Anneloes Roelofsen & Jacqueline Broerse & Tjard de Cock Buning & Joske Bunders, 2010. "Engaging with future technologies: how potential future users frame ecogenomics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 167-179, April.
    5. Shapira, Philip & Klein, Hans & Kuhlmann, Stefan, 2001. "Innovations in European and US innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 869-872, June.
    6. Fisher, Erik, 2005. "Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 321-328.
    7. Hyysalo, Sampsa, 2009. "Learning for learning economy and social learning," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 726-735, June.
    8. Sue Mayer, 2003. "Science out of step with the public: The need for public accountability of science in the UK," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 177-181, June.
    9. Mowery, David & Rosenberg, Nathan, 1993. "The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 107-108, April.
    10. Corley, Elizabeth A. & Boardman, P. Craig & Bozeman, Barry, 2006. "Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 975-993, September.
    11. Ruud E. Smits & Stefan Kuhlmann & Phillip Shapira (ed.), 2010. "The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4181.
    12. Link, Albert N. & Paton, David & Siegel, Donald S., 2002. "An analysis of policy initiatives to promote strategic research partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1459-1466, December.
    13. Marleen Kerkhof, 2006. "Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(3), pages 279-299, September.
    14. J Francisca Caron-Flinterman & Jacqueline E W Broerse & Julia Teerling & Melissa L Y van Alst & Simon Klaasen & L Edwin Swart & Joske F G Bunders, 2006. "Stakeholder participation in health research agenda setting: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 291-304, May.
    15. George P. Huber, 1991. "Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 88-115, February.
    16. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    17. Lundvall, Bengt-Ake & Johnson, Bjorn & Andersen, Esben Sloth & Dalum, Bent, 2002. "National systems of production, innovation and competence building," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-231, February.
    18. Douglas K. R. Robinson & Arie Rip & Vincent Mangematin, 2007. "Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology," Post-Print hal-00424519, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christoph Grimpe & Wolfgang Sofka & Andreas P. Distel, 2022. "SME participation in research grant consortia—the emergence of coordinated attention in collaborative innovation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1567-1592, December.
    2. Ingram, Julie & Dwyer, Janet & Gaskell, Peter & Mills, Jane & Wolf, Pieter de, 2018. "Reconceptualising translation in agricultural innovation: A co-translation approach to bring research knowledge and practice closer together," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 38-51.
    3. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    4. Omid Omidvar & Roman Kislov, 2016. "R&D Consortia As Boundary Organisations: Misalignment And Asymmetry Of Boundary Management," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-24, February.
    5. Yuval Kalish & Amalya L. Oliver, 2022. "Reducing the cost of knowledge exchange in consortia: network analyses of multiple relations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 775-803, June.
    6. Dentoni, Domenico & Klerkx, Laurens, 2015. "Co-managing public research in Australian fisheries through convergence–divergence processes," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 259-271.
    7. O'Kane, Conor & Haar, Jarrod & Mangematin, Vincent & Daellenbach, Urs & Davenport, Sally, 2021. "Distilling and renewing science team search through external engagement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    8. Sydow, Jörg & Müller-Seitz, Gordon, 2020. "Open innovation at the interorganizational network level – Stretching practices to face technological discontinuities in the semiconductor industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    9. Amalya L. Oliver, 2022. "Holistic ecosystems for enhancing innovative collaborations in university–industry consortia," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1612-1628, October.
    10. Enas Alhassan & R. Sandra Schillo & Margaret A. Lemay & Fred Pries, 2019. "Research Outputs as Vehicles of Knowledge Exchange in a Quintuple Helix Context: The Case of Biofuels Research Outputs," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(3), pages 958-973, September.
    11. Kwon, Seokbeom & Liu, Xiaoyu & Porter, Alan L. & Youtie, Jan, 2019. "Research addressing emerging technological ideas has greater scientific impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    12. Gerges-Yammine, Rand & Ter Wal, Anne L.J., 2023. "Firm exit from open multiparty alliances: The role of social influence, uncertainty, and interfirm imitation in collective technology development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    13. James Hayton & Paul Olk, 2013. "Developing alliance formation process capabilities: replication, adaptation and flexibility in creating research and development consortia," Research Papers 0013, Enterprise Research Centre.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Boon, Wouter P.C. & Moors, Ellen H.M. & Kuhlmann, Stefan & Smits, Ruud E.H.M., 2011. "Demand articulation in emerging technologies: Intermediary user organisations as co-producers?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 242-252, March.
    2. Wouter Boon & Jakob Edler, 2018. "Demand, challenges, and innovation. Making sense of new trends in innovation policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 435-447.
    3. Soekijad, M. & Walschots, J. & Huysman, M., 2008. "Congestion at the floating road? Negotiation in networked innovation," Serie Research Memoranda 0002, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    4. Hoppmann, Joern & Wu, Geng & Johnson, Jillian, 2021. "The impact of demand-pull and technology-push policies on firms’ knowledge search," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    5. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Andersen, Per Dannemand, 2014. "Innovation system foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 276-286.
    6. Thais Dalcin & Alsones Balestrin & Eduardo Künzel Teixeira, 2017. "Start-Up Cluster Development: A Multi-Case Analysis in the Brazilian Context," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1-25, December.
    7. Jerald Hage & Jonathon Mote & Gretchen Jordan, 2013. "Ideas, innovations, and networks: a new policy model based on the evolution of knowledge," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, June.
    8. Boer, Duncan den & Rip, Arie & Speller, Sylvia, 2009. "Scripting possible futures of nanotechnologies: A methodology that enhances reflexivity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 295-304.
    9. Vecchiato, Riccardo & Roveda, Claudio, 2014. "Foresight for public procurement and regional innovation policy: The case of Lombardy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 438-450.
    10. Goio Etxebarria & Mikel Gomez-Uranga & Jon Barrutia, 2012. "Tendencies in scientific output on carbon nanotubes and graphene in global centers of excellence for nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 253-268, April.
    11. Davide Consoli & Pier Paolo Patrucco, 2011. "Complexity and the Coordination of Technological Knowledge: The Case of Innovation Platforms," Chapters, in: Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 8 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    13. Mario Coccia, 2011. "Evolutionary dynamics and scientific flows of nanotechnology research across geo-economic areas," CERIS Working Paper 201101, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    14. Krieger, Bastian & Zipperer, Vera, 2022. "Does green public procurement trigger environmental innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    15. Luna-Ochoa, Sergio Marco A. & Robles-Belmont, Eduardo & Suaste-Gomez, Ernesto, 2016. "A profile of Mexico’s technological agglomerations: The case of the aerospace and nanotechnology industry in Querétaro and Monterrey," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 120-125.
    16. Fagerberg, Jan, 2018. "Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1568-1576.
    17. RAITERI Emilio, 2015. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of innovative public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2015-05, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    18. Corine Genet & Vincent Mangematin & Franck Aggeri & Caroline Lanciano-Morandat, 2007. "Modèle d'activité dans l'instrumentation en biotechnologies : construire l'offre ou répondre à la demande," Post-Print halshs-00436954, HAL.
    19. Vincent Mangematin & Steve Walsh, 2012. "The Future Of Nanotechnologies," Post-Print hal-00658034, HAL.
    20. Klochikhin, Evgeny A., 2012. "Russia's innovation policy: Stubborn path-dependencies and new approaches," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1620-1630.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:3:p:341-354. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.