IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v23y2014i2p103-116..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of knowledge users in public–private research programs: An evaluation challenge

Author

Listed:
  • Laurens K. Hessels
  • Tjerk Wardenaar
  • Wouter P. C. Boon
  • Matthias Ploeg

Abstract

Many contemporary science systems are witnessing the rise of public–private research programs that aim to build capacity for research and innovation in strategic areas. These programs create a significant policy challenge: how to select—based on ex ante evaluations—a consortium that will carry out public–private research activities that will contribute to the overall policy goal of capacity-building in the science and innovation system? And how to make sure that knowledge users are involved in the research program in a meaningful way? The aim of this article is to explore the possibilities for ex ante evaluation of public–private research programs in a systematic comparison of 37 Dutch programs funded by the ‘Investment Grants for Knowledge Infrastructure’ (Besluit Subsidies Investeringen Kennisinfrastructuur) in 2004. Our research question is as follows: to what extent can involvement and commitment of knowledge users in the stage of drawing up the program proposal serve as a predictor of their later involvement and financial contribution? Using available archival data on the programs, we show that on average there is a close association between user involvement in the proposals of public–private research consortia and their eventual involvement during the implementation, but that there are substantial differences between plans and implementation in individual cases. Our analysis suggests that selecting consortia for funding based on their program proposals is possible and legitimate, but that strict rules are necessary to safeguard the financial contributions of knowledge users.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurens K. Hessels & Tjerk Wardenaar & Wouter P. C. Boon & Matthias Ploeg, 2014. "The role of knowledge users in public–private research programs: An evaluation challenge," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 103-116.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:23:y:2014:i:2:p:103-116.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvu007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Klenk, Nicole Lisa & Wyatt, Stephen, 2015. "The design and management of multi-stakeholder research networks to maximize knowledge mobilization and innovation opportunities in the forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 77-86.
    2. 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.
    3. Owusu Sarpong & Peter Teirlinck, 2018. "The influence of functional and geographical diversity in collaboration on product innovation performance in SMEs," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 1667-1695, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:23:y:2014:i:2:p:103-116.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.