IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v30y2021i4p431-442..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A formative approach to the evaluation of Transformative Innovation Policies
[The Need for Reflexive Evaluation Approaches in Development Cooperation]

Author

Listed:
  • Jordi Molas-Gallart
  • Alejandra Boni
  • Sandro Giachi
  • Johan Schot

Abstract

Transformative Innovation Policies (TIPs) assert that addressing the key challenges currently facing our societies requires profound changes in current socio-technical systems. To leverage such ‘socio-technical transitions’ calls for a different, broad mix of research and innovation policies, with particular attention being paid to policy experiments. As TIPs diffuse and gain legitimacy they pose a substantial evaluation challenge: how can we evaluate these policy experiments with a narrow geographical and temporal scope, when the final objective is ambitiously systemic? How can we know whether a specific set of policy experiments is contributing to systemic transformation? Drawing on TIPs principles as developed by and applied in the activities of the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium and on the concept of transformative outcomes, this article develops an approach to the evaluation of TIPs that is operational and adaptable to different contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Jordi Molas-Gallart & Alejandra Boni & Sandro Giachi & Johan Schot, 2021. "A formative approach to the evaluation of Transformative Innovation Policies [The Need for Reflexive Evaluation Approaches in Development Cooperation]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 431-442.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:30:y:2021:i:4:p:431-442.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvab016
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weber, K. Matthias & Rohracher, Harald, 2012. "Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1037-1047.
    2. Geels, Frank W., 2010. "Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 495-510, May.
    3. Rogge, Karoline S. & Pfluger, Benjamin & Geels, Frank W., 2020. "Transformative policy mixes in socio-technical scenarios: The case of the low-carbon transition of the German electricity system (2010–2050)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2013. "Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1647-1656.
    5. Smith, Adrian & Voß, Jan-Peter & Grin, John, 2010. "Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 435-448, May.
    6. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    7. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    8. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    9. Cohen, Ernesto & Franco, Rolando, 1992. "Rationalizing social policy: evaluation and viability," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), August.
    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. Essén, Anna & Wennberg, Karl & Krohwinkel, Anna, 2022. "Assessing Whether Mission-Driven Innovation Makes a Difference: Mission Impossible? Developing a Guiding Framework for the Evaluation of Five Mission Driven Environments for Health in Sweden," SSE Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2022:2, Stockholm School of Economics.
    2. Peter Meister & Elisabeth A M & Lummina G, 2023. "Evaluating co-creation in social innovation projects: Towards a process orientated framework for EU projects and beyond," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 286-298.
    3. Paula Kivimaa & Jani Lukkarinen & David Lazarevic, 2023. "Analysis of COVID-19 recovery and resilience policy in Finland: a transformative policy mix approach," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 681-694.
    4. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:371-383. is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:171-187. is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Alejandra Boni & Diana Velasco & Jordi Molas-Gallart & Johan Schot, 2023. "Evaluating transformative innovation policy in a formative way: Insights from Vinnova’s food mission experiment," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 577-590.
    7. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:3:p:577-590. is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Víctor Gómez-Valenzuela, 2023. "Stated preference methods and STI policy studies: a foreground approach," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 171-187.
    9. Rosa Kuipers-Dirven & Matthijs Janssen & Jarno Hoekman, 2023. "Assessing university policies for enhancing societal impact of academic research: A multicriteria mapping approach," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 371-383.
    10. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:286-298. is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Wouter van de & Alfredo Yegros-Yegros & Tim Willemse & Ismael Rafols, 2023. "Priorities in research portfolios: exploring the need for upstream research in cardiometabolic and mental health," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(6), pages 961-976.
    12. Santos, Anabela M. & Coad, Alex, 2023. "Monitoring and evaluation of transformative innovation policy: Suggestions for Improvement," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. Haddad, Carolina R. & Bergek, Anna, 2023. "Towards an integrated framework for evaluating transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    14. Harald Rohracher & Lars Coenen & Olga Kordas, 2023. "Mission incomplete: Layered practices of monitoring and evaluation in Swedish transformative innovation policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 336-349.

    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. Cheng Wang & Tao Lv & Rongjiang Cai & Jianfeng Xu & Liya Wang, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transition Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, March.
    2. Kuokkanen, A. & Nurmi, A. & Mikkilä, M. & Kuisma, M. & Kahiluoto, H. & Linnanen, L., 2018. "Agency in regime destabilization through the selection environment: The Finnish food system’s sustainability transition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1513-1522.
    3. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    4. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    5. Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical network analysis – a methodological framework and a case study from the water sector," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2035, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2020.
    6. Raven, Rob & Walrave, Bob, 2020. "Overcoming transformational failures through policy mixes in the dynamics of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    7. Catia Milena Lopes & Annibal José Scavarda & Guilherme Luís Roehe Vaccaro & Christopher Rosa Pohlmann & André Luis Korzenowski, 2018. "Perspective of Business Models and Innovation for Sustainability Transition in Hospitals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    9. Heiberg, Jonas & Truffer, Bernhard & Binz, Christian, 2022. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical configuration analysis – a methodological framework and a case study in the water sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    10. Nikas, A. & Koasidis, K. & Köberle, A.C. & Kourtesi, G. & Doukas, H., 2022. "A comparative study of biodiesel in Brazil and Argentina: An integrated systems of innovation perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    11. Luis Felipe Cândido & Jose Carlos Lazaro & Adriano Olivier de Freitas e Silva & José de Paula Barros Neto, 2023. "Sustainability Transitions in the Construction Sector: A Bibliometric Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-26, August.
    12. Nhat Strøm-Andersen, 2019. "Incumbents in the Transition Towards the Bioeconomy: The Role of Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-20, September.
    13. Steen, Markus & Weaver, Tyson, 2017. "Incumbents’ diversification and cross-sectorial energy industry dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1071-1086.
    14. Chang, Ruidong & Cao, Yuan & Lu, Yujie & Shabunko, Veronika, 2019. "Should BIPV technologies be empowered by innovation policy mix to facilitate energy transitions? - Revealing stakeholders' different perspectives using Q methodology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 307-318.
    15. Diercks, Gijs, 2019. "Lost in translation: How legacy limits the OECD in promoting new policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    16. Catia Milena Lopes & Annibal José Scavarda & Mauricio Nunes Macedo de Carvalho & André Luis Korzenowski, 2018. "The Business Model and Innovation Analyses: The Sustainable Transition Obstacles and Drivers for the Hospital Supply Chains," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Xu, Lei & Su, Jun, 2016. "From government to market and from producer to consumer: Transition of policy mix towards clean mobility in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 328-340.
    18. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    19. Weigelt, Carmen & Lu, Shaohua & Verhaal, J. Cameron, 2021. "Blinded by the sun: The role of prosumers as niche actors in incumbent firms’ adoption of solar power during sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    20. Kejia Yang & Johan Schot & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Shaping the Directionality of Sustainability Transitions: The Diverging Development Patterns of Solar PV in Two Chinese Provinces," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.

    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:30:y:2021:i:4:p:431-442.. 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: 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.