IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v34y2007i10p731-741.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A theory-based innovation systems framework for evaluating diverse portfolios of research, part two: Macro indicators and policy interventions

Author

Listed:
  • Jerald Hage
  • Gretchen Jordan
  • Jonathan Mote

Abstract

This framework for multi-level evaluation of scientific research is a bridge between social science theory and the provision of effective feedbacks to governments so they can overcome systemic blockages to innovation and successful outcomes of research policy. Starting with the idea of innovation network theory and organizational theory involved in the research environment survey, a small set of indicators is suggested at micro, meso, and macro levels. Data from this integrated set of indicators can identify the blockages and suggest corrections. This paper concentrates on the macro-level indicators. Three familiar kinds of government policy lever — capital, capabilities, and coordination modes — are discussed. However, the discussion of ways in which these interventions can correct blockages is far more complex than has previously been acknowledged in the evaluation literature. The proposed framework is an important step for evaluators and policy-makers to develop research, technology and development investment portfolios and strategies more effectively. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Jerald Hage & Gretchen Jordan & Jonathan Mote, 2007. "A theory-based innovation systems framework for evaluating diverse portfolios of research, part two: Macro indicators and policy interventions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(10), pages 731-741, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:10:p:731-741
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234207X265385
    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. Hyungjo Hur & Maryam A Andalib & Julie A Maurer & Joshua D Hawley & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2017. "Recent trends in the U.S. Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (BSSR) workforce," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Junwen Luo & Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros & Stefan Kuhlmann, 2019. "The balancing role of evaluation mechanisms in organizational governance—The case of publicly funded research institutions," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 344-354.
    3. Borrás, Susana & Laatsit, Mart, 2019. "Towards system oriented innovation policy evaluation? Evidence from EU28 member states," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 312-321.

    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:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:10:p:731-741. 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/spp .

    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.