IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v40y2012i3p366-377.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Closing the policy cycle: Increasing the utilization of evaluation findings in research, technological development and innovation policy design

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Teirlinck
  • Henri Delanghe
  • Pierre Padilla
  • Arnold Verbeek

Abstract

The limited take-up of evaluation findings in research, technological development and innovation (RTDI) policy (re-)design remains a major concern to policy-makers and the evaluation community. To identify the main opportunities for closing the policy cycle, an in-depth analysis was undertaken of 53 purposely chosen evaluation exercises ordered by public administrations and agencies in the field of RTDI. The focus was on evaluations of non-thematic (i.e. general) RTDI funding measures in the areas of public funding of RTDI, industry--science linkages, and performance-based funding of RTDI in universities and public research centres. Factors related to 'process' (mainly stakeholder involvement), 'design' (methodology) and 'content' (formulation of recommendations and use of evidence base) were considered. The paper concludes that the limited take-up of evaluation findings relates mainly to the lack of early and systematic involvement of a broad spectrum of stakeholders and the use of non-harmonized indicators and non-transferable evaluation methods. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Teirlinck & Henri Delanghe & Pierre Padilla & Arnold Verbeek, 2012. "Closing the policy cycle: Increasing the utilization of evaluation findings in research, technological development and innovation policy design," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 366-377, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:40:y:2012:i:3:p:366-377
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scs123
    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. Belinda McFadgen & Dave Huitema, 2018. "Experimentation at the interface of science and policy: a multi-case analysis of how policy experiments influence political decision-makers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(2), pages 161-187, June.
    2. Mikhail Gershman & Galina Kitova, 2017. "Assessing Government Support for Research and Innovation in Russian Universities," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 8(3), pages 1067-1084, September.

    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:40:y:2012:i:3:p:366-377. 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.