IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v17y2018i1p11-18.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tracing the Pathways from Research to Innovation: Evidence from Case Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Dominique Barjolle
  • Peter Midmore
  • Otto Schmid

Abstract

The complex process through which agricultural research stimulates innovation and achieves policy goals has commonly been treated as a ‘black box’ in the scientific literature. Statistical correlations between measured expenditure and impacts, where satisfactorily established, have mostly led to details of the research and innovation system being ignored. However, identifying and exploring causal chains of impact propagation can strengthen agricultural innovation. IMPRESA investigated impact mechanisms for research†based innovations in six case studies using a Participatory Impact Pathway Assessment approach. Several suggestions result for improving performance and public support for agricultural research. Planning for impact is needed at the design phase of research so that expected advances in technology and their consequences can be explored. At that stage and throughout the research process, soft social skills are required to promote uptake. Greater impact can be achieved through the close involvement of key public and private sector stakeholders, using stakeholder mapping as a supporting tool. There is a strong argument for the close involvement of relevant social scientists and professional facilitators from the design phase of research through to its ultimate impacts. Funding frameworks and the specification of calls for tenders would function more effectively by giving more flexibility for stakeholder engagement.Le processus complexe par lequel la recherche agricole stimule l'innovation et permet d'atteindre les objectifs de la politique a souvent été traité comme une «boîte noire» dans la littérature scientifique. Les corrélations statistiques entre les dépenses mesurées et les impacts, lorsqu'elles ont été établies de manière satisfaisante, ont surtout conduit à ignorer les détails du système de recherche et d'innovation. L'identification et l'exploration des chaînes causales de la propagation de l'impact peuvent cependant renforcer l'innovation agricole. L'IMPRESA a étudié les mécanismes de formation des impacts des innovations fondées sur la recherche dans six études de cas à l'aide d'une approche d’évaluation participative. Plusieurs suggestions sont avancées pour améliorer les performances et le soutien public à la recherche agricole. Il faut anticiper les impacts à la phase de conception de la recherche afin de pouvoir explorer les progrès attendus dans la technologie et leurs conséquences. À ce stade et tout au long du processus de recherche, des compétences sociales “soft†sont requises pour promouvoir l'adoption. L'impact peut être augmenté grâce à la participation étroite des principaux acteurs des secteurs public et privé, en utilisant la cartographie des parties prenantes comme outil de soutien. Il y a de solides raisons d'encourager la participation étroite des spécialistes en sciences sociales et des facilitateurs professionnels, de la phase de conception de la recherche à ses impacts ultimes. Le fonctionnement des cadres de financement et la spécification des appels d'offres seraient plus efficaces si l'engagement des parties prenantes devenait plus flexible.Der komplexe Prozess, durch den die Agrarforschung Innovationen anregt und politische Ziele erreicht, wird in der wissenschaftlichen Literatur gemeinhin als „Blackbox†behandelt. Statistische Korrelationen zwischen gemessenen Ausgaben und Auswirkungen, wo immer sie zufriedenstellend ermittelt wurden, haben meist dazu geführt, dass Details des Forschungs†und Innovationssystems ignoriert wurden. IMPRESA hat die Mechanismen der Auswirkungen von forschungsbasierten Innovationen in sechs Fallstudien mit einem partizipativen Ansatz zur Bewertung von Wirkungspfaden (Participatory Impact Pathway Assessment) untersucht. Daraus ergeben sich mehrere Vorschläge zur Leistungssteigerung und zur öffentlichen Förderung der Agrarforschung. Bereits in der Konzeptionsphase der Forschung müssen die Auswirkungen mit eingeplant werden, damit die zu erwartenden technologischen Fortschritte und ihre Folgen untersucht werden können. In diesem Stadium und während des gesamten Forschungsprozesses sind soziale Kompetenzen notwendig, um die Akzeptanz zu fördern. Eine größere Wirkung kann durch die Einbeziehung von wichtigen Akteuren des öffentlichen und privaten Sektors erzielt werden, wobei Stakeholder†Mapping als unterstützende Methode genutzt wird. Die enge Einbeziehung relevanter Sozialwissenschaftler und professioneller Moderatoren von der Konzeptionsphase der Forschung bis hin zu den endgültigen Auswirkungen wird ausdrücklich befürwortet. Finanzierungsrahmen und die Festlegung von Ausschreibungen würden besser funktionieren, wenn mehr Flexibilität für die Einbeziehung von Interessengruppen geschaffen würde.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominique Barjolle & Peter Midmore & Otto Schmid, 2018. "Tracing the Pathways from Research to Innovation: Evidence from Case Studies," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 17(1), pages 11-18, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:17:y:2018:i:1:p:11-18
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12181
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12181?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2013. "Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1647-1656.
    2. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Laurence Colinet & Ariane Gaunand & Stéphane Lemarié & Mireille Matt, 2016. "Agricultural research impact assessment: Issues, methods and challenges," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 98, OECD Publishing.
    3. Matt, M. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P-B. & Colinet, L., 2017. "Opening the black box of impact – Ideal-type impact pathways in a public agricultural research organization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 207-218.
    4. Pierre Benoit Joly & Laurence Colinet & Ariane Gaunand & Stephane Lemarié & Mireille Matt, 2016. "Agricultural research impact assessment: issues, methods and challenges," Working Papers hal-01431457, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Genowefa Blundo-Canto & Bernard Triomphe & Guy Faure & Danielle Barret & Aurelle de Romemont & Etienne Hainzelin, 2019. "Building a culture of impact in an international agricultural research organization: Process and reflective learning," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 136-144.
    2. Turner, James A & Guesmi, Bouali & Gil, José M. & Heanue, Kevin & Sierra, Miguel & Percy, Helen & Bortagaray, Isabel & Chams, Nour & Milne, Cath, 2022. "Evaluation capacity building in response to the agricultural research impact agenda: Emerging insights from Ireland, Catalonia (Spain), New Zealand, and Uruguay," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Alessandro Magrini & Fabio Bartolini & Alessandra Coli & Barbara Pacini, 2019. "A structural equation model to assess the impact of agricultural research expenditure on multiple dimensions," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 2063-2080, July.
    4. André Martinuzzi & Markus Hametner & Andreas Windsperger & Nadine Brunnhuber, 2023. "A Framework for Assessing the Climate Impacts of Research and Innovation Projects and Programmes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-24, December.
    5. Markow, Jekaterina & Fieldsend, Andrew F. & Münchhausen, Susanne von & Häring, Anna Maria, 2023. "Building agricultural innovation capacity from the bottom up: Using spillover effects from projects to strengthen agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Henderson, Dylan & Roche, Neil, 2018. "From consensus to conflict in the regional policy mix for broadband deployment: examining the role of informal coordination," 29th European Regional ITS Conference, Trento 2018 184944, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    8. Caloffi, Annalisa & Freo, Marzia & Ghinoi, Stefano & Mariani, Marco & Rossi, Federica, 2022. "Assessing the effects of a deliberate policy mix: The case of technology and innovation advisory services and innovation vouchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    9. 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.
    10. Esparza Masana, Ricard & Fernández, Tatiana, 2019. "Monitoring S3: Key dimensions and implications," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    11. Elvira Uyarra & Kieron Flanagan & Edurne Magro & James R Wilson & Markku Sotarauta, 2017. "Understanding regional innovation policy dynamics: Actors, agency and learning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(4), pages 559-568, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Evgenii Smirnov & Sergey Lukyanov, 2019. "Development of the Global Market of Artificial Intelligence Systems," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 57-69.
    14. Tea Petrin & Dragana Radicic, 2023. "Instrument policy mix and firm size: is there complementarity between R&D subsidies and R&D tax credits?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 181-215, February.
    15. Lee, Jangwook & Chung, Jiyoon, 2022. "Women in top management teams and their impact on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    16. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    17. Huang, Cui & Yang, Chao & Su, Jun, 2021. "Identifying core policy instruments based on structural holes: A case study of China’s nuclear energy policy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    18. Lewandowska Małgorzata Stefania & Weresa Marzenna Anna & Rószkiewicz Małgorzata, 2022. "Evaluating the impact of public financial support on innovation activities of European Union enterprises: Additionality approach," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 58(3), pages 248-266, September.
    19. Kiman Kim & Sang Ok Choi & Sooyeon Lee, 2021. "The Effect of a Financial Support on Firm Innovation Collaboration and Output: Does Policy Work on the Diverse Nature of Firm Innovation?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(2), pages 645-675, June.
    20. Annalisa Caloffi & Marco Mariani, 2018. "Regional policy mixes for enterprise and innovation: A fuzzy-set clustering approach," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 28-46, February.

    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:bla:eurcho:v:17:y:2018:i:1:p:11-18. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.