IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hig/wpaper/57sti2016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluation of Research and Innovation Policies: The Case of Russian Universities

Author

Listed:
  • Mikhail A. Gershman

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Galina A. Kitova

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Abstract

In recent years, evaluation and impact assessments (IA) of research and innovation (R&I) policies have become of interest both to researchers and policy makers. The latter use the results of such assessments when developing new regulations and monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of policies already in place. The practice and methodology of policy evaluation and IA are characterised by the diversity of approaches used and the existence of a number of unresolved methodological problems. At the same time, efforts are being made to define conceptual frameworks for policy evaluation and IA, categorise relevant studies and cases, and draft recommendations. This paper looks at public policies and programmes aimed at stimulating R&I in Russian universities. For this purpose, 299 universities were surveyed in 2013-2014 to reveal their demand for the relevant policies in 2006-2012 and the effects they had. Based on survey results we assess the impact of the policies on universities and suggest recommendations regarding the improvement of state regulations and further conduction of similar assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikhail A. Gershman & Galina A. Kitova, 2016. "Evaluation of Research and Innovation Policies: The Case of Russian Universities," HSE Working papers WP BRP 57/STI/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:57sti2016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hse.ru/data/2016/01/18/1135141709/57STI2016.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helmut Gassler & Andreas Schibany, 2011. "«Useless» Science: How to Evaluate Performance of Basic Research," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 5(1), pages 40-47.
    2. Mackay, Ronald & Horton, Douglas, 2003. "Expanding the use of impact assessment and evaluation in agricultural research and development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 143-165, November.
    3. Leonid Gokhberg & Galina Kitova & Vitaliy Roud, 2014. "Tax Incentives for R&D and Innovation: Demand versus Effects," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 8(3), pages 18-41.
      • Leonid Gokhberg & Galina Kitova & Vitaliy Roud, 2014. "Tax incentives for r&d and innovation: demand versus effects," Foresight-Russia Форсайт, CyberLeninka;Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», vol. 8(3 (eng)), pages 18-41.
    4. Benoit Godin, 2010. "Conceptual Frameworks of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 4(2), pages 34-43.
    5. Gretchen B Jordan, 2010. "A theory-based logic model for innovation policy and evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 263-273, October.
    6. Gemma E. Derrick & Vincenzo Pavone, 2013. "Democratising research evaluation: Achieving greater public engagement with bibliometrics-informed peer review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(5), pages 563-575, April.
    7. Davenport, Sally, 2004. "Panic and panacea: brain drain and science and technology human capital policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 617-630, May.
    8. Mikhail Gershman, 2013. "Innovation Development Programmes for the State-owned Companies: First Results," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 7(1), pages 28-43.
    9. Ashley J. Stevens, 2011. "Innovation: lessons from UK policy," Nature, Nature, vol. 469(7329), pages 162-162, January.
    10. Mikhail Gershman & Tatiana Kuznetsova, 2013. "Efficient Contract in the R&D Sector: Key Parameters," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 7(3), pages 26-36.
    11. Ken Guy & Erik Arnold, 1993. "UK Government practice in science and technology evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 179-186, December.
    12. Liliana Proskuryakova & Dirk Meissner & Pavel Rudnik, 2017. "The use of technology platforms as a policy tool to address research challenges and technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 206-227, February.
    13. Newman, John & Jorgensen, Steen & Pradhan, Menno, 1991. "How Did Workers Benefit from Bolivia's Emergency Social Fund?," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 5(2), pages 367-393, May.
    14. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
    15. Elliot Stern, 1993. "Ongoing and participative evaluation: Purpose, design and role in the evaluation of a large-scale R&D programme," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 75-82, August.
    16. Luke Georghiou, 1995. "Research evaluation in European national science and technology systems," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 3-10, April.
    17. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Caprasecca, Alessandro, 2009. "Allocative efficiency in public research funding: Can bibliometrics help?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 206-215, February.
    18. Leo Sveikauskas, 2007. "R&D and Productivity Growth: A Review of the Literature," Working Papers 408, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    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. Streltsova, E., 2022. "Global flows of technological knowledge: The position of Russia," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 57(5), pages 39-54.

    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. 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.
    2. Daraio, Cinzia & Moed, Henk F., 2011. "Is Italian science declining?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1380-1392.
    3. Abramo, Giovanni & Cicero, Tindaro & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2012. "The dispersion of research performance within and between universities as a potential indicator of the competitive intensity in higher education systems," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 155-168.
    4. Ozgur Aydogmus & Erkan Gürpinar, 2022. "Science, Technology and Institutional Change in Knowledge Production: An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Framework," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1163-1188, December.
    5. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2019. "Diversification versus specialization in scientific research: Which strategy pays off?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 51-57.
    6. Junfu Zhang, 2006. "A Study of Academic Entrepreneurs Using Venture Capital Data," PPIC Working Papers 2006.01, Public Policy Institute of California.
    7. Sidia Moreno Rojas & Agueda García Carrillo, 2014. "Sistema para la evaluación de capacidades de innovación en pymes de países en desarrollo: caso Panamá," Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, vol. 0(2), pages 109-122, December.
    8. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, April.
    9. Michael J. Andrews, 2020. "Local Effects of Land Grant Colleges on Agricultural Innovation and Output," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Research and Innovation in Agriculture, pages 139-175, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Pontus Braunerhjelm, 2007. "Academic entrepreneurship: Social norms, university culture and policies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(9), pages 619-631, November.
    12. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Marco Solazzi, 2010. "National research assessment exercises: a measure of the distortion of performance rankings when labor input is treated as uniform," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 605-619, September.
    13. Swan, Jacky & Goussevskaia, Anna & Newell, Sue & Robertson, Maxine & Bresnen, Mike & Obembe, Ademola, 2007. "Modes of organizing biomedical innovation in the UK and US and the role of integrative and relational capabilities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 529-547, May.
    14. Spyros Arvanitis & Ursina Kubli & Martin Woerter, 2006. "University-Industry Knowledge Interaction in Switzerland: What University Scientists Think about Co-operation with Private Enterprises," KOF Working papers 06-132, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    15. Ramesh Chandra Das & Sujata Mukherjee, 2020. "Do Spending on R&D Influence Income? An Enquiry on the World’s Leading Economies and Groups," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(4), pages 1295-1315, December.
    16. Grandi, Alessandro & Grimaldi, Rosa, 2005. "Academics' organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 821-845, November.
    17. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    18. Deepak Hegde, 2005. "Public and Private Universities: Unequal Sources of Regional Innovation?," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 19(4), pages 373-386, November.
    19. Pu Liu & Yingying Shao, 2022. "Innovation and new business formation: the role of innovative large firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 691-720, August.
    20. Švarc, Jadranka & Dabić, Marina, 2021. "Transformative innovation policy or how to escape peripheral policy paradox in European research peripheral countries," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    university; research and innovation; policy; evaluation; impact assessment; Russia.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hig:wpaper:57sti2016. 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: Shamil Abdulaev or Shamil Abdulaev (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.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.