IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fisidp/66.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Understanding conceptual impact of scientific knowledge on policy: The role of policy-making conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Edler, Jakob
  • Karaulova, Maria
  • Barker, Katharine

Abstract

This paper presents a framework to understand the impact of scientific knowledge on the policy-making process, focusing on the conceptual impact. We note the continuing dissatisfaction with the quality and effects of science-policy interactions in both theory and practice. We critique the current literature's emphasis on the role and the activities of scientists to generate policy impact, neglecting the conditions and roles of "user" pol-icy-making organisations. The framework offered in the paper addresses these cri-tiques by developing an argument about the essential role of institutional "user side" conditions for scientific knowledge to achieve impact. The framework is informed by the reflexive institutionalist and the neo-institutionalist theoretical approaches. The main contribution of the framework is that it unpicks the institutional conditions within policy-making organisations that influence the uptake of scientific knowledge and provides an operationalisation to analyse them. The wider relevance of the paper is in moving the focus from the activities of scientists and the incentive structure in scientific organisa-tions to the policy user side.

Suggested Citation

  • Edler, Jakob & Karaulova, Maria & Barker, Katharine, 2020. "Understanding conceptual impact of scientific knowledge on policy: The role of policy-making conditions," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 66, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fisidp:66
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/224473/1/1730487068.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. van Est, Rinie, 2019. "Thinking parliamentary technology assessment politically: Exploring the link between democratic policy making and parliamentary TA," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 48-56.
    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. Molas-Gallart, Jordi & Woolley, Richard, 2022. "Research impact seen from the user side," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 202201, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).

    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. Oliver Falck & Anita Dietrich & Tobias Lohse & Friederike Welter & Heike Belitz & Cedric von der Hellen & Carsten Dreher & Carsten Schwäbe & Dietmar Harhoff & Monika Schnitzer & Uschi Backes-Gellner &, 2019. "Steuerliche Forschungsförderung: Wichtiger Impuls für FuE-Aktivitäten oder zu wenig zielgerichtet?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 72(09), pages 03-25, May.
    2. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(09), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    3. 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.
    4. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    5. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    6. Coenen , Lars & Hansen , Teis & Rekers , Josephine V., 2015. "Innovation Policy for Grand Challenges. An Economic Geography Perspective," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/13, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    7. Marlous Blankesteijn & Bart Bossink, 2020. "Assessing the Legitimacy of Technological Innovation in the Public Sphere: Recovering Raw Materials from Waste Water," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    8. Yehia Zahran & Hazem S. Kassem & Shimaa M. Naba & Bader Alhafi Alotaibi, 2020. "Shifting from Fragmentation to Integration: A Proposed Framework for Strengthening Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in Egypt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-25, June.
    9. Odeh Al-Jayyousi & Hira Amin & Hiba Ali Al-Saudi & Amjaad Aljassas & Evren Tok, 2023. "Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy for Sustainable Development: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-21, August.
    10. Rik B Braams & Joeri H Wesseling & Albert J Meijer & Marko P Hekkert, 2022. "Understanding why civil servants are reluctant to carry out transition tasks [“Legitimation” and “development of positive Externalities”: Two Key Processes in the Formation Phase of Technological I," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 905-914.
    11. 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).
    12. Frank, Alejandro Germán & Gerstlberger, Wolfgang & Paslauski, Carolline Amaral & Lerman, Laura Visintainer & Ayala, Néstor Fabián, 2018. "The contribution of innovation policy criteria to the development of local renewable energy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 353-365.
    13. Kim, Yeong Jae & Wilson, Charlie, 2019. "Analysing energy innovation portfolios from a systemic perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Jiang, Syuan-Yi, 2022. "Transition and innovation ecosystem – investigating technologies, focal actors, and institution in eHealth innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    16. Sampsa Hyysalo & Jani Lukkarinen & Paula Kivimaa & Raimo Lovio & Armi Temmes & Mikael Hildén & Tatu Marttila & Karoliina Auvinen & Sofi Perikangas & Allu Pyhälammi & Janne Peljo & Kaisa Savolainen & L, 2019. "Developing Policy Pathways: Redesigning Transition Arenas for Mid-range Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-22, January.
    17. Markard, Jochen & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Analysis of complementarities: Framework and examples from the energy transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 63-75.
    18. Iizuka, Michiko & Hane, Gerald, 2021. "Transformation towards sustainable development goals: Role of innovation ecosystems for inclusive, disruptive advances in five Asian case studies," MERIT Working Papers 2021-001, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    19. Verburg, René W. & Verberne, Emma & Negro, Simona O., 2022. "Accelerating the transition towards sustainable agriculture: The case of organic dairy farming in the Netherlands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    20. Fagerberg, Jan, 2018. "Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1568-1576.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:fisidp:66. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isfhgde.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.