IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v19y2010i4p263-273.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A theory-based logic model for innovation policy and evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Gretchen B Jordan

Abstract

Current policy and program rationale, objectives, and evaluation use a fragmented picture of the innovation process. This presents a challenge since in the United States officials in both the executive and legislative branches of government see innovation, whether that be new products or processes or business models, as the solution to many of the problems the country faces. The logic model is a popular tool for developing and describing the rationale for a policy or program and its context. This article sets out to describe generic logic models of both the R&D process and the diffusion process, building on existing theory-based frameworks. Then a combined, theory-based logic model for the innovation process is presented. Examples of the elements of the logic, each a possible leverage point or intervention, are provided, along with a discussion of how this comprehensive but simple model might be useful for both evaluation and policy development. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:19:y:2010:i:4:p:263-273
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820210X12827366906445
    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. Halima Jibril & Stephen Roper & Mark Hart, 2021. "COVID-19, business support and SME productivity in the UK," Working Papers 005, The Productivity Institute.
    2. Bozeman, Barry & Youtie, Jan, 2017. "Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research: Lessons from four US National Science Foundation initiatives," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1387-1398.
    3. de Almeida, Liliane & Augusto de Jesus Pacheco, Diego & Caten, Carla Schwengber ten & Jung, Carlos Fernando, 2021. "A methodology for identifying results and impacts in technological innovation projects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Gretchen B. Jordan, 2013. "Logic modeling: a tool for designing program evaluations," Chapters, in: Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 6, pages 143-165, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. 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.
    7. Barbero, Javier & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Zofío, José L., 2021. "Is more always better? On the relevance of decreasing returns to scale on innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    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:rseval:v:19:y:2010:i:4:p:263-273. 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/rev .

    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.