IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i5p673-685..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutionalizing public engagement in research and innovation: Toward the construction of institutional entrepreneurial collectives
[Limits of Decentered Governance in Science-society Policies]

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua B Cohen

Abstract

In the past decades we have seen increased policy discourse around public engagement with research and innovation. Despite this attention, the institutionalization of public engagement practices still appears rather limited, leading to a recent systemic turn in public engagement with science studies. Still missing in this systemic turn is a pragmatist and new institutionalist framework that can support research into how public engagement practices may enact or transform the research and innovation system. This article presents such a framework to help untangle how existing (in)formal institutions and materialities influence public engagement with research and innovation. To illustrate its utility, the framework is tentatively applied to engagement in the British research funding context. This application informs further development of the framework, including recommendations for (action) research into the construction of collectives of institutional entrepreneurs (institutional entrepreneurial collectives) that may support further institutionalization of public engagement in the research and innovation system.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua B Cohen, 2022. "Institutionalizing public engagement in research and innovation: Toward the construction of institutional entrepreneurial collectives [Limits of Decentered Governance in Science-society Policies]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 673-685.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:5:p:673-685.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac018
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Armin Grunwald, 2019. "The inherently democratic nature of technology assessment," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(5), pages 702-709.
    2. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Loeber, Anne M.C. & Grin, John, 2021. "Politics of complexity: Conceptualizing agency, power and powering in the transitional dynamics of complex adaptive systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(3).
    3. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    4. Helen Pallett & Jason Chilvers, 2013. "A Decade of Learning about Publics, Participation, and Climate Change: Institutionalising Reflexivity?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(5), pages 1162-1183, May.
    5. Michael McGann & Emma Blomkamp & Jenny M. Lewis, 2018. "The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 249-267, September.
    6. Gregory Trencher & Masaru Yarime & Kes B. McCormick & Christopher N. H. Doll & Steven B. Kraines, 2014. "Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 151-179.
    7. Erich Griessler, 2011. "Stop looking up the ladder: analyzing the impact of participatory technology assessment from a process perspective," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(8), pages 599-608, October.
    8. Pablo D’Este & Irene Ramos-Vielba & Richard Woolley & Nabil Amara, 2018. "How do researchers generate scientific and societal impacts? Toward an analytical and operational framework," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 752-763.
    9. Dolata, Ulrich, 2017. "Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft: Market concentration - competition - innovation strategies," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2017-01, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    10. Selen A. Ercan & Anna Durnová & Anne Loeber & Hendrik Wagenaar, 2020. "Symposium: revisiting the three pillars of Deliberative Policy Analysis," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 307-330, July.
    11. Ulrike Felt & Maximilian Fochler, 2008. "The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(7), pages 489-499, August.
    12. W. H. Voorberg & V. J. J. M. Bekkers & L. G. Tummers, 2015. "A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1333-1357, October.
    13. Oliver Escobar, 2014. "Upstream public engagement, downstream policy-making? The Brain Imaging Dialogue as a community of inquiry," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 480-492.
    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. Vassallo, Jarrod P. & Banerjee, Sourindra & Zaman, Hasanuzzaman & Prabhu, Jaideep C., 2023. "Design thinking and public sector innovation: The divergent effects of risk-taking, cognitive empathy and emotional empathy on individual performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    2. Enric Senabre Hidalgo & Mayo Fuster Morell, 2019. "Co-designed strategic planning and agile project management in academia: case study of an action research group," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Nathalie Haug & Ines Mergel, 2021. "Public Value Co-Creation in Living Labs—Results from Three Case Studies," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-22, July.
    4. Fuglsang, Lars & Hansen, Anne Vorre, 2022. "Framing improvements of public innovation in a living lab context: Processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    5. Petteri Repo & Kaisa Matschoss, 2019. "Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    7. Wynen, Jan & Boon, Jan & Kleizen, Bjorn & Verhoest, Koen, 2018. "How multiple organizational changes shape managerial support for innovative work behavior : Evidence from the Australian Public Service," Other publications TiSEM 4f721d76-0c44-4d72-a494-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Lievrouw, Leah A., 2010. "Instructions for being unhappy with PTA — The impact on PTA of Austrian technology policy experts´ conceptualisation of the public," ITA manu:scripts 10_02, Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA).
    9. Kawther Saeedi & Anna Visvizi & Dimah Alahmadi & Amal Babour, 2023. "Smart Cities and Households’ Recyclable Waste Management: The Case of Jeddah," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-23, April.
    10. Gesa Pflitsch & Verena Radinger-Peer, 2018. "Developing Boundary-Spanning Capacity for Regional Sustainability Transitions—A Comparative Case Study of the Universities of Augsburg (Germany) and Linz (Austria)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-26, March.
    11. Schiuma, Giovanni & Santarsiero, Francesco, 2023. "Innovation labs as organisational catalysts for innovation capacity development: A systematic literature review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    12. Ruiten, Kyra & Pesch, Udo & Rodhouse, Toyah & Correljé, Aad & Spruit, Shannon & Tenhaaf, Antje & Dijkshoorn, Jochem & van den Berg, Susan, 2023. "Drawing the line: Opening up and closing down the siting of a high voltage transmission route in the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    13. Estibaliz Sáez de Cámara & Idoia Fernández & Nekane Castillo-Eguskitza, 2021. "A Holistic Approach to Integrate and Evaluate Sustainable Development in Higher Education. The Case Study of the University of the Basque Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, January.
    14. Luciana Maines da Silva & Claudia Cristina Bitencourt & Kadígia Faccin & Tatiana Iakovleva, 2019. "The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, March.
    15. Ivan Ligardo-Herrera & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Edurne A. Inigo & Vincent Blok, 2018. "Addressing Climate Change in Responsible Research and Innovation: Recommendations for Its Operationalization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    16. Ryan Anders Whitney & David López-García, 2023. "Fast-track institutionalization: The opening of urban planning best practice agencies in Mexico City," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 41(3), pages 600-616, May.
    17. Alfonso Unceta & Xabier Barandiaran & Natalia Restrepo, 2019. "The Role of Public Innovation Labs in Collaborative Governance—The Case of the Gipuzkoa Lab in the Basque Country, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-16, November.
    18. Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING, 2022. "Conclusions and Directions for further Research," CIRIEC Studies Series, in: Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING & CIRIEC (ed.), New perspectives in the co-production of public policies, public services and common goods, volume 3, chapter 0, pages 259-274, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.
    19. Lyall, Catherine & Tait, Joyce, 2019. "Beyond the limits to governance: New rules of engagement for the tentative governance of the life sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1128-1137.
    20. Tina C. Ambos & Katherine Tatarinov, 2022. "Building Responsible Innovation in International Organizations through Intrapreneurship," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 92-125, January.

    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:49:y:2022:i:5:p:673-685.. 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: 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.