IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/35kfa.html

Mergers between universities and governmental research organizations in the Netherlands and Denmark. Institutional platforms for agricultural transformations

Author

Listed:
  • Jappe, Arlette

Abstract

Research on research policy is often characterized by heavily normative notions of development and progress, as in contemporary discourse about societal challenges and sustainability transformations. When these normative concepts are simultaneously used as descriptive terminology for empirical changes in society, they become problematic for social science. This paper explores how insights from historical institutionalism can be applied to achieve a stricter separation between the analysis of institutional change and contemporary policy discourse. The material for this study are two contrasting cases of merger reforms of public sector research institutes with universities. In the Netherlands, the former governmental Agricultural Research Service was merged with Wageningen University in 1997-1998. In Denmark, several former governmental research institutes were merged with Aarhus University and Technical University of Denmark in 2007. The reforms exemplify changing conceptions of societal impact of research. The information on each case is taken from prior literature and analyzed in a historical institutionalist comparative framework. In particular, the concept of “political development”, defined by Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek as “enduring shifts in government authority” is applied to define the observable event of change in each case. It is then analyzed how these reforms were politically achieved (“intercurrence of political institutions”), what were the respective policy objectives and how they were framed (“policy discourse”), to what extent they resulted in continuity or discontinuity of governmental research (“institutional change”), and what were institutional implications for later research policies in each case (“institutional platform for political action”). The paper aims to show how a more temporal, developmental understanding of institutions in real-world polities could help us to reflect better about relevant institutional change from the perspective of particular policy objectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Jappe, Arlette, 2023. "Mergers between universities and governmental research organizations in the Netherlands and Denmark. Institutional platforms for agricultural transformations," SocArXiv 35kfa, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:35kfa
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/35kfa
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/653f7f728a28b117c1ffc76d/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/35kfa?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. Jan Fagerberg & Gernot Hutschenreiter, 2020. "Coping with Societal Challenges: Lessons for Innovation Policy Governance," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 279-305, June.
    2. Poppe, Krijn J., 2008. "Economic assessment of Dutch agricultural research," Report Series 43071, Wageningen University and Research Center, Agricultural Economics Research Institute.
    3. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    4. Jakob Edler & Paul Cunningham & Abdullah Gök & Philip Shapira (ed.), 2016. "Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16121, June.
    5. Irene Ramos-Vielba & Pablo D’Este & Richard Woolley & Nabil Amara, 2018. "Introduction to a special section: Balancing scientific and societal impact—A challenging agenda for academic research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 749-751.
    6. K. Hunter Wapman & Sam Zhang & Aaron Clauset & Daniel B. Larremore, 2022. "Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention," Nature, Nature, vol. 610(7930), pages 120-127, October.
    7. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 596-596.
    8. Irene Ramos-Vielba & Duncan A Thomas & Kaare Aagaard, 2022. "Societal targeting in researcher funding: An exploratory approach," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 202-213.
    9. Barend van der Meulen & Arie Rip, 2000. "Evaluation of societal quality of public sector research in the Netherlands," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 11-25, April.
    10. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 565-578.
    11. Jakob Edler & Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation policy: what, why, and how," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 2-23.
    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. Liotard, Isabelle & Revest, Valérie, 2018. "Contests as innovation policy instruments: Lessons from the US federal agencies' experience," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 57-69.
    2. Acciai, Claudia, 2021. "The politics of research and innovation: Understanding instrument choices in complex governance environments – the case of France and Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    3. Gregorio González-Alcaide, 2021. "Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: uncontainable or uncontrollable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6837-6870, August.
    4. Jan Fagerberg, 2021. "Mobilizing innovation for the global green shift: The case for demand-oriented innovation policy," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20210422, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    5. Torres-Salinas, Daniel & Orduña-Malea, Enrique & Delgado-Vázquez, Ángel & Gorraiz, Juan & Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao, 2024. "Foundations of Narrative Bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    6. Claudio Petti & Lorenzo Compagnucci & Yongli Tang, 2024. "Institutions, innovation and performance in Guangdong firms: The role of entrepreneurial orientation and environmental turbulence," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 393-419, March.
    7. Jan Fagerberg, 2018. "Mission (im)possible? The role of innovation (and innovation policy) in supporting structural change & sustainability transitions," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20180216, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    8. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    9. repec:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:3:p:450-468 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Stojčić, Nebojša & Srhoj, Stjepan & Coad, Alex, 2020. "Innovation procurement as capability-building: Evaluating innovation policies in eight Central and Eastern European countries," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    11. Mohamed Buheji, 2020. "Creating Innovation Policies that Leads to Positive Future Spillovers - A Critical Review," Business and Economic Research, Macrothink Institute, vol. 10(1), pages 176-181, March.
    12. Daniele Archibugi & Andrea Filippetti & Marion Frenz, 2018. "Investment in innovation for European recovery: a public policy priority," Management Working Papers 16, Birkbeck Department of Management, revised Feb 2021.
    13. Leonard Prochaska & Daniel Schiller, 2021. "An evolutionary perspective on the emergence and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policy: the example of the change of the leitmotif from biotechnology to bioeconomy," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 141-249, April.
    14. Apostolos Vetsikas & Yeoryios Stamboulis & Vasiliki Georgatzi, 2024. "Exploring the coevolution of heterogeneous actors in national innovation systems: a system dynamics analysis of Finland," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 581-610, October.
    15. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "How should the societal impact of research be generated and measured? A proposal for a simple and practicable approach to allow interdisciplinary comparisons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 211-219, January.
    16. Grashof, Nils, 2020. "Putting the watering can away Towards a targeted (problem-oriented) cluster policy framework," Papers in Innovation Studies 2020/4, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    17. Grashof, Nils, 2021. "Putting the watering can away –Towards a targeted (problem-oriented) cluster policy framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    18. Jan Fagerberg & Håkon Endresen Normann, 2022. "Innovation policy, regulation and the transition to net zero," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20220531, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    19. Joly, P.B. & Gaunand, A. & Colinet, L. & Larédo, P. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M., 2015. "ASIRPA: a comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization," Working Papers 2015-04, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    20. Normann, Håkon Endresen & Nylén, Erkki-Jussi & Toppinen, Anne & Lukkarinen, Jani, 2025. "Building on solid ground? (In)Coordination within Norwegian and Finnish wood construction policies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    21. Benedikt Fecher & Freia Kuper & Nataliia Sokolovska & Alex Fenton & Stefan Hornbostel & Gert G. Wagner, 2021. "Understanding the Societal Impact of the Social Sciences and Humanities: Remarks on Roles, Challenges, and Expectations," RatSWD Working Papers 276, German Data Forum (RatSWD).

    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:osf:socarx:35kfa. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.