IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/253.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating Public Policy Formation and Support Mechanisms for Technological Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Ramsey, Elaine
  • Bond, Derek

Abstract

Policy evaluation is a complex task. Most approaches now adopt a mixed method approach combining both quantitative and qualitative techniques. A shortcoming of the standard approaches is that they fail to measure or investigate deeper perceptions of the policy. In this paper the usefulness of projective techniques as a tool for policy evaluation is investigated. Projective techniques are widely used in psychology and consumer studies but their usefulness in policy evaluation has still to be assessed. A simple evaluation is done in this paper by reporting on a study of owner-managers of tradeable-services small and medium size enterprises attitudes to Government e-business policy. The survey included firms from Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland and New Zealand. Traditional quantitative and qualitative survey techniques were used, however these failed to produce conclusive evidence. To overcome this limitation two projective techniques- word association and completion tests were employed as an additional evaluation method. The paper illustrates how the results of projective techniques can be analysed using both context and matrix analysis. Given that the area of e-business is dynamic and fast changing and that SMEs are extremely heterogeneous, it is argued that the application of projective techniques to assess their attitudes and perceptions of government policy is a good test of the usefulness of the method. The results of the projective techniques lead to more insight into the perceptions and attitudes of the owner-managers and provide interesting individual perspectives into the issues. Problems with the method, such as costs, the level of skill needed to apply the technique and generalization are highlighted. The overall conclusions are that projective techniques could provide an interesting additional tool for policy evaluation and that further assessment of its usefulness is needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramsey, Elaine & Bond, Derek, 2006. "Evaluating Public Policy Formation and Support Mechanisms for Technological Innovation," MPRA Paper 253, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/253/1/MPRA_paper_253.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bayoumi, Tamim & Haacker, Maarkus, 2002. "It's not what you make, it's how you use IT: measuring the welfare benefits of the IT revolution across countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 20066, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    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. Philip McCann & Raquel Ortega-Argilés, 2016. "Smart specialisation, entrepreneurship and SMEs: issues and challenges for a results-oriented EU regional policy," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 537-552, April.
    2. Mr Clive Boddy & Mr Derek Bond & Dr Elaine Ramsey, 2010. "Projective Techniques Are they a Victim of Clashing Paradigms," Accounting, Finance and Economics Research Group Working Papers 1, Ulster Business School.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Policy evaluation; Projective techniques: E-business; SMEs;

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • 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:pra:mprapa:253. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.