| 1. |
- Frishammar, Johan, et al.
(författare)
-
A knowledge-based perspective on system weaknesses in technological innovation systems
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Science and Public Policy. - Oxford : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1471-5430 .- 0302-3427. ; 46:1, s. 55-70
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The literature on technological innovation systems (TIS) provides policymakers and other actors with a scheme of analysis to identify system weaknesses. In doing so, TIS analysis centres on which system weaknesses policy interventions should target to promote further development of a particular system. However, prior TIS literature has not sufficiently elaborated on what may constitute the conceptual roots of a 'weakness'. We apply a knowledge-based perspective and propose that many-albeit not all-system weaknesses may root in four types of knowledge problems: uncertainty, complexity, equivocality, and ambiguity. Employing these as sensitizing concepts, we study system weaknesses by analysing data from a biorefinery TIS in Sweden. This analysis results in novel implications for the TIS literature and for achieving a better match between system weaknesses and the design of innovation policies.
|
|
| 2. |
- Jacobsson, Staffan, 1951, et al.
(författare)
-
The many ways of academic researchers - how science is made useful at a University of Technology
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Science and Public Policy. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1471-5430 .- 0302-3427. ; 41:5, s. 641-657
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In assessing the performance of academic research, there is a growing interest in combining excellence with impact criteria. A frequently encountered belief is that impact should be understood in terms of new firms and patents. Others argue that academic R&D generates impacts that greatly exceed such commercialization efforts by academic researchers. The tension between these two beliefs reveals a risk that the criteria for assessing the impact of academic R&D, including criteria for allocating performance-based funding, may neglect vital aspects of how science is made useful. With insights gained from a comprehensive analysis of a well-reputed academic body, Chalmers Energy Initiative, we address this risk with the aim of contributing to the eventual design of an evidence-based science policy with appropriate evaluation routines.
|
|
