| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Cocos, Marta, 1988-, et al.
(author)
-
What we know about research policy mix
- 2020
-
In: Science and Public Policy. - : Oxford University Press. - 0302-3427 .- 1471-5430. ; 47:2, s. 235-245
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The research policy (RP) arena has been transforming in recent years, turning into a policy mix encompassing the diversity of policy instruments embedded in, and following different policy rationales and aims. Its complexity defies attempts for complex comparative analysis and eventually, a better understanding of what kind of (mixes of) funding instruments work better than others and in which situations. In this article, we address this gap by developing a conceptual framework that allows us to build the policy mix idea into the analysis of research funding instruments (RFIs), by relying on four dimensions: policy rationales, implementation modalities, policy actors, and the funding instruments interactions. We base our work on a careful literature review, especially drawing on the work of researchers who have developed similar frameworks in other policy areas, bringing it together with that of RP scholars, capturing the issues that are key to analyzing and understanding RFIs.
|
|
| 3. |
- Lepori, Benedetto, et al.
(author)
-
Managing ideational complexity in public policies : the case of public research funding
- 2023
-
In: Journal of Public Policy. - : Cambridge University Press. - 0143-814X .- 1469-7815. ; 43:1, s. 157-178
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article examines how ideational complexity, i.e. the lasting presence of alternative policy frames in a policy domain, can be managed without leading to overt conflicts. By leveraging insights from the organisational literature, we suggest that, in most cases, alternative frames are kept apart within distinct policy instruments, while hybrid instruments are established only when required by the nature of the problem. We provide illustrative examples of how these strategies are employed in the case of public grant schemes for research funding. Our findings suggest that a) composite instrument mixes are an important resource to deal with ideational complexity, and b) the design of the instruments' delivery package, and specifically its procedural and organisational dimensions, plays a central role in avoiding conflicts between policy frames. Accordingly, our analysis advances the unexplored issue of how the coexistence of alternative policy frames impacts policy implementation.
|
|
| 4. |
- Lepori, Benedetto, et al.
(author)
-
Managing ideational complexity in public policies : the case of public research funding
- 2022
-
In: Journal of Public Policy. - : Cambridge University Press. - 0143-814X .- 1469-7815. ; 43:1, s. 157-178
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article examines how ideational complexity, i.e. the lasting presence of alternative policy frames in a policy domain, can be managed without leading to overt conflicts. By leveraging insights from the organisational literature, we suggest that, in most cases, alternative frames are kept apart within distinct policy instruments, while hybrid instruments are established only when required by the nature of the problem. We provide illustrative examples of how these strategies are employed in the case of public grant schemes for research funding. Our findings suggest that a) composite instrument mixes are an important resource to deal with ideational complexity, and b) the design of the instruments’ delivery package, and specifically its procedural and organisational dimensions, plays a central role in avoiding conflicts between policy frames. Accordingly, our analysis advances the unexplored issue of how the coexistence of alternative policy frames impacts policy implementation.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
