Delegation of authority in research funding to networks: Experiences with a multiple goal boundary organization

The delegation of authority in research funding to multi-actor networks that include users is seen as a way to make research more responsive to users' needs. This paper analyzes multi-actor networks for the planning and execution of agricultural research in The Netherlands. It shows that delegation of authority to networks also generates several tensions, and requires substantial role adjustments and institutional learning for the actors involved (government, researchers, intermediaries such as research councils, and user groups) in order to effectively operate in the network. The paper indicates that the principal-agent perspective often used for analyzing the science-policy relationship can be a useful tool for analyzing the multilateral relationships in networks, but needs to be complemented by theories that better capture the notion of co-production in such ‘webs of cross-cutting ties’. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

[1]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Science for the Post-Normal Age , 1993, Commonplace.

[2]  C. Leeuwis,et al.  Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Capacity: Are Innovation Brokers the Answer? , 2009 .

[3]  Laurens Klerkx,et al.  Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands , 2008 .

[4]  Benedetto Lepori,et al.  Between policy and science: Research councils' responsiveness in Austria, Norway and Switzerland , 2007 .

[5]  Remo Fernández-Carro,et al.  A principal-agent model of public research with a retrospective payoff rule , 2007 .

[6]  R. Pielke,et al.  The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science , 2007 .

[7]  E. McNie Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature , 2007 .

[8]  D. Dalrymple Setting the agenda for science and technology in the public sector: the case of international agricultural research , 2006 .

[9]  Jacqueline E. W. Broerse,et al.  Stakeholder participation in health research agenda setting: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands , 2006 .

[10]  Arie Rip,et al.  Scientists' coping strategies in an evolving research system: the case of life scientists in the UK , 2006 .

[11]  Darrin Durant Managing expertise: performers, principals, and problems in Canadian nuclear waste management , 2006 .

[12]  Andrew Hall,et al.  Enhancing agricultural innovation : how to go beyond the strengthening of research systems , 2006 .

[13]  S. Raman Institutional perspectives on science-policy boundaries , 2005 .

[14]  C. Waterton Scientists' conceptions of the boundaries between their own research and policy , 2005 .

[15]  Boundary work in contemporary science policy: A review , 2005 .

[16]  J. Sumberg Systems of innovation theory and the changing architecture of agricultural research in Africa , 2005 .

[17]  N. Morris Academic researchers as 'agents' of science policy , 2003 .

[18]  E. Shove Principals, agents and research programmes , 2003 .

[19]  Chris Caswill Principals, agents and contracts , 2003 .

[20]  David H. Guston,et al.  Principal-agent theory and research policy: An introduction , 2003 .

[21]  D. Braun Lasting tensions in research policy-making — a delegation problem , 2003 .

[22]  Stanley J. Paliwoda,et al.  Multi-sector collaboration: A stakeholder perspective on a government, industry and university collaborative venture , 2003 .

[23]  A. Rip,et al.  The ‘user’ in research funding negotiation processes , 2003 .

[24]  T. Hellström,et al.  Boundary organisations in science: From discourse to construction , 2003 .

[25]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Javier M. Ekboir,et al.  Research and technology policies in innovation systems: zero tillage in Brazil , 2003 .

[27]  B. Emans Interviewen, theorie, techniek, training , 2003 .

[28]  V. Søgaard Agricultural public-sector research establishments in Western Europe: Research priorities in conflict , 2002 .

[29]  David W. Cash,et al.  “In Order to Aid in Diffusing Useful and Practical Information”: Agricultural Extension and Boundary Organizations , 2001 .

[30]  Andrew Hall,et al.  Why Research Partnerships Really Matter: Innovation Theory, Institutional Arrangements and Implications for Developing New Technology for the Poor , 2001 .

[31]  H. Odame,et al.  Participation in agricultural research planning. , 2001 .

[32]  A. Rip,et al.  Users and unicorns: a discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science , 2000 .

[33]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[34]  D. Guston David Guston ’ s Between Politics and Science : Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research * , 2000 .

[35]  W. Huffman,et al.  Setting Efficient Incentives for Agricultural Research: Lessons from Principal‐Agent Theory , 2000 .

[36]  David H. Guston,et al.  Stabilizing the Boundary between US Politics and Science: , 1999, Social studies of science.

[37]  D. Braun,et al.  The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science , 1998 .

[38]  Barend van der Meulen,et al.  Science policies as principal-agent games: Institutionalization and path dependency in the relation between government and science , 1998 .

[39]  Lawrence Busch,et al.  Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agricultural research , 1997 .

[40]  David H. Guston,et al.  Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy , 1996 .

[41]  W. Lacy Research, extension, and user partnerships: Models for collaboration and strategies for change , 1996 .

[42]  Jenny Stewart,et al.  Models of priority-setting for public sector research , 1995 .

[43]  Leon A.G. Oerlemans,et al.  National Systems of Innovation : Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning , 2012 .

[44]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[45]  R. Nelson National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis , 1993 .

[46]  D. Braun Who Governs Intermediary Agencies? Principal-Agent Relations in Research Policy-Making , 1993, Journal of Public Policy.

[47]  B. Lundvall National Systems of Innovation , 1992 .

[48]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of Qualitative Research , 1992 .

[49]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .