Utilization of social science knowledge in science policy: Systems of Innovation, Triple Helix and VINNOVA

The objective of this article is to analyse the utilization of two academic narratives about innovation policy in policy discourse by examining the policy statements issued by one Swedish agency that was specifically set up to promote innovation policy, the Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems, VINNOVA. The main findings of this analysis show that the deployment of the examined academic narratives in policy discourse is not accidental nor is it only limited to a role of legitimating policy decisions. The article shows that although the linear model of knowledge transfer has long been discredited, the notion of knowledge utilization is still useful to policy analysis and may be successfully deployed to understand what lies behind the assertions of mutual interplay between science and policy that characterize contemporary attempts to depict this relation.

[1]  J Nolin.  Global Policy and National Research: The International Shaping of Climate Research in Four European Union Countries , 1999, Minerva.

[2]  Daniele Archibugi,et al.  The Globalizing Learning Economy , 2002 .

[3]  F. Malerba.  Sectoral systems of innovation and production , 2002 .

[4]  P. Newell.  Ozone discourses: science and politics in global environmental cooperation , 1996 .

[5]  Steve Woolgar,et al.  Abilities and competencies required, particularly by small firms, to identify and acquire new technology , 1998 .

[6]  Cheol H. Oh,et al.  Issues for the new thinking of knowledge utilization: Introductory remarks , 1997 .

[7]  B. Dalum.  National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning , 1992 .

[8]  J. Niosi.  National systems of innovations are “x-efficient” (and x-effective): Why some are slow learners , 2002 .

[9]  P. Cooke,et al.  Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions , 1997 .

[10]  P. Haas.  Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination , 1992, International Organization.

[11]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  University—Industry—Government Relations in China , 2001 .

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

[13]  F. Heller,et al.  The Use and abuse of social science , 1986 .

[14]  B. Godin.  Writing Performative History: , 1998 .

[15]  Tomas Hellström,et al.  Taming Unruly Science and Saving National Competitiveness: Discourses on Science by Sweden’s Strategic Research Bodies , 2005 .

[16]  L. Salter,et al.  Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards , 1988 .

[17]  Terry Shinn,et al.  The Triple Helix and New Production of Knowledge , 2002 .

[18]  A. Bartzokas.  Policy Relevance and Theory Development in Innovation Studies , 2001 .

[19]  A. Finlayson.  Political science, political ideas and rhetoric , 2004 .

[20]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues , 2002 .

[21]  James M. Utterback,et al.  The Dynamics of Innovation , 2003 .

[22]  C. Weiss.  The many meanings of research utilization. , 1979 .

[23]  T. Hellström,et al.  Policy understanding of science, public trust and the BSE-CJD crisis. , 2000, Journal of hazardous materials.

[24]  Steven L. Goldman,et al.  Technology and Human Values , 1981 .

[25]  A. Elzinga.  The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1997 .

[26]  F. List.  The National System of Political Economy , 1990 .

[27]  Philip Cooke,et al.  Introduction: Origins of the Concept , 1998 .

[28]  Simon Shackley,et al.  Adjusting to Policy Expectations in Climate Change Modeling , 1999 .

[29]  H. Håkansson,et al.  Developing relationships in business networks , 1995 .

[30]  Johan Schot,et al.  Constructive Technology Assessment and Technology Dynamics: The Case of Clean Technologies , 1992, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[31]  B. Carlsson.  On and off the beaten path: The evolution of four technological systems in Sweden , 1997 .

[32]  H. Etzkowitz.  Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations , 2002 .

[33]  M. Hajer.  Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void , 2003 .

[34]  Zaheer Baber,et al.  Globalization and Scientific Research: The Emerging Triple Helix of State-Industry-University Relations in Japan and Singapore , 2001 .

[35]  Ben Rosamond,et al.  Globalization, European integration and the discursive construction of economic imperatives , 2002 .

[36]  Philip Cooke,et al.  Regional Innovation Systems: General Findings and Some New Evidence from Biotechnology Clusters , 2002 .

[37]  Charles Edquist,et al.  The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An account of the state of the art , 2001 .

[38]  Elizabeth Shove,et al.  Introducing interactive social science , 2000 .

[39]  Réjean Landry,et al.  The Extent and Determinants of the Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies , 2003 .

[40]  J. Hird.  Policy Analysis for What? The Effectiveness of Nonpartisan Policy Research Organizations , 2005 .

[41]  Keith Smith,et al.  Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process , 2002 .

[42]  B. Carlsson,et al.  On the nature, function and composition of technological systems , 1991 .

[43]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Technological systems and economic policy: the diffusion of factory automation in Sweden , 1994 .

[44]  B. Asheim,et al.  Regional Innovation Systems: The Integration of Local ‘Sticky’ and Global ‘Ubiquitous’ Knowledge , 2002 .

[45]  L. Leydesdorff.  The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations , 2000 .

[46]  Eva Gustafsson,et al.  Use of human resource data for analysis of the structure and dynamics of the Swedish innovation system , 1996 .

[47]  C. Freeman.  The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective , 1995 .

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

[49]  Arie Rip,et al.  Regional Innovation Systems and the Advent of Strategic Science , 2002 .

[50]  J. Krige.  How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology , 2006 .

[51]  S. Woolgar.  Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials , 1990 .

[52]  Y. Surel.  The role of cognitive and normative frames in policy-making , 2000 .

[53]  Bengt-Åke Lundvall,et al.  Innovation Policy in the Globalizing Learning Economy , 2002 .

[54]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  University-Industry-Government Relations in China: An emergent national system of innovations , 2001 .

[55]  M. Porter.  The Competitive Advantage Of Nations , 1990 .

[56]  G. Majone.  Social Sciences and Modern States: Research programmes and action programmes, or can policy research learn from the philosophy of science? , 1991 .

[57]  H. Etzkowitz.  The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages , 1998 .

[58]  B. Godin.  The Numbers Makers: Fifty Years of Science and Technology Official Statistics , 2002 .

[59]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Technological developments and factor substitution in a complex and dynamic system. , 1998 .

[60]  C. Edquist,et al.  Institutions and Organizations in Systems of Innovation , 2013 .

[61]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  A Triple Helix of University—Industry—Government Relations , 1998, Scientometrics.

[62]  Steve Woolgar,et al.  Abilities and competencies required, particularly by small firms, to identify and acquire new technology , 1997 .

[63]  A. Tupasela.  National Innovation System - Scientific Concept or Political Rhetoric , 2003 .

[64]  Giandomenico Majone,et al.  Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process , 1989 .

[65]  M. Nieddu.  Modèle de la triple hélice et régulation du changement régional : une étude de casTriple helix model and regulation of regional change: a case study , 2002 .

[66]  Terry Shinn.  Change or mutation? Reflections on the foundations of contemporary science , 1999 .

[67]  R. Nelson,et al.  Making Sense of Institutions as a Factor Shaping Economic Performance (Spanish Version) , 2001 .

[68]  T. Pinch,et al.  The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other , 1984 .