Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system

Research Policy

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 291-301

  Benner, Mats ^a   Sandström, Ulf ^b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Academic system; Research funding; Triple helix

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000153685     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00067-0     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Balmer B., Sharp M. The battle for biotechnology. Research Policy. 22:1994;463-481.
2. Benner, M., Sandström, U., 1996. Samordnad rollfördelning inom teknisk forskning. Fritzes, Stockholm.
3. Dalpé R., Anderson F. National priorities in academic research. Research Policy. 24:1995;563-581.
4. DiMaggio, P., Powell, W., 1991. The iron cage revisited. In: Powell, W., DiMaggio, P. (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
5. Douglas, M., 1986. How Institutions Think. RKP, London.
6. Eliasson K. Det svenska FoU-systemets organisation och resurser med särskild inriktning på teknik, Röster om teknik. Forskningsberedningens Skrift. 1:1998;8-23.
7. Elzinga, A., 1985. Research, bureaucracy and the drift of epistemic criteria. In: Wittrock, B., Elzinga, A. (Eds.), The University Research System. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.
8. Etzkowitz, H. Jr., in press. The Triple Helix: MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science. Gordon & Breach, London.
9. HMSO, 1993. Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology.
10. Leydesdorff L., Etzkowitz H. Emergence of a Triple-Helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy. 23(5):1996.
11. Marklund, G., 1994. Institutions and Appropriation in Swedish Technology Policy. Department of Economic History, Uppsala.
12. Mathiesen, W.C., 1996. Universitetsforskares problemvalg. NAVF, Oslo.
13. NOU/1991:24. Organisering for helhet og mangfold i norsk forskning.
14. NUTEK, 1996. National and International R&D Collaboration. Forward Look and Proposals for 1997-1999. Stockholm, NUTEK.
15. NUTEK, 1998. The Swedish National Innovation System - A Quantitative Study. NUTEK, Stockholm.
16. Sandström, U., 1997. Forskningsstyrning och anslagspolitik. BVN, Stockholm.
17. Sandström, U., unpublished. Forskningsråden och forskningspolitiken. Research Policy Group, Linköping.
18. Sandström, U., Tisell, A., 1998. Network Entrepreneurs as Troublemakers. RPG Electronic Papers 2 (www.tema.liu.se/afs/).
19. Sandström, U. et al., 1997. Does peer review matter? On funding policy, researcher's attitudes and council procedures. In: Peers on Peers. Allocation Policy and Review Procedures at the Swedish Council for Engineering Sciences. TFR Evaluation Programme, Vol. 4. Teknikvetenskapliga forskningsrådet, Stockholm.
20. Scott, W.R., 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
21. Slaughter, S., Leslie, L.L., 1997. Academic Capitalism. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD.
22. SOU/1996:29. Forskning och pengar.
23. SOU/1998:128. Forskningspolitik.
24. SSF, 1998. Verksamhetsberättelse 1997 [Annual Report]. SSF, Stockholm.
25. Stankiewicz, R., 1997. The development of beta blockers at Astra-Hässle and the technological system of the Swedish pharmaceutical industry. In: Carlsson, Bo (Ed.), Technological Systems and Industrial Dynamics. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
26. Statistics Sweden, 1999. Forskning och utveckling i Sverige 1995-1997. SCB, Stockholm.
27. TFR, 1994. Swedish Research Council for Engineering Sciences. TFR, Stockholm.