Strategies to Evaluate a University-Industry Knowledge-exchange Programme

Evaluation

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 475-492

  Hanberger, Anders ^a   Schild, Ingrid ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

evaluation methodology; innovation policy; knowledge exchange; programme evaluation; university industry collaboration

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749051323     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: 14617153     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1356389004050217     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Archibugi, D. and M. Pianta (1996) ‘Measuring Technological Change through Patents and Innovation Surveys’, Technovation16(9): 451-468.
2. Bro, A. (2000) From Health Protection to Environmental Protection. A Historical Institutional Analysis of Municipal Responsibility Development, Örebro Studies in Political Sciences 1 (thesis in Swedish with English summary). Örebro: Örebro University.
3. Carlsson, B. (1995) Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The Case of Factory Automation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
4. Chen, H. T. (1990) Theory-driven Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Cole, G. E. (1999) ‘Advancing the Development and Application of Theory-based Evaluation in the Practice of Public Health’, American Journal of Evaluation20(3): 453-470.
6. Dalum, B., B. Johnson and B.-Å. Lundvall (1992) ‘Public Policy in the Learning Society’, in B.-Å. Lundvall (ed.) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London and New York: Pinter.
7. Dosi, G. (1982) ‘Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories’, Research Policy11(3): 147-162.
8. Easton, D. (1965) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9. Edquist, C. (1997a) ‘Systems of Innovation Approaches - Their Emergence and Characteristics’, in C. Edquist (ed.) Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, pp. 1-29. London and Washington, DC: Pinter.
10. Edquist, C., ed. (1997b) Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations. London and Washington, DC: Pinter.
11. Edquist, C. and B.-Å. Lundvall (1993) ‘Comparing the Danish and Swedish National Systems of Innovation’, in R. R. Nelson (ed.) National Systems of Innovation: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff, eds (1997) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy. A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London and Washington, DC: Pinter.
13. Fischer, F. (1995) Evaluating Public Policy. Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall Publishers.
14. Freeman, C. and L. Soete (1997) The Economics of Industrial Innovation. London and Washington, DC: Pinter.
15. Georghiou, L. (1998) ‘Issues in the Evaluation of Innovation and Technology Policy’, Evaluation4(1): 37-51.
16. Georghiou, L. (2000) ‘New Tools for Optimising the Transfer, Sharing and Joint Generation of Knowledge’, Paper presented at the Joint German-OECD Conference, Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships, Berlin, Germany: 16-17 October.
17. Grupp, H., ed. (1992) Dynamics of Science-Based Innovation: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Hanberger, A. (1999) www.infomedica.nuFinal Report from the Evaluation of a Medical Information System (in Swedish). Umeå: Umeå Centre for Evaluation Research.
19. Hanberger, A. (2000a) The Future for Short-Term Care. Final Report from the Evaluation of Experimental Work with Short-Term Care in Luleå (in Swedish). Evaluation Reports No. 4, March. Umeå: Umeå Centre for Evaluation Research.
20. Hanberger, A. (2000b) Rehabilitation at Home. Final Report from the Evaluation of Experimental Work with Rehabilitation at Home in Luleå (in Swedish). Evaluation Reports No. 5, March. Umeå: Umeå Centre for Evaluation Research.
21. Hanberger, A. (2001a) ‘What is the Policy Problem? Methodological Challenges in Policy Evaluation’, Evaluation7(1): 45-62.
22. Hanberger, A. (2001b) ‘Policy and Program Evaluation, Civil Society and Democracy’, American Journal of Evaluation22(2): 211-228.
23. Hanberger, A., I. Schild and D. Hamilton (2001) Academy-Industry Collaboration. A Mid-Term Evaluation of the KK-Foundation’s Knowledge Exchange Programme. Evaluation Reports No. 7, April. Umeå: Umeå Centre for Evaluation Research.
24. Hanf, K. and F. W. Scharpf (1978) Interorganizational Policy Making. London: Sage.
25. Hansen, P. (2000) Europeans Only? Essays on Identity Politics and the European Union. Umeå: Umeå University.
26. Hill, M. (1997) The Policy Process in the Modern State, 3rd edn.Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
27. Hjern, B. and D. Porter (1983) ‘Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis’, in B. Holzner (ed.) Realizing Social Science Knowledge. Vienna: Physica-Verlag.
28. KK-stiftelsen (n.d.) Accessed on 11 December 2003, from http://www.kks.se.
29. Krasner, S. D. (1988) ‘Sovereignty: An Institutional Perspective’, Comparative Political Studies21(1): 66-94.
30. Leeuw, F. (2003) ‘Reconstructing Program Theories: Methods Available and Problems To Be Solved’, American Journal of Evaluation24(1): 5-20.
31. Lundvall, B.-Å., ed. (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London and New York: Pinter.
32. Marin, B. and R. Mayntz, eds (1991) Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations. Frankfurt/Boulder, CO: Campus Verlag/Westview Press.
33. Nelson, R. R., ed. (1993) National Systems of Innovation: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Parsons, W. (1995) Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
35. Peters, B. G. (1999) Institutional Theory in Political Science. The ‘New Institutionalism’. London: Pinter.
36. Pierson, P. (1992) ‘“ Policy Feed-Backs” and Political Change: Contrasting Reagan and Thatcher’s Pension-Reform Initiatives’, Studies in American Political Development6(2): 359-390.
37. Schild, I. and A. Hanberger (2000) Industrial Research Schools. A Real-Time Evaluation of the Swedish Knowledge Foundation’s Research School Programme. Evaluation Reports, No. 6, May. Umeå: Umeå Centre for Evaluation Research.
38. Smith, M. J. (1993) ‘Policy Networks’, in M. Hill (ed.) The Policy Process. A Reader. London and New York: Prentice-Hall and Harvester Wheatsheaf.
39. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001) ‘Evaluation Models’, in Evaluation Models, New Directions for Evaluation 89. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
40. Vedung, E. (1997) Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
41. Weiss, C. H. (1972) Evaluation Research: Methods of Assessing Program Effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
42. Weiss, C. H. (1996) ‘Excerpts from Evaluation Research: Methods of Assessing Program Effectiveness’, Evaluation Practice17(2): 169-171.
43. Weiss, C. H. (1998) Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies, 2nd revd edn.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
44. Weiss, C. H. (2000) ‘Which Links in Which Theories Shall We Evaluate?’, in P. J. Rogers, T. A. Hacsi, A. Petrosino and T. A. Huebner (eds) Program Theory in Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities, New Directions for Evaluation 87. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.