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

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 183-196

  Klerkx, Laurens ^a   Leeuwis, Cees ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH; NETWORK ANALYSIS; PLANNING METHOD; RESEARCH WORK;

BENELUX; EURASIA; EUROPE; NETHERLANDS; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 44849134111     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/030234208X299053     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Braun, D 1993. Who governs intermediary agencies? Principal-agent relations in research policy-making. Journal of Public Policy, 13(2), 135-162.
2. Braun, D 1998. The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research Policy, 27(8), 807-821.
3. Braun, D 2003. Lasting tensions in research policy-making - a delegation problem. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 309-321.
4. Braun, D and D H Guston 2003. Principal-agent theory and research policy: an introduction. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 302-308.
5. Caron-Flinterman, J F, J E W Broerse, J Teerling, M L Y van Alst, S Klaasen, L E Swart and J F G Bunders 2006. Stakeholder participation in health research agenda setting: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Science and Public Policy, 33(4), 291-304.
6. Cash, D W 2001. 'In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information': agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26(4), 431-453.
7. Cash, D W, W C Clark, F Alcock, N M Dickson, N Eckley, D H Guston et al., 2003. Science and technology for sustainable development special feature: knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS, 100(14), 8086-8091.
8. Caswill, C 2003. Principals, agents and contracts. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 337-346.
9. Dalrymple, D G 2006. Setting the agenda for science and technology in the public sector: the case of international agricultural research. Science and Public Policy, 33(4), 277-290.
10. Davenport, S, S Leitch and A Rip 2003. The user in research funding negotiation processes. Science and Public Policy, 30(4), 239-250.
11. Durant, D 2006. Managing expertise: performers, principals, and problems in Canadian nuclear waste management. Science and Public Policy, 33(3), 191-204.
12. Ekboir, J M 2003. Research and technology policies in innovation systems: zero tillage in Brazil. Research Policy, 32(4), 573-586.
13. Emans, B 2002. Interviewen: theorie, techniek en training. Groningen, The Netherlands: Stenfert Kroese.
14. Etzkowitz, H and L Leydesdorff 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and 'mode 2' to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123.
15. Fernández-Carro, R 2007. A principal-agent model of public research with a retrospective payoff rule. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 317-328.
16. Funtowicz, S O and J R Ravetz 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 735-755.
17. Gibbons, M, C Limoges and H Nowotny 1994. New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London, UK: Sage.
18. Gulbrandsen, M 2005. Tensions in the science council-research community relationship. Science and Public Policy, 32(3), 199-209.
19. Guston, D H 1996. Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy. Science and Public Policy, 23(4), 229-240.
20. Guston, D H 1999. Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: the role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science, 29(1), 87-111.
21. Guston, D 2000. Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Hall, A, G Bockett, S Taylor, M V K Sivamohan and N Clark 2001. Why research partnerships really matter: innovation theory, institutional arrangements and implications for developing new technology for the poor. World Development, 29(5), 783-797.
23. Hall, A, W Janssen, E Pehu and R Rajalahti 2006. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems. Washington, DC: World Bank.
24. Hellström, T and M Jacob 2003. Boundary organisations in science: from discourse to construction. Science and Public Policy, 30(4), 235-238.
25. Holt, D 1998. Integrating public and private R&D. In Privatization of Information and Agricultural Industrialization, S A Wolf ed., pp. 51-71. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
26. Huffman, W E and R E Just 2000. Setting efficient incentives for agricultural research: lessons from principal-agent theory. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(4), 828-841.
27. Jacob, M 2005. Boundary work in contemporary science policy: a review. Prometheus, 23(2), 195-207.
28. Klerkx, L and C Leeuwis 2007. Professionalisering van participatie in kennisontwikketing en -verspreiding. Ervaringen met het kennisnetwerk Biologische Landbouw (Bioconnect). Wageningen: Wageningen University, Communication and Innovation Studies.
29. Klerkx, L and C Leeuwis 2008. Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands. Research Policy, 37(3), 460-472.
30. Lacy, W B 1996. Research, extension, and user partnerships: models for collaboration and strategies for change. Agriculture and Human Values, 13, 33-41.
31. Levidow, L, V Sogaard and S Carr 2002. Agricultural public-sector research establishments in Western Europe: research priorities in conflict. Science and Public Policy, 29(4), 287-295.
32. Lundvall, B A 1992. National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London, UK: Pinter.
33. McNie, E C 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(1), 17-38.
34. Middendorf, G and L Busch 1997. Inquiry for the public good: democratic participation in agricultural research. Agriculture and Human Values, 14, 45-57.
35. Morris, N 2003. Academic researchers as agents of science policy. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 359-370.
36. Morris, N and A Rip 2006. Scientists' coping strategies in an evolving research system: the case of life scientists in the UK. Science and Public Policy 33(4), 253-263.
37. Nelson, R R 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
38. Raman, S 2005. Institutional perspectives on science-policy boundaries. Science and Public Policy, 32(6), 418-422.
39. Rod, M R M and S J Paliwoda 2003. Multi-sector collaboration: a stakeholder perspective on a government, industry and university collaborative venture. Science and Public Policy, 30(4), 273-284.
40. Sarewitz, D and J R A Pielke 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(1), 5-16.
41. Shove, E 2003. Principals, agents and research programmes. Science and Public Policy 30(5), 371-381.
42. Shove, E and A Rip 2000. Users and unicorns: a discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science. Science and Public Policy, 27(3), 175-182.
43. Slipersæter, S, B Lepori and M Dinges 2007. Between policy and science: research councils' responsiveness in Austria, Norway and Switzerland. Science and Public Policy 34(6), 401-415.
44. Sperling, L and J Ashby 2001. Participation in agricultural research planning. In Planning Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook, G Gijsbers, W Janssen, H Hambly Odame and G Meijerink eds., pp. 171-182. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
45. Stewart, J 1995. Models of priority-setting for public sector research. Research Policy, 24(1), 115-126.
46. Strauss, A and C Corbin 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47. Sumberg, J 2005. Systems of innovation theory and the changing architecture of agricultural research in Africa. Food Policy, 30(1), 21-41.
48. van der Meulen, B 1998. Science policies as principal-agent games. Institutionalization and path dependency in the relation between government and science. Research Policy, 27(4), 397-414.
49. van der Meulen, B 2003. New roles and strategies of a science council: intermediation of the principal-agent relationship. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 323-336.
50. van der Meulen, B, M Nedeva and D Braun 2005. Intermediaries organisation and processes: theory and research issues. Position paper for the PRIME Workshop, 6-7 October 2005, Enschede, The Netherlands.
51. Waterton, C 2005. Scientists' conceptions of the boundaries between their own research and policy. Science and Public Policy, 32(6), 435-444.
52. Yin, R K 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.