Coordination in the Science System: Theoretical Framework and a Case Study of an Intermediary Organization

Minerva

Volumn 51, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 317-339

  Hessels, Laurens K ^a  

^a Rathenau Institute KNAW   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Coordination; Innovation; Intermediary organization; Research programme; Science policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883830120     PISSN: 00264695     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11024-013-9230-1     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bakker, Sjoerd, Harro van Lente, and Marius Meeus. 2011. Arenas of expectations for hydrogen technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78(1): 152-162.
2. Bonaccorsi, Andrea. 2008. Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science. Minerva 46(3): 285-315.
3. Bonaccorsi, Andrea. 2010. New forms of complementarity in science. Minerva 48(4): 355-387.
4. Bonaccorsi, Andrea, and Andrea Piccaluga. 1994. A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university-industry relationships. R&D Management 24(3): 229-247.
5. Bozeman, Barry, and Elizabeth Corley. 2004. Scientists' collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy 33: 599-616.
6. Braun, Dietmar. 2003. Lasting tensions in research policy-making-a delegation problem. Science and Public Policy 30(5): 309-321.
7. Braun, Dietmar. 2008. Organising the political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy 35(4): 227-239.
8. Clark, Burton R. 1979. The many pathways of academic coordination. Higher Education 8: 251-267.
9. Clark, Jennifer. 2010. Coordinating a conscious geography: The role of research centres in multi-scalar innovation policy and economic development in the US and Canada. Journal of Technology Transfer 35: 460-474.
10. Cummings, Jonathon N., and Sara Kiesler. 2007. Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy 36: 1620-1634.
11. Dasgupta, Partha, and Paul A. David. 1994. Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 23(5): 487-521.
12. Edler, Jacob, and Stefan Kuhlmann. 2008. Coordination within fragmentation: Governance in knowledge policy in the German federal system. Research Policy 35(4): 265-276.
13. Fisher, Donald, Janet Atkinson-Grosjean, and Dawn House. 2001. Changes in academy/industry/state relations in Canada: The creation and development of the Networks of Excellence. Minerva 39(3): 299-325.
14. Gläser, Jochen, Stefan Lange, Grit Laudel, and Uwe Schimank. 2010. The limits of universality: How field-specific epistemic conditions affect authority relations and their consequences. In Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, eds. R. Whitley, J. Gläser, and L. Engwall, 291-325. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Gray, Denis O. 2011. Cross-sector research collaboration in the USA: A national innovation systems perspective. Science and Public Policy 38(2): 123-133.
16. Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37: 740-760.
17. Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro van Lente. 2011. Practical applications as a source of credibility: A comparison of three fields of Dutch academic chemistry. Minerva 49(2): 215-240.
18. Kearnes, Matthew, and Matthias Wienroth. 2011. Tools of the trade: UK research intermediaries and the politics of impacts. Minerva 49(2): 153-174.
19. Klerkx, Laurens, and Cees Leeuwis. 2008. Delegation of authority in research funding to networks: Experience with a multiple goal boundary organization. Science and Public Policy 35: 183-196.
20. Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. 1999. Epistemic Cultures. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
21. Lepori, Benedetto. 2011. Coordination modes in public funding systems. Research Policy 40(3): 355-367. doi: 10. 1016/j. respol. 2010. 10. 016.
22. Luukkonen, Terttu, Maria Nedeva, and Remi Barré. 2006. Understanding the dynamics of networks of excellence. Science and Public Policy 33(4): 239-252.
23. Morris, Norma. 2000. Science policy in action: Policy and the researcher. Minerva 38: 425-451.
24. Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1: 54-74.
25. Potì, Bianca, and Emanuele Reale. 2007. Changing allocation models for public research funding: An empirical exploration based on project funding data. Science and Public Policy 34(6): 417-430.
26. Powell, Walter W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior 12: 295-336.
27. Sundberg, Mikaela. 2011. The dynamics of coordinated comparisons. Social Studies of Science 41(1): 107-125.
28. Technology Roadmap Catalysis: Catalysis, Key to Sustainability. 2002. Den Haag: Ministerie van Economische Zaken.
29. Thompson, G., J. Frances, R. Levacic, and J. Mitchell. 1991. Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: The Coordination of Social Life. London: SAGE.
30. van den Besselaar, Peter, and Edwin Horlings. 2010. Focus en massa in het wetenschappelijk onderzoek: De Nederlandse onderzoeksportfolio in internationaal perspectief. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut, SciSA rapport 1016.
31. van der Meulen Jr, Barend, and Arie Rip. 1998. Mediation in the Dutch science system. Research Policy 27(8): 757-769.
32. van Lente, Harro, and Arie Rip. 1998. The rise of membrane technology: From rhetorics to social reality. Social Studies of Science 28(2): 221-254.
33. van Vught, Frans A. 1997. Combining planning and the market: An analysis of the Government strategy towards higher education in the Netherlands. Higher Education Policy 10(3/4): 211-224.
34. Versleijen, Anouschka. 2007. Dertig jaar publieke onderzoeksfinanciering in Nederland 1975-2005: Historische trends, actuele discussies. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut, SciSA rapport 0703.
35. Whitley, Richard. 2000. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Whitley, Richard. 2003. Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: The impact of institutional frameworks on the organisation of academic science. Research Policy 32: 1015-1029.
37. Ziman, J. 1994. Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady State Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.