Four dangers in innovation policy studies - and how to avoid themCitation formats

Standard

Four dangers in innovation policy studies - and how to avoid them. / Flanagan, Kieron; Uyarra, Elvira (Collaborator).

In: Industry and Innovation, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2016, p. 177-188.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Flanagan, Kieron ; Uyarra, Elvira. / Four dangers in innovation policy studies - and how to avoid them. In: Industry and Innovation. 2016 ; Vol. 23, No. 2. pp. 177-188.

Bibtex

@article{31cea8d31f0b4027ac0abec6587267ab,
title = "Four dangers in innovation policy studies - and how to avoid them",
abstract = "The field of innovation policy studies is at a crossroads. It has clearly been influential. However, might it be losing the critical insight necessary to remain so in future? We discuss four dangerous tendencies seen in many innovation policy studies: idealising policy rationales and policy-makers; treating policies as tools from a toolbox; putting too much faith in coordination and intelligent design of 'policy mixes'; and taking an atemporal approach to innovation policy. Based on these we identify some ways forward that, we argue, would deal better with the complex multi-actor dynamics, fundamental uncertainties and challenges to the implementation, coordination and evaluation of policies and which would make for more relevant and impactful innovation policy studies.",
keywords = "Innovation policy, implementation, policy mixes, evaluation, co-ordination",
author = "Kieron Flanagan and Elvira Uyarra",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1080/13662716.2016.1146126",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "177--188",
journal = "Industry and Innovation",
issn = "1366-2716",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Four dangers in innovation policy studies - and how to avoid them

AU - Flanagan, Kieron

A2 - Uyarra, Elvira

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - The field of innovation policy studies is at a crossroads. It has clearly been influential. However, might it be losing the critical insight necessary to remain so in future? We discuss four dangerous tendencies seen in many innovation policy studies: idealising policy rationales and policy-makers; treating policies as tools from a toolbox; putting too much faith in coordination and intelligent design of 'policy mixes'; and taking an atemporal approach to innovation policy. Based on these we identify some ways forward that, we argue, would deal better with the complex multi-actor dynamics, fundamental uncertainties and challenges to the implementation, coordination and evaluation of policies and which would make for more relevant and impactful innovation policy studies.

AB - The field of innovation policy studies is at a crossroads. It has clearly been influential. However, might it be losing the critical insight necessary to remain so in future? We discuss four dangerous tendencies seen in many innovation policy studies: idealising policy rationales and policy-makers; treating policies as tools from a toolbox; putting too much faith in coordination and intelligent design of 'policy mixes'; and taking an atemporal approach to innovation policy. Based on these we identify some ways forward that, we argue, would deal better with the complex multi-actor dynamics, fundamental uncertainties and challenges to the implementation, coordination and evaluation of policies and which would make for more relevant and impactful innovation policy studies.

KW - Innovation policy

KW - implementation

KW - policy mixes

KW - evaluation

KW - co-ordination

U2 - 10.1080/13662716.2016.1146126

DO - 10.1080/13662716.2016.1146126

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 177

EP - 188

JO - Industry and Innovation

JF - Industry and Innovation

SN - 1366-2716

IS - 2

ER -