Suchergebnisse

Background:
Knowledge brokering is suggested as an instrument to improve productive use of research in policy organisations. Previous research asserted that research utilisation is dependent on dynamics of knowledge exchange in institutional settings, but these claims have not received substantial empirical attention (Saarela et al, 2015; Akerlof et al, 2019; MacKillop et al, 2020). Viewing knowledge brokering as the involved role, three specific challenges are identified: high legitimacy requirements for the brokered knowledge and the broker; the need to cater for a wide range of topics, audiences and uses; and the need to compete with other evidence suppliers.

Aims and objectives:
The research question of the article is: how do legislative knowledge brokers navigate context-specific knowledge transfer challenges presented by their institutional context?

Methods:
An in-depth interpretive case study of the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. The analysis includes interviews with parliamentary actors, shadowing and participant observation.

Findings:
The results substantiate the challenges of legislative knowledge brokering in the UK context and inductively identify a further challenge of demonstrating impact. Legislative knowledge brokers employ multiple strategies to navigate the challenges: co-shape and adhere to the norms of impartiality, mobilise external expertise, collaborate with in-house and external research support actors, employ anticipation techniques, build broker chains, seek understanding of own role and impact.

Discussion and conclusion:
The article contributes to the understanding of knowledge brokering as a context-dependent role. The conclusions discuss influence of knowledge brokers' work remit and positionality in deploying strategies to overcome the legislative challenges.

This paper presents a framework to understand the impact of scientific knowledge on the policy-making process, focusing on the conceptual impact. We note the continuing dissatisfaction with the quality and effects of science-policy interactions in both theory and practice. We critique the current literature's emphasis on the role and the activities of scientists to generate policy impact, neglecting the conditions and roles of "user" pol-icy-making organisations. The framework offered in the paper addresses these cri-tiques by developing an argument about the essential role of institutional "user side" conditions for scientific knowledge to achieve impact. The framework is informed by the reflexive institutionalist and the neo-institutionalist theoretical approaches. The main contribution of the framework is that it unpicks the institutional conditions within policy-making organisations that influence the uptake of scientific knowledge and provides an operationalisation to analyse them. The wider relevance of the paper is in moving the focus from the activities of scientists and the incentive structure in scientific organisa-tions to the policy user side.

The SME Instrument (SMEI) is a new consolidated funding scheme within Horizon 2020. It was introduced in 2014 as a dedicated tool to support high potential innovation, ultimately as a way to consolidate EU policy efforts to foster European competitiveness in advanced technologies in order to match its excellence in science. The expectations were pinned on small firms – the drivers of knowledge economy. There was never previously a tool dedicated exclusively to supporting the technological entrepreneurship of small and medium-sized companies in the European policy landscape. Therefore, the introduction of the SME Instrument was eagerly expected and widely welcomed by both policymakers and European small companies. However, both practitioners and experts have been growing increasingly frustrated with the pace and the rates of implementation of the Instrument. With the extraordinary rate of response from European SMEs that the Instrument received, it has so far been financially constrained in satisfying the demand, which has eventually led to some losses of investment and the neglect of talent. this report, we provide the description and initial analysis of the SME Instrument, as well as first lessons that can be extracted from the ongoing stream of applications. We first note that Europe has long been experiencing a paradoxical disbalance between its strength in scientific research and its low capacity in innovation. We illustrate how the need for a dedicated tool of technological innovation support within the European policy landscape has been growing, becoming increasingly recognised throughout the successive framework programmes. In essence, the design of the SME Instrument mimics that of the U.S. Small Business Innovation Research Program in its 3-phase structure, amounts of the awards and focus on technology commercialisation. We analyse evaluation reports and academic literature of SBIR and provide initial comparison between the two programmes. What we note is that SBIR had multiple unexpected non-financial positive externalities, such as the facilitation of entrepreneurship culture, and we make multiple propositions about the likelihood of these effects occurring as a result of the SME Instrument funding. The report identifies three main policy implications based on first years of implementation of the SMEI: while it is extremely popular, it is way too competitive. The low probability of funding may discourage future applications once the hype for the new tool fades. Second, the variety of firms applying for the SMEI support discloses the variety of strategies and ways of coping with early stage lack of financing that exist in Europe. Many lessons can be extracted from the narratives of applicant firms and their business models. Third, there is still a lot of ambiguity about the 3rd phase of the SMEI and the ways in which SMEI awardees can access further sources of European finance. Finally, the report profiles the proposals in terms of their technological area, country where the proposals submitted from, countries with the highest rates of funded proposals, size and age of applicant and successful SMEs, the amount of funding allocated. Eventually, we open up discontinuities in funding between phase 1 and phase 2 of the SMEI, calling them 'Wasted Talent'. This data can be a source for ongoing research in innovation management. Among others, the paper provides initial insights into how the SMEI awardee data can be used for the analysis of fast growing firms across sectors, how the applicant and awardee data can be used in the evaluation of the SMEI as a policy tool, a comparative dimension with the US SBIR and how it is possible to study synergies with other entrepreneurship policies on the European and national levels.

This paper investigates interactions between institutional adaptation and the transformation of science and innovation systems by analysing change and adjustment in post-socialist science academies. Two leading examples are examined: the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). A heuristic framework of institutional change markers is applied to the analysis of nanotechnology research in both countries. We draw on bibliometric sources, interviews and secondary sources. We find that while the two Academies share a common past as the dominant research agents in their respective systems, their current positions and trajectories now differ. The nanotechnology case shows that CAS has adapted to China's modernisation, engaged in central government policy initiatives, and interacted with other research performers. CAS remains central to the Chinese research system, and has rejuvenated and expanded its resource base. RAS, on the contrary, has taken a protectionist stance: it still dominates the Russian research system and has a strong nanotechnology position, enforced by its gatekeeper control over journal publication. Nevertheless, RAS has faced difficulties in internal modernisation, leading to the external imposition of reforms and further role diminishment. The paper offers comparative insights into processes of institutional adaptation and highlights how key institutions can influence system transition.

This paper investigates interactions between institutional adaptation and the transformation of science and innovation systems by analysing change and adjustment in post-socialist science academies. Two leading examples are examined: the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). A heuristic framework of institutional change markers is applied to the analysis of nanotechnology research in both countries. We draw on bibliometric sources, interviews and secondary sources. We find that while the two Academies share a common past as the dominant research agents in their respective systems, their current positions and trajectories now differ. The nanotechnology case shows that CAS has adapted to China's modernisation, engaged in central government policy initiatives, and interacted with other research performers. CAS remains central to the Chinese research system, and has rejuvenated and expanded its resource base. RAS, on the contrary, has taken a protectionist stance: it still dominates the Russian research system and has a strong nanotechnology position, enforced by its gatekeeper control over journal publication. Nevertheless, RAS has faced difficulties in internal modernisation, leading to the external imposition of reforms and further role diminishment. The paper offers comparative insights into processes of institutional adaptation and highlights how key institutions can influence system transition.

Abstract
This paper analyses the conditions and factors influencing non-university researchers' career transitions back into academia. Using affiliation data in publications of German researchers, their cross-sector career transitions from the public research organisation Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft and industry to universities are analysed. Although the rate of transitions is small, there are distinctive windows of opportunity at a junior career stage, especially for Fraunhofer researchers. Researchers who publish more and in more acclaimed journals, Fraunhofer researchers who co-publish with universities, and women are more likely to gain a university affiliation over the course of their career. These results indicate the influence of institutional proximity for cross-domain career transitions. The quality and impact of academic knowledge could be improved if the higher education sector was more open to recruitment of researchers from other sectors. Policy needs to target the barriers that preclude applied researchers from pursuing university careers.

Abstract
Distinguishing between research collaboration, consultancy, dissemination, and commercialization of research results, this paper analyses the determinants of researchers' societal engagement. The analytical framework integrates societal engagement as part of the credibility cycle. Several variables extend previous findings on determinants and mechanisms—herein scientific recognition and funding sources. A novel method to investigate the relationship between scientific recognition and societal engagement is explored. Drawing on a large-scale survey of European-based researchers in physics, cardiology, and economics, we find that several factors are associated with different modes of societal engagement in complex and intersecting ways. Scientific recognition is positively associated with research collaboration and dissemination, while organizational seniority is associated with all modes except for research collaboration with non-scientific actors. Female gender is positively associated with dissemination and external funding sources are positively associated will all. The findings intersect with differences in the three research fields.