The objective of this article is to analyse the utilization of two academic narratives about innovation policy in policy discourse by examining the policy statements issued by one Swedish agency that was specifically set up to promote innovation policy, the Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems, VINNOVA. The main findings of this analysis show that the deployment of the examined academic narratives in policy discourse is not accidental nor is it only limited to a role of legitimating policy decisions. The article shows that although the linear model of knowledge transfer has long been discredited, the notion of knowledge utilization is still useful to policy analysis and may be successfully deployed to understand what lies behind the assertions of mutual interplay between science and policy that characterize contemporary attempts to depict this relation.
Archibugi, D. and Lundvall, B. , eds (2001) The Globalizing Learning Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
2.
Asheim, B. and Isaksen, A. (2002) “Regional Innovation Systems: The Integration of Local ‘Sticky’ and Global ‘Ubiquitous’ Knowledge” , Journal of Technology Transfer27(1): 77-86 .
3.
Baber, Z. (2001) “Globalization and Scientific Research: The Emerging Triple Helix of State-Industry-University Relations in Japan and Singapore” , Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society21: 401-408 .
4.
Bartzokas, A. (2001) “Policy Relevance and Theory Development in Innovation Studies” , Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies2: 1-18 .
5.
Braczyk, H.-J. , Cooke, P. and Heidenreich, M. , eds (1998) Regional Innovation Systems. London: UCL Press .
6.
Carlsson, B. (1997) “On and Off the Beaten Path: The Evolution of Four Technological Systems in Sweden” , International Journal of Industrial Organization15: 775-799 .
7.
Carlsson, B. and Jacobsson, S. (1994) “Technological Systems and Economic Policy: The Diffusion of Factory Automation in Sweden” , Research Policy23: 235-248 .
8.
Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz, R. (1991) “On the Nature, Function and Composition of Technological Systems” , Journal of Evolutionary Economics1: 93-118 .
9.
Carlsson, B. , Jacobsson, S. , Holmen, M. and Rickne, A. (2002) “Innovation Systems: Analytical and Methodological Issues” , Research Policy31(2): 233-245 .
10.
Casswill, C. and Shove, E. (2000) “Introducing Interactive Social Science” , Science and Public Policy27(3): 154-157 .
11.
Cooke, P. (1998) “Introduction. Origins of the Concept”, in H.-J. Braczyk , P. Cooke and M. Heidenreich (eds) Regional Innovation Systems, pp.2-25. London: UCL Press .
12.
Cooke, P. (2002) “Regional Innovation Systems: General Findings and Some New Evidence from Biotechnology Clusters” , Journal of Technology Transfer27: 133-145 .
13.
Cooke, P. , Uranga, M. G. and Etxebarria, G. (1997) “Regional Innovation Systems: Institutional and Organisational Dimensions” , Research Policy26(4-5): 475-491 .
14.
(Also in C. Edquist and M. Mckelvey [eds] Systems of Innovation: Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar [2000].)
15.
Edquist, C. (2001) “The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: an Account of the State of the Art” , paper presented at the DRUID Conference, Aalborg, 12-15 June.
16.
Edquist, C. (2004) “Systems of Innovation - A Critical Review of the State of the Art”, in J. Fagerberg , D. Mowery and R. Nelson (eds) Handbook of Innovation, pp. 181-208. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
17.
(Also in C. Edquist and M. Mckelvey [eds] Systems of Innovation: Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar [2000].)
18.
Eriksson, A. , Christensen, L. , Clarhall, L. and Dolk, T. (2002) “Triple Helix Management: fakta, modeller, verktyg [Triple Helix Management: Facts, Models and Tools]”, developed for VINNOVA, Stockholm .
19.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998) “The Norms of Entrepreneurial Science: Cognitive Effects of the New University-Industry Linkages” , Research Policy27: 823-834 .
20.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003a) “The European Entrepreneurial University: An Alternative to the US Model” , Industry and Higher Education17(5): 325-335 .
21.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003b) “Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations” , Social Science Information42(3): 293-337 .
22.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (1997) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London: Pinter .
23.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000) “The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations” , Research Policy29: 109-123 .
24.
Finlayson, A. (2004) “Political Science, Political Ideas and Rhetoric” , Economy and Society33 (4): 528-549 .
25.
Freeman, C. (1995) “‘The National System of Innovation’ in Historical Perspective” , Cambridge Journal of Economics19(1): 5-24 .
26.
Gibbons, M. , Limoges, C. , Nowotny, H. , Schwartzman, C. , Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Society. London: Sage .
27.
Godin, B. (1998) “Writing Performative History: The New Atlantis?” , Social Studies of Science28(3): 465-483 .
28.
Godin, B. (2002) “The Number Makers: Fifty Years of Science and Technology Official Statistics” , Minerva40(4): 375-397 .
29.
Granat Thorslund, J. , Elg, L. and Sandgren, P. (2005a) “En Larande Innovations-politik: Samordning och Samverkan?”, VINNOVA 07.
30.
Granat Thorslund, J. , Elg, L. and Sandgren, P. (2005b) “End of an Era? Governance of Swedish Innovation Policy”, in OECD Governance of Innovation Systems, vol. 1: Synthesis Report. Paris: OECD .
31.
Haas, P. (1992) “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination” , International Organization46(1): 1-35 .
32.
Hajer, M. (2003) “Policy without Polity? Policy Analysis and the Institutional Void” , Policy Sciences36(2): 175-195 .
33.
Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. , eds (1995) Developing Relationships in Business Networks. London: Routledge .
34.
Hay, C. and Rosamond, B. (2002) “Globalization, European Integration and the Discursive Construction of Economic Imperatives” , Journal of European Public Policy9(2): 147-167 .
35.
Hellstrom, T. and Jacob, M. (2005) “Taming Unruly Science and Saving National Competitiveness: Discourses on Science by Sweden’s Strategic Research Bodies” , Science Technology and Human Values30: 443-467 .
36.
Hird, J. A. (2005) “Policy Analysis for What? The Effectiveness of Nonpartisan Policy Research Organizations” , Policy Studies Journal33(1): 83-106 .
37.
Horowitz, I. L. (ed.) (1971) The Use and Abuse of Social Science. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books .
38.
Jacob, M. and Hellstrom, T. (1998) “Reviewing the Science-Policy Relationship: The Policy as Theory Alternative (PAST)” , Science and Public Policy25(4): 218-226 .
39.
Jacob, M. and Hellstrom, T. (2000) “Policy Understanding of Science, Public Trust and the BSE-CJD Crisis” , Journal of Hazardous Materials78: 303-317 .
40.
Jasanoff, S. S. (1996) “Science and Norms in Global Environmental Regimes”, in F. O. Hampson and J. Reppy (eds) Earthly Goods. Environmental Change and Social Justice, pp. 173-197. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press .
41.
Johnson, B. (1992) “Institutional Learning”, in B. A. Lundvall (ed.) National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, pp. 23-42. London: Pinter .
42.
Landry, R. , Lamari, M. and Amara, N. (2003) “The Extent and Determinants of the Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies” , Public Administration Review63(2): 192-205 .
43.
Lazarsfeld, P. , Sewell, W. H. and Wilensky, H. L. (1967) The Uses of Sociology. New York: Basic Books .
44.
Leydesdorff, L. (2000) “The Triple Helix: An Evolutionary Model of Innovations” , Research Policy29(2): 243-255 .
45.
Leydesdorff, L. and Guoping, Z. (2001) “University-Industry-Government Relations in China: An Emergent National System of Innovation” , Industry and Higher Education15(3): 179-182 .
46.
Leydesdorff, L. and Van den Besselaar, P. (1998) “Technological Developments and Factor Substitution in a Complex and Dynamic System” , Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems21(2): 173-193 .
47.
List, F. G. (1856) National System of Political Economy. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott .
48.
Litfin, K. (1994) Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press .
49.
Lundvall, B. A. (1988) “Innovation as an Interactive Process: From User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation”, in G. Dosiet al. (eds) Technology and Economic Theory, pp. 349-369. London: Pinter .
50.
Lundvall, B. A. , ed. (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter .
51.
Lundvall, B. A. (2001) “Innovation Policy in the Globalizing Learning Economy”, in D. Archibugi and B. Lundvall (eds) The Globalizing Learning Economy, pp. 273-292. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
52.
Majone, G. (1989) Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
53.
Majone, G. (1991) “Research Programmes and Action Programmes, or Can Policy Research Learn from the Philosophy of Science?”, in P. Wagner (ed.) Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads, pp. 290-306. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press .
54.
Malerba, F. (2002) “Sectoral Systems of Innovation and Production” , Research Policy31(2): 247-264 .
55.
Marklund, G. , Modig, S. and Backlund, A. (1998) The Swedish National Innovation System - A Quantitative Study. Stockholm: NUTEK (Swedish Agency for Business Development).
56.
Marklund, G. , Nilsson, R. , Sandgren, P. , Granat Thorslund, J. and Ullstrom, J. (2004) “The Swedish National Innovation System 1970-2003, a Quantitative International Benchmarking”, in VINNOVA Analysis 1. Stockholm: VINNOVA. .
57.
Miettinen, R. (2002) National Innovation System: Scientific Concept or Political Rhetoric. Helsinki: Edita .
58.
Mytelka, L. and Smith, K. (2002) “Policy Learning and Innovation Theory: An Interactive and Co-Evolving Process” , Research Policy31(8-9): 1467-1479 .
59.
Nelson, R. R. and Rosenberg, N. (1993) “Technical Innovation and National Systems”, in R. R. Nelson (ed.) National Innovation Systems, pp. 3-21. New York: Oxford University Press .
60.
Nelson, R. R and Sampat, B. N. (2001) “Making Sense of Institutions as a Factor Shaping Economic Performance” , Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization44: 31-54 .
61.
Nieddu, M. (2002) “Triple Helix Model and Regulation of Regional Change: A Case Study” , Géographie Economie Société4(2): 205-224 .
62.
Niosi, J. (2002) “National Systems of Innovations Are ‘X-Efficient’ (and X-Effective) - Why Some are Slow Learners” , Research Policy31(2): 233-245 .
63.
Nolin, J. (1999) “Global Policy and National Research: The International Shaping of Climate Research in Four European Union Countries” , Minerva37(2): 125-140 .
64.
OECD (2005) Governance of Innovation Systems: vol. 1: Synthesis Report, vol. 2: Case Studies in Innovation Policy, vol. 3: Case Studies in Cross-Sectoral Policy. Paris: OECD .
65.
Office of the Government (2004) “Innovativa Sverige [Innovative Sweden]”, DS (Department Series) 36. Stockholm: Office of the Government .
66.
Oh, C. (1997) “Issues for the New Thinking of Knowledge Utilization: Introductory Remarks” , Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization10(3): 3-10 .
67.
Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. (2003) How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
68.
Pinch, T. and Bijker, W. (1984) “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other” , Social Studies of Science14: 399-431 .
69.
Porter, M. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Basic Books .
70.
Rip, A. (2002) “Regional Innovation Systems and the Advent of Strategic Science” , Journal of Technology Transfer27: 123-131 .
71.
Rip, A. and Shove, E. (2002) “Users and Unicorns: a Discussion of Mythical Beasts in Interactive Science” , Science and Public Policy27(3): 175-182 .
72.
Salter, L. , Levy, E. and Leiss, W. (1988) Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards. Dordrecht and Reidel: Kluwer Academic Publishers .
73.
Sandstrom, A. , Backlund, A. , Haggblad, H. , Markusson, N. , Norgren, L. and Westerlund, L. (2001) Det Svenska biotekniska innovations systemet [The Swedish Biotechnology Innovation System]. Stockholm: VINNOVA (Innovation i fokus serie VF 2).
74.
Schot, J. (1992) “Constructive Technology Assessment and Technology Dynamics: the Case of Clean Technologies” , Science, Technology and Human Values17(1): 36-56 .
75.
Shackley, S. , Risbey, J. , Stone, P. and Wynne, B. (1999) “Adjusting to Policy Expectations in Climate Change Modelling: An Interdisciplinary Study of Flux Adjustments in Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models” , Climatic Change43: 413-454 .
76.
Shinn, T. (1999) “Change or Mutation? Reflections on the Foundations of Contemporary Science” , Social Science Information38(1): 149-176 .
77.
Shinn, T. (2002) “The Triple Helix and New Production of Knowledge: Prepackaged Thinking on Science and Technology” , Social Studies of Science32(4): 599-614 .
78.
Stenberg, L. , Gustafsson, E. and Marklund, G. (1996) “Use of Human Resource Data for Analysis of the Structure and Dynamics of the Swedish Innovation System” , paper presented at the OECD Workshop on New Indicators for the Knowledge-based Economy, Paris; available at http://members.tripod.com/%7ETaiSurpJoe/NISPDF/swedish.pdf (accessed April 2006).
79.
Surel, Y. (2000) “The Role of Cognitive and Normative Frames in Policy-Making” , Journal of European Public Policy7: 495-512 .
80.
VINNOVA (2002) “Effective Innovation Systems and Problem-Oriented Research for Sustainable Growth: VINNOVA’s Strategic Plan 2003-2007”, VINNOVA Policy 2002: 3-3; available at www.vinnova.se
81.
VINNOVA (2003) “VINNOVAs forskningsstrategi. Strategi forhallbar tillvaxt [VINNOVA’s Research Strategy. Strategy for Sustainable Growth]”, VINNOVA Policy 2003: 3-3; available at www.vinnova.se
82.
Weinberg, A. M. (1972) “Science and Transscience” , Minerva10: 208-222 .
83.
Weiss, C. (1979) “The Many Meanings of Research Utilization” , Public Administration Review39: 426-431 .
84.
Woolgar, S. (1991) “Configuring the User: the Case of Usability Trials”, in J. Law (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, pp. 58-100. London: Routledge .
85.
Woolgar, S. , Vaux, S. , Gomes, P. , Ezingeard, J.-N. and Grieve, R. (1998) “Abilities and Competencies Required, Particularly by Small Firms to Identify and Acquire New Technology” , Technovation18(8/9): 575-584 .
