Cluster policies are widely used to strengthen regional competitiveness, yet difficult to evaluate. While academic approaches to cluster evaluation are often ignorant of the needs of policy‐makers and practitioners, practitioner‐led approaches often lack structure and rigour. As such, there remain significant gaps between theory and practice. The contribution of this paper is to reflect on a unique methodological approach that has regularly brought together academics, policy‐makers and practitioners from around the world to collectively address the challenges of cluster evaluation. A participatory process of integrating theory and practice highlights the importance of triple helix engagement to co‐design evaluation of what is a triple helix policy proposition.

For decades, cluster initiatives and funding programmes have been used as instruments of industrial and innovation policy—addressing system failures by strengthening linkages among actors, fostering innovation, and developing more effective innovation systems. More recently, a growing segment of these initiatives are also focused on driving system-level transformation and contributing to broader societal benefits. This segment is characterized by larger-scale and longer-term strategic efforts involving a variety of stakeholders across different parts of society, aimed at contributing to addressing societal challenges. These characteristics are shared with the emerging frame of transformative innovation policy, which highlights the importance of embedded practices of learning and reflexivity to enable continuous monitoring of progress and inform and adapt the direction of systemic change processes—requiring new approaches to governance and evaluation. Despite deep experience with implementing cluster programmes and other systemic innovation policy instruments, practitioners still struggle with monitoring and evaluation. Current approaches focus on evidencing strengthened innovation (and economic effects) on the level of firms and research actors, and fail to capture contributions on the level of the broader system. This article presents an evolving approach for tracking system transformation in clusters and collaborative innovation initiatives. Through an interactive, co-development process with initiatives in the Swedish Vinnväxt programme, this research proposes a definition and set of system effect categories for cluster initiatives. It tests a participatory approach for tracking their contribution to system-level change over time, providing an initial case on which to build and apply in other transformative innovation programmes.

Regions around the world employ cluster-based policies as part of their industrial, innovation and development policy mixes. They have become a key tool in smart specialisation strategies and are increasingly used to address societal challenges. Given their popularity and longevity, there is significant demand to better measure and understand the impacts of cluster policies. Yet the diversity of cluster policies employed in different regional competitiveness policy mixes, a complex effect logic and a variety of (mostly intangible) outcomes, and few recognised norms for guiding cluster policy evaluation all hamper a more holistic understanding of their patterns of effects and broader impacts. There lacks a common frame to guide cluster policy evaluation. This paper reviews international evidence on the effects of cluster policy programmes from academic and policy literature, which is then used as an input into a co-creation process with groups of cluster policymakers, practitioners and researchers. The result is a proposal for a generalised framework of effects for cluster policies to support the structuring of cluster policy evaluations and strengthen international policy learning possibilities.

No abstract

T he concept of a knowledge triangle, i.e., the principle of strengthening the linkages between research, education and innovation, has emerged as a result of policymakers' expectations that universities assume a broader societal responsibility. Yet, little is known about how these tasks and their interactions are orchestrated at universities. We explore concept of how the knowledge triangle is manifested in the organisation and strategy of three different Swedish universities, and how these manifestations are shaped by the policy landscape. The article highlights the fact that although the knowledge triangle remains a priority, explicit national policies are lacking, with the responsibility of integration falling upon universities themselves. We observe great diversity in how Кeywords: knowledge triangle; university management; third mission; societal collaboration; research utilisation. the principles of the knowledge triangle are orchestrated at the universities, e.g., through individuals' interpretations and attitudes, and through management strategies and incentive schemes. However, the three tasks have largely been handled separately, with weak coordination and generally limited ambition demonstrated by university management teams to forge new combinations of remits. At the individual and group levels, we observe weak task articulation, although some role models serve as inspiration. Tensions emerge as the responsibilities of operationalising the knowledge triangle falls on individuals who sometimes lack the appropriate mandate and resources. These findings raise questions for further research and implications for policy and university management.