Delegation of authority in research funding to networks: experiences with a multiple goal boundary organization

Abstract

The delegation of authority in research funding to multi-actor networks that include users is seen as a way to make research more responsive to users' needs. This paper analyzes multi-actor networks for the planning and execution of agricultural research in The Netherlands. It shows that delegation of authority to networks also generates several tensions, and requires substantial role adjustments and institutional learning for the actors involved (government, researchers, intermediaries such as research councils, and user groups) in order to effectively operate in the network. The paper indicates that the principal-agent perspective often used for analyzing the science-policy relationship can be a useful tool for analyzing the multilateral relationships in networks, but needs to be complemented by theories that better capture the notion of co-production in such 'webs of cross-cutting ties'.

Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: are innovation brokers the answer?

“…A new sort of research council (Bioconnect) has recently emerged, in which all relevant actors in the organic agriculture value chain (organized in sectoral product workgroups -PWG) have been granted decision-making authority in research funding, utilizing public funds of the Ministry of Agriculture (see Klerkx & Leeuwis, 2008b). Farmer and industry representatives are expected to propose topics based on a broadly shared demand from their constituencies, which they discuss and prioritize with so-called research theme coordinators.…”

“…Several studies have looked at the contribution of the Dutch innovation brokers (Klerkx & Leeuwis, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d, 2009bBatterink, Wubben, Klerkx, & Omta, 2009) Below we discuss the main findings in terms of whether innovation broking mechanism have, or have not, fulfilled the functions, outlined in section 2, that are needed to establish dynamic responsive innovation systems.…”

R&D CONSORTIA AS BOUNDARY ORGANISATIONS: MISALIGNMENT AND ASYMMETRY OF BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT

“…With the number of partners, the number of multilateral relationships that an R&D consortium has to balance increases (Morris, 2003;Slipersaeter et al, 2007;Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008). Multilateral R&D consortia can therefore be expected to demonstrate a number of characteristics of complex systems, such as the presence of interdependent parts and multiple boundaries (organisational, professional and departmental), a move from command-and-control styles of management towards self-organisation and a propensity to evolve over time (Anderson, 1999;Cilliers, 2001;Burnes, 2005).…”

“…Multilateral R&D consortia can therefore be expected to demonstrate a number of characteristics of complex systems, such as the presence of interdependent parts and multiple boundaries (organisational, professional and departmental), a move from command-and-control styles of management towards self-organisation and a propensity to evolve over time (Anderson, 1999;Cilliers, 2001;Burnes, 2005). Another key characteristic of boundary organisations is their ability to effectively operate in multiple arenas, mediate negotiations across the boundaries as part of their routine work and deal with all parties to which a boundary organisation is accountable (Guston, 1999(Guston, , 2001Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008).…”

Research councils facing new science and technology : the case of nanotechnology in Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland

“…Also, in recent years, principal-agent theory received attention (Fernández-Carro, 2007;Gulbrandsen, 2005;Klerkx & Leeuwis, 2008). …”