FTA supporting effective priority setting in multi-lateral research programme cooperation: The case of EU–Russia S&amp;T cooperation

Karel, Haegeman; Spiesberger, Manfred; Veselitskaya, Natalia; Sokolov, Alexander; Weiss, Gorazd

doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.04.009

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Identifying a GC is a “natural first step” (Haegeman et al, 2015: 201). By their very nature, the problems approached under the umbrella of GCs are of such a magnitude that they are likely to involve nonlinear system dynamics and characterized by dynamic complexity and deep uncertainty (Ferraro et al, 2015; Kwakkel and Pruyt, 2015).…”

Section: “Gcs” In Business and Management Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grand challenges in management research: Attributes, achievements, and advancement

Brammer

Branicki

Linnenluecke

et al. 2019

Australian Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management scholarship is increasingly paying attention to “grand challenges” such as climate and demographic changes, sociopolitical uncertainty, poverty alleviation, and global health improvement. Drawing upon a review of grand challenges research, we highlight the lack of a coherent conceptualization of a “grand challenge” and examine the diversity of the conceptual, policy, and empirical research. We problematize the failure in current research to distinguish between qualitatively different types of grand challenges—in our view, the resolution of different challenges calls for distinct research, policy, and practice approaches. We propose a novel framework that encompasses four distinct forms of grand challenge, situate the existing empirical literature within our framework, describe how the contributions to our special issue advance grand challenges research, and explore implications for future management research that responds to the imperatives of grand challenges.JEL Classification: D81, G01, M14, I18, Q54, Q55, Q56, Q57

show abstract

Section: “Gcs” In Business and Management Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grand challenges in management research: Attributes, achievements, and advancement

Brammer

Branicki

Linnenluecke

et al. 2019

Australian Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A further dimension to business intelligence is research. NFP's may benefit from conducting and publishing research (Haegeman et al, 2015). In fact, this is what many drug-and health-related institutions practice (McGoey, 2014).…”

Section: Contemporary Not-for-profit Critical Success Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Publishing research establishes credibility and it achieves dissemination of the benefits to customers. Haegeman et al (2015) advocated employed expert workshops, a Delphi survey, mind mapping and prioritization techniques to select relevant topics for a joint research call intended to raise funds for a NFP. They claimed that proposing future research would attract support and funding from important donors including the Russian federal government and the European Commission.…”

Section: Contemporary Not-for-profit Critical Success Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic analysis of CSF’s for not-for-profit organizations

Strang

2018

MBE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to analyze how strategic planning is used as critical success factors (CSF’s) in not-for-profit (NFP) organizations. This was because many nonprofits had to innovate their operations owing to the global fiscal crises, the continuing international economic instability, natural disasters or the increasing man-made worldwide terrorism. Additionally, the objective is to identify what successful nonprofit organizations actually do to remain effective at the national association level of analysis. Design/methodology/approachA constructivist research design ideology is applied (in contrast to the customary positivist philosophy to collect quantitative). The literature is critically reviewed to identify NFP CSF’s and terms such as capacity building. NFP institutions are theoretically sampled using US-based retrospective data to identify practitioner CSF activities. Applying a constructivist research design ideology, the theoretical CSF’s from the literature review are compared to practitioner activities. Representatives of NFP organizations are invited to participate in a strategic planning exercise to identify the most important CSF’s from the literature and practice that would be needed in the future. FindingsSeven of the nine United Nations NFP capacity building CSF’s are similar to NFP nine practitioner best practices. In comparison to the general literature, NFP practitioners applied leadership, strategic planning, innovation, documented procedures/training, human/technology resource management, financial management, accountability practices, ethical standards with professional communications policies, collaborative fundraising and marketing initiatives along with performance success evaluations. Research limitations/implicationsThe sample was drawn theoretically from 44 nonprofit state-centered institutions in the USA. Although statistically the results pertain strictly to US-based nonprofits, the principles should generalize to other countries as revealed by the similarity with United Nations innovation and strategic planning recommendations. Originality/valueThe authors applied a strategic planning exercise with the 44 participants at their recommendations to prioritize the CSF’s. The result was an innovative SWOT-TOWS diagram that summarized how the nine CSF’s were prioritized and grouped into the three categories of market performance, ethical responsibility and human resources.

show abstract

“…A recent analysis shows that with regard to research program development-agenda setting-the involvement of civil society organizations or other stakeholders is common practice, while citizens are only involved seldom [34]. On the other hand, expert-and stakeholder-centered forward-looking activities (FLA) have proven to be effective in supporting RI programming [35][36][37][38]. However, lay-people's involvement in FLA with regard to advice-giving mechanisms for science and innovation programming is relatively new and rare [39][40][41][42].…”

Section: Participatory Agenda Setting For Increasing Responsiveness Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

But do they deliver? Participatory agenda setting on the test bed

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this contribution, we investigate how results produced in a large-scale participatory agenda setting process differ from results of expert-based foresight studies with a similar aim of informing EU research and innovation (R&I) policy. After providing a theoretical positioning and an overview of the EU-wide participatory agenda setting process CIMULACT-Citizen and Multi-Actor Consultation on Horizon 2020, we describe our developed analytical approach that includes five analytical steps and calculation of three metrics. By comparative reading, analysis and scoring of 16 expert-based foresight reports, we produced data for the metrics that allow for discerning between (a) how many of the analyzed foresight reports cover a respective topic from CIMULACT, (b) how well this basic coverage aligns qualitatively, and (c) comprehensive comparison of each CIMULACT topic with respect to all surveyed reports. To discern differences, we chose those results (research topics) from CIMULACT that were also sufficiently covered by expert-based reports. Our findings suggest that such citizen-based, multi-actor co-created policy advice qualitatively differs considerably from that elicited by expert-based reports, in terms of direction and focus of the proposed R&I agenda.

show abstract

FTA supporting effective priority setting in multi-lateral research programme cooperation: The case of EU–Russia S&T cooperation

Cited by 20 publications

References 13 publications

Grand challenges in management research: Attributes, achievements, and advancement

Grand challenges in management research: Attributes, achievements, and advancement

Strategic analysis of CSF’s for not-for-profit organizations

But do they deliver? Participatory agenda setting on the test bed

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About