Logo Utrecht University

Eu-SPRI 2020

Call for papers

Call for papers Eu-SPRI 2020 conference 

New Horizons for Science, Technology and Innovation Policies  

We would like to invite you to submit paper proposals for the 2020 Annual Conference of the Eu-SPRI Forum: “New Horizons for Science, Technology and Innovation Policies”. The conference is organised by the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University and will take place in Utrecht, The Netherlands, 3-5 June 2020.   

The annual Eu-SPRI conference is the leading research conference on science, technology and innovation policy in Europe, with a broad attendance of scientists as well as policymakers. Research on Science, Technology and Innovation policy has changed considerably in the recent years, has diversified in terms of topics and applications, and has deepened with respect to theories and methods. These developments reflect the ongoing development of new technologies, how novel ideas are put to use in the economy and society, and how policies and institutions affect the growth and direction of innovations. In each of these interrelated areas we are witnessing accelerating changes, frictions and puzzles that call for new horizons in terms of new views, analyses, policy designs and co-operation partners.  

This year’s conference theme – NEW HORIZONS – will explore future directions for Science, Technology and Innovation policies with a special emphasis on the topics Digitization, Science Policy and Futuring. We expect more than 200 participants. The key objectives of the conference are to provide a forum for scholars in the areas of research and innovation policy analysis to exchange ideas, and to present findings across disciplinary boundaries. 

We invite you to submit a paper proposal that fits one of the following session tracks which were selected from the vast amount of session proposals that had been handed in.

As stated in the call for this conference research on STI policy has changed considerably in recent years, diversified in terms of topics and applications, and deepened with respect to theories and methods (Fagerberg and Verspagen 2009; Martin 2014). Parallel to this development,the practice and the theoretical understanding of foresight and forward-looking activities (FLA) for STI policy have undergone similar changes. This development has been described and discussed in several studies (Georghiou et al. 2008; Miles 2010). Innovation studies and academic analyses of FLA, respectively, have co-evolved over the years (Andersen and Andersen 2014). Although with strong roots in the 1950s and early targeted efforts in the 1970s, FLA for STI policy has seen a major boostsince the 1980s. Practitionershave clearly played an important role, while several scholars have also acted as practitioners, though, e.g. by devising, managing, or advising FLA projects.

While FLA projects and academic analyses on these activities over the years have imported insights on innovation from the field of innovation studies (Havas, Schartinger, and Weber 2010; Weber et al. 2012), there is still a huge potential for FLA to draw from,and contribute to,the broader area of innovation studies, understood here as including also science and technology studies, transitions research and STI policy studies.

In parallel to this fruitful relationship between innovation studies and FLA, agrowing number of FLA projectsand academic research on FLA for policy-making has also emergedoutside ofthe domain of STI. Examples include energy policy (Madlener, Kowalski, and Stagl 2007), forest policy (Carlsson et al. 2015),urban development (Eames et al. 2013), regional policy (di Bartolomeo et al.2001) or water resource policy (Carter and White 2012), etc. However, the literatures in these domains often do not refer to a common set of references. Rather, each domain refersto traditions and literature within their own domain. Hence, we intend to facilitate learning across these domains by covering these activities at the proposed session.

For this session at the Eu-SPRI 2020 conference,we invite contributions that analyse:

  • the relevance of novelacademic insightsfrom the field of innovation studies for FLA methods and practices, as well as for a better understanding of the role FLA in STI policy governance sub-systems
  • experiences from recent FLA projects from a wide variety of policy fields, but entailing conceptual or methodological implications for the field of innovation studiesand STI policy
  • experiences with FLA for STI policies with academic relevance for innovation studies
  • new developmentsin research methods and approaches for studying FLA
  • new FLA methods and their impactson making policy more future-sensitive.

 

Proposed and organised by:

Per Dannemand Andersen (Technical University of Denmark; Department of Technology, Management and Economics; pean@dtu.dk)

Attila Havas (Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Centre for Economic and Regional Studies; attila.havas@krtk.mta.hu)

Matthias Weber (AIT Center for Innovation Systems and Policy; Vienna; matthias.weber@ait.ac.at)

 

References

Andersen, Allan Dahl and Per Dannemand Andersen. 2014. “Innovation System Foresight.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 88:276–86.

Carlsson, Julia, Ljusk Ola Eriksson, Karin Öhman, and Eva-Maria Nordström. 2015. “Combining Scientific and Stakeholder Knowledge in Future Scenario Development — A Forest Landscape Case Study in Northern Sweden.” Forest Policy and Economics 61:122–34.

Carter, Jeremy G. and Iain White. 2012. “Environmental Planning and Management in an Age of Uncertainty : The Case of the Water Framework Directive.” Journal of Environmental Management 113:228–36.

Eames, Malcolm, Tim Dixon, Tim May, and Miriam Hunt. 2013. “City Futures: Exploring Urban Retrofit and Sustainable Transitions.” Building Research & Information 41(5):504–16.

Fagerberg, Jan and Bart Verspagen. 2009. “Innovation Studies—The Emerging Structure of a New Scientific Field.” Research Policy 38(2):218–33.

Havas, Attila, Doris Schartinger, and Matthias Weber. 2010. “The Impact of Foresight on Innovation Policy-Making: Recent Experiences and Future Perspectives.” Research Evaluation 19(2):91–104.

Luke Georghiou, Jennifer Cassingena Harper, Michael Keenan, Ian Miles, and Rafael Popper, eds. 2008. The Handbook of Technology Foresight: Concepts and Practice. Edward Elgar Pub.

Madlener, Reinhard, Katharina Kowalski, and Sigrid Stagl. 2007. “New Ways for the Integrated Appraisal of National Energy Scenarios: The Case of Renewable Energy Use in Austria.” Energy Policy 35(12):6060–74.

Martin, Ben R. 2014. R & D Policy Instruments – a Critical Review of What We Do and Don ’ t Know. Aalborg.

Miles, Ian. 2010. “The Development of Technology Foresight: A Review.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77(9):1448–56.

Weber, K. M., J. C. Harper, T. Konnola, and V. Carabias Barcelo. 2012. “Coping with a Fast-Changing World: Towards New Systems of Future-Oriented Technology Analysis.” Science and Public Policy 39(2):153–65.

Technological solutions to societal or grand challenges have become increasingly important in research and innovation policy. “[Society] is facing a tremendous challenge to cope with societal challenges such as climate change, security and the aging population. Investing in science, applied research and innovation is essential to come up with solutions for these challenges.” (Letter to parliament: Towards mission-driven innovation policy, 2018). Not only individual nation states, but also the European Commission is putting their hopes in technological advantage to solve these challenges. But in this time of fast technological change, how can we trace emerging technologies and novel ideas to promote the most promising innovations? How can we identify frictions and make decisions regarding the complex puzzles that societal challenges entail?

Most policy makers base these type of decisions on foresight studies (see i.e. Coates, 1985; Martin, 1995; Rotolo et al., 2015). Over time, various qualitative and quantitative forward-looking research methodologies, such as Future-oriented Technology Analyses and forecasting tools, have been considered to address such foresight questions (see e.g. Daim et al., 2006; Glenn & Gordon, 2009; Porter & Detampel, 1995). Although both qualitative and quantitative forward-looking approaches have their assets and advantages, they also have their challenges. For example, most methods rely on expert judgements that suffer from expert bias. In addition, unknown and ‘hidden’ variables play an important, often neglected, role. Think, for example, about the deflated hype around nuclear power or gene tech; similar emerging technologies that brought about unprecedented, futuristic opportunities for society and businesses, ultimately marginalized due to severe criticism (e.g. Borup et al., 2006; Sturken et al., 2004).

The integration of qualitative and quantitative information to enable forward-looking predictions is, therefore, still a major endeavor in foresight analysis (Porter et al., 2004; Ranaei et al., 2019). Big data and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are appearing as an opportunity for foresight studies to explore new horizons. Using big data and AI for foresight  – which we define as a data-driven foresight approach– can enrich understanding of the increasingly complex and fast-evolving science, technology and innovation developments and enable the development of policies and strategies which are more objective, timely and flexible to changes in these areas.

In this session, we therefore welcome new frameworks, approaches, perspectives, methods, and tools regarding (the role of) foresight in the 21st century. We welcome a wide range of submissions related to this topic and we are specifically interested to hear about the possibilities and challenges of new data sources and new data-driven foresight approaches to answer traditional and new foresight related questions. In addition, we are interested in studies that address the implications of big data and AI for foresight, the expert – machine relationship or the decision-maker – machine relationship (i.e. hybrid approaches), or the role of new biases in data-driven foresight. Finally, we invite papers that discuss challenges related to the institutionalization and standardization of new practices and languages in foresight.

Convenors

Dr. Amber Geurts

Researcher Technology & Innovation

Strategic Analysis & Policy, TNO

Department of Management Studies, Aalto University

 

Prof. dr. David Langley

Department of Innovation Management & Strategy, University of Groningen

Strategic Analysis & Policy, TNO

 

Dr. Arho Suominen

Principal Scientist

Innovations, Economy & Policy

VTT Technical Research Center of Finland

 

References

Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K. & Van Lente, H. 2006. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18, 285–98.

Coates, J.F. (1985). Foresight in federal government policymaking. Futures Research Quarterly Summer, 29-53.

Daim, T.U., Rueda, G., Martin, H. & Gerdsri, P. (2006). Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometric and patent analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(8).

Glenn, J.C. & Gordon, T.J. (2009). Futures Research Methodology. The Millenium Project.

Letter to parliament (2018). Kamerbrief over innovatiebeleid en de bevordering van innovatie: naar missiegedreven innovatiebeleid met impact. Te verkrijgen: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2018/07/13/kamerbrief-naar-missiegedreven-innovatiebeleid-met-impact.

Martin, B. (1995). Foresight in Science and Technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 7 (2).

Porter, A. L. & Detampel, M. J. (1995). Technology opportunities analysis. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 49(3):237–255.

Porter, A. L., Ashton, W. B., Clar, G., Coates, J. F., Cuhls, K., Cunningham, S. W., Ducatel, K., van der Duin, P., Georgehiou, L., Gordon, T., Linstone, H., Marchau, V., Massari, G., Miles, I., Mogee, M., Salo, A., Scapolo, F., & Thissen, W. (2004). Technology futures analysis: Toward integration of the field and new methods. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(3):287–303.

Ranaei, S., Suominen, A., Porter, A. & Carley, S. (2019). Evaluating technological emergence using text analysis: two case technologies and three approaches. Scientometrics: 1-33.

Rotolo, D. & Martin, B. (2015). What is an emerging technology? Research Policy.

Sturken, M., Thomas, D. & Ball-Rokeach, S. 2004. Technological visions: Hope and fears that shape new technologies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

The frontier of research in Science, Technology and Innovation has been moving rapidly within recent years. An important area in demand for immediate attention is the utilization and sense-making of increasing potentials to make use of big data. One of the aspects affecting both the depth and breadth of research has been novel methods, particularly quantitative approaches enabling the use of ever-expanding data sources but also analysis capabilities (Pirog 2014). Methodological advances have allowed several novel ideas to be tested on how to model economies, societies and policies affecting the direction of science and technology (e.g. Ranaei et al. 2019). However, new indicators and approaches are still lacking in their robustness, reproducibility and validity.

The ever-increasing amount of data offers new possibilities for discovering new relationships and inference on a multitude of problems. Most of the data that has gathered is unstructured and therefore in need of restructuring and cleaning prior to making use by existing machine learning methods (Kim, Trimi and Chung, 2014). New indicators and data come with new challenges involving reproducibility, complexity, security, and risks to privacy (Jarmin & O’Hara 2016), as well as a need for new technology and human skills. This is very much the case in public policy where we need to clearly identify where new indicators and data can add value in an ethical and trustworthy manner.

The proposed session will focus on the impact of new indicators and approaches to STI policy. The session will focus on how to address the challenges of producing new indicators and approaches that are policy-relevant. In specific, we will address the challenges highlighted by Giest (2017):

  1. The increase in unstructured data calls for standardization of data and indicators construction. Creating robust indicators in a standardized manner from unstructured data is central to the reproducibility of the results. This challenge also extends to analysis methods, where novel machine learning methods have been critiqued on the lack of reproducibility (for discussion e.g. Glänzel et. al. 2017)
  2. New indicators and approaches require that the policy developing institutions are able to utilize the tools provided. (for discussion e.g. Desouza and Jacob 2017) Policymakers need to interact easily with the data and analysis and the result needs to be attainable and robust (Zhang et al 2017)
  3. Novel indicators often stem from the digitalization of public and private services. Would it be social media, websites, or open data, novel indicators stem from access to digitalized data (Jarmin & O’Hara 2016). Questions however remain, if these new data sources are sustained long term and will remain freely available also in the future. We also have questions on who and to what end curates different sources of data. There needs to also be better understanding when data collection, particularly when linked to secondary data, can infringe on the privacy of individuals (Stough and McBride 2014).
  4. New indicators and approaches need to go “beyond predictions” *(Athey 2017) and demonstrate an impact on the policy cycle. How and to what extent new indicators and approaches enable new types of interactions to the policy cycle via e.g. continuously available tools or self-adapting systems to policy decisions.

In these, Giest (2017) highlights two issues, the substantive and the procedural role of new indicators and approaches in policy instruments. Procedural activities focus on regulatory activities, such as enabling open data, while the substantive actions relate collecting data to enhance for example evidence-based policymaking capacities, digitalization and the role of new indicators and approaches in the (substantive and procedural) policy cycle are core to the digital-era governance and evidence-based policymaking. The session hopes to address both of these issues.

To advance our understanding of the challenges mention, this session welcomes submission addressing in particular:

  •  Novel indicators and analysis methods, where the submissions are particularly encouraged to focus on how to standardize data and ensure reproducibility of the analysis.
  • How to address issues arising from novel data sources such as using commercial data not designed for STI indicators, privacy issues or capturing benefits from digitalization of public services.
  • Case studies focusing on how big data has been used in public policymaking, where the submissions are particularly encouraged to focus on how the policy cycle was impacted.

The session is proposed by the consortium members of the H2020 funded project “Addressing productivity paradox with big data: implications to policy making”:

  • VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Industry Professor & Principal Scientist Dr. Arho Suominen (arho.suominen@vtt.fi)
  • Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Dr. Rainer Frietsch and Associate Professor Dr. Torben Schubert (torben.schubert@isi.fraunhofer.de)
  • UNIVERSITEIT MAASTRICHT, Dr. Ad Notten (notten@merit.unu.edu)
  • Delft University of Technology (TUD), Prof.dr. C.P. (Cees) van Beers (c.p.vanbeers@tudelft.nl)
  • University of Strathclyde Glasgow, Professor Dr. Scott Cunningham (scott.cunningham@strath.ac.uk)
  • Public Policy and Management Institute (PPMI), Mr. Vilius Stančiauskas

References:
Athey, S. (2017). Beyond prediction: Using big data for policy problems. Science, 355(6324), 483-485.
Giest, S. (2017). Big data for policy making: fad or fasttrack?. Policy Sciences, 50(3), 367-382.
Glänzel, W., Moed, H. F., Schmoch, U., & Thelwall, M. (2017). Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Nature.
Jarmin, R. S., & O’Hara, A. B. (2016). Big data and the transformation of public policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(3), 715-721.
Kim, G. H., Trimi, S., & Chung, J. H. (2014). Big-data applications in the government sector. Communications of the ACM, 57(3), 78-85.
Pirog, M. A. (2014). Data will drive innovation in public policy and management research in the next decade. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(2), 537-543.
Ranaei, S., Suominen, A., Porter, A., & Kässi, T. (2019). Application of Text-Analytics in Quantitative Study of Science and Technology. In Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 957-982). Springer, Cham.
Stough, R., & McBride, D. (2014). Big data and US public policy. Review of Policy Research, 31(4), 339-342.
Zhang, Y., Porter, A. L., Cunningham, S., Chiavetta, D., & Newman, N. (2018, August). How is Data Science Involved in Policy Analysis?: A Bibliometric Perspective. In 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) (pp. 1-10). IEEE.

In a time of fast technological change, we have  become accustomed to the presence of mega platform ecosystems like Facebook, Google and Amazon. While there are many types of these so called B2C platforms, digital industrial B2B platforms are relative new and are changing the industrial ecosystem by introducing new business roles and impacting others.  

Industrial B2B platforms can be defined as a collection of shared infrastructures, systems and processes, where the value of the platform is based on data sharing and data exploitation (Parker et al., 2016). Such Industrial B2B platforms are often based on underlying technologies and platforms for data exchange (e.g. AI, block chain, aggregators), which enable connectivity, data flows, data storage, etc.  

Industrial B2B platforms are said to play an increasingly important role in integrating production within companies (e.g. digital factories) and between companies, linking organizations along the value chain. Nevertheless, the emerging status of industrial B2B platforms poses many questions that deserve attention to find-out how such innovations can be best adopted by everyone involved. Policy measures are needed to stimulate opportunities or mitigate challenges of digital industrial B2B platforms. We are therefore specifically interested to hear about policy measures and timely regulations that can ensure that Europe doesn’t lose the race for this emerging market.  

We thus welcome contributions that focus on digital industrial B2B platforms. We anticipate contributions which draw from different empirical settings. We also encourage cross-disciplinary contributions and different disciplinary approaches. Studies may include, but are not limited to the following topics: 

  • Defining and conceptualizing digital industrial B2B platforms 
  • The platformization of existing industrial infrastructures 
  • Transformations in digital industrial infrastructures into B2B platforms 
  • The design, development and implementation of digital industrial B2B platforms in different empirical settings 
  • Challenges in the transformation into digital industrial infrastructures 
  • Standards in digital industrial B2B platforms  
  • Different types of regulation for digital industrial B2B platforms (e.g. to avoid consolidation, to enable ethical and secure data handling, to develop code of conduct, to agree to FAIR-principles, to acknowledge property rights, etc.) 
  • Policy measures to stimulate opportunities or mitigate challenges of European digital industrial B2B platforms 
  • Governance models for digital industrial B2B platforms

 

Convenors 

Dr. Claire Stolwijk 

Strategic Analysis & Policy, TNO, the Netherlands Organisation for applied scientific research 

 

Dr. Carlos Montalvo  

Strategic Analysis & Policy, TNO, the Netherlands Organisation for applied scientific research 

 

Dr. Amber Geurts 

Strategic Analysis & Policy, TNO, the Netherlands Organisation for applied scientific research 

Department of Management Studies, Aalto University 

 

Contributors 

Prof. Robin Gustafsson 

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, School of Science, Aalto University (Finland) 

 

Dr. Erik den Hartigh 

School of Business, Ozyegin University (Turkey) 

 

Dr. Roland Ortt 

Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, TU Delft (NL)  

 

Ir. Matthijs Punther 

Smart Industry and Data Science department, TNO, the Netherlands Organisation for applied scientific research (NL) 

 

References 

Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7), p.1240.  

Kenney, M. and J. Zysman (2016) The rise of the platform economy. In: Issues in science and technology, Spring 2016, pp 61-69 . 

Lee, M., Yun, J., Pyka, A., Won, D., Kodama, F., Schiuma, G., … & Yan, M. R. (2018). How to respond to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or the Second Information Technology Revolution? Dynamic new combinations between technology, market, and society through open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4(3), 21. 

Parker G., Van Alstyne, M., Choudary, S. P., & Foster, J. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. New York: WW Norton. 

Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Jiang, X. (2017). Platform ecosystems: How developers invert the firm. MIS Quarterly, 41, 1, 255-266.  

Radanliev, P., De Roure, D., Nurse, J. R., Nicolescu, R., Huth, M., Cannady, S., & Montalvo, R. M. (2019). New developments in Cyber Physical Systems, the Internet of Things and the Digital Economy– discussion on future developments in the Industrial Internet of Things and Industry 4.0. 

Recent literature shows that modern economies are undergoing substantial changes due to the impact of digital technologies. The so-called digital transformation has gained importance in the policy and academic debate, due to the potential effects that recent waves of digitalisation may have on the level and composition of employment and, a fortiori, on the demand for skills (OECD, 2017). The connection between computerisation and automation opens up opportunities towards more efficient production but also challenges both companies, to rethink their organisation, and workers, to adapt their skills to changing job demands. Such a profound transformation carries wider societal consequences, in particular for what concerns sustainable economic growth, social effects of innovation, job transformation and creation, and the evolution of traditional businesses and business models.

The literature on the relationship between technology and labour focuses on the determinants of employment polarization and the effect of automation on labour markets in terms of creation and/or destruction of jobs. The task-based approach provides an interpretative lens whereby ICT technology is a substitute for human labour in ‘routine’ tasks that are the core of middle-skill occupations – such as clerks or machine operators – while it complements low and high level occupations (Autor, et al., 2003; Goos and Manning, 2007). Further, automation and new tasks potentially increase inequality because while high-skills workers performs tasks that are complementary to new technologies, automation substitutes capital for labor in lower-indexed tasks where low-skill workers have their comparative advantage (Acemoglu and Restrepo, 2018). Last, but not least, skills, as well as creativity, flexibility, critical and problem-orientated thinking, are becoming increasingly important to companies. Re-skilling and up-skilling are then important elements of any educational and training system that seeks to support growth and innovation. Consequently, skills requirements are changing within and across organizations, industries, and countries, making existing ones redundant or obsolete (Autor, et al., 2015; Zysman and Kenney, 2018).

While there is plenty of research on the relation between digital technologies and skills from prior research on ICT adoption  in relation to labour, the impact of the new digital paradigm on innovation, production and skill dynamics is yet to be analysed in detail (Consoli et al., 2016). This special session seeks to bring together contributions that feed this debate in the area of science, policy and innovation by addressing some of the following issues:

  • How is the adoption of digital technologies changing the demand and supply of skills in the digital era?
  • How do firms adapt their human capital to the demands of the digital transformation?
  • Which features of the organisation of labour facilitate the adoption of automation technologies at the level of firms and of local labour markets?
  • How does the skill endowment of firms and regions affect the capacity to develop new automation technologies?
  • How does the supply of skills affect the adoption and generation of digital technologies?
  • How do training and education facilitate the transferability of skills towards digital-related tasks?
  • What is the role of policy in facilitating a smooth and inclusive transition to digital forms of production?

Contributions are welcome from theoretical and empirical, qualitative and quantitative perspectives.

Convenors, in alphabetic order:

Davide Consoli. Ingenio (CSIC-UPV). Spain

Alberto Marzucchi. SPRU. UK

Mabel Sánchez Barrioluengo. MIOIR & AMBS. UK

References

Acemoglu, D. and Restrepo, P. (2018). Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Work. NBER Working Paper 24196. Available at: https://www.nber.org/papers/w24196.pdf

Autor, D. H., Levy, F., and Murnane, R. J. (2003). The Skill Content Of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4): 1279–1333

Autor D.H., Dorn D., and Hanson G. (2015) “Untangling Trade and Technology: Evidence from Local Labor Markets”. The Economic Journal, 125: 621–646.

Consoli D., Vona F. and Rentocchini F. (2016) “That Was Then, This Is Now: Skills and Routinization in the 2000s”. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25 (5): 847–866.

Goos, M., & Manning, A. (2007). Lousy and lovely jobs: The rising polarisation of work in Britain. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 118–133.

OECD (2017) Getting Skills Right: Good Practice in Adapating to Changing Skill Needs: A perspective on France, Italy, Spain, South Africa and the United Kingdom. OECD Publishing. Paris.

Zysman J. and Kenney (2018) “The Next Phase in the Digital Revolution: Abundant Computing, Platforms, Growth, and Employment”. Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery 61(2): 54-63.

For decades, universities, the public and public policies have been increasingly dedicated to narrow the gap between science and society, in order to raise the societal relevance of research, to democratize science and to better inform the public on the impact of new technologies (Nowotny et al., 2001; Jasanoff, 2003). Hence, engaging the public with science has resonated through science policies in Europe, packaged and repackaged in frameworks such as public engagement, corporate societal responsibility, ELSA (ethical, legal and societal aspects) and RRI (responsible research and innovation). The most recently emerged framework of open science, aiming to improve the public value of science by opening up scientific processes and outcomes to broader audiences, reinstigated attention for the role of the public in research practices.

Along with the continuous efforts of researchers and policy makers to engage the public with science, new forms of public participation have gained traction. Activities labelled as citizen science have increased rapidly (Kullenberg & Kasperowski, 2016), as well as the technological possibilities for the public to get engaged with scientific research.

Nevertheless, there is a tendency within the open science movement to focus on open access and open data. This can also be seen as a distraction or replacement for the larger challenge of developing meaningful public engagement with research (Jones, 2014). Although public engagement practices generally have shifted from an ‘information deficit model’ towards more democratic ‘dialogue models’ of engagement, the question remains relevant what these practices contribute to wider societal goals as acclaimed, such as scientific literacy, political participation, new research perspectives, societal relevance (as formulated by the European Commission) or inclusion, responsiveness, anticipation, reflexivity (Stilgoe et al., 2013).

In this session we will focus on engagement of the public (or (mini-)publics) in research practices and their contributions to these societal goals. Although active forms of engagement (aimed at public participation and collaborative research decision-making) are best aligned with contributing to the wider societal goals, they appear to be currently underrepresented in research practices. Few researchers involve citizens in the process of agenda setting and research design; engagement predominantly occurs in the final phase of a research project, merely focusing on the dissemination of results (Bührer et al. 2018). Furthermore there is a significant risk of bureaucratizing public engagement (‘new forms to be filled out’) instead of truly opening up science (Felt 2017).

The session aims to further investigate institutional, regulatory and cultural barriers and (technological) opportunities for public engagement practices to truly benefit public values. We regard public engagement as two-way communication between science and the public, therefore including citizen participation in all research phases, as well as science communication.

Besides academic contributions for this session in the form of paper presentations, we will invite a panel of policy makers and practitioners to reflect on the paper presentations from their policy/practitioner’s perspective.

We invite contributions, conceptual and/or empirical, on the following topics:

  • How does public engagement in research practices contribute to wider desired outcomes: scientific literacy, political participation, public awareness, inclusion, responsiveness, anticipation, reflexivity, ‘better’ science/innovation?
  • New digital/technological possibilities for public engagement, and their contribution to societal goals.
  • Epistemic or methodological consequences of public engagement in research.
  • Regulatory, institutional and cultural conditions for productive public engagement.
  • Implications of new modes of public engagement for science policy.
  • The public: who participates and why, and what do they do? And what does this imply for public engagement?
  • (Changing) power relations between researchers, the public, and policy makers when engaging the public in research decision-making.

Organizers: Wout Scholten1, Anne-Floor Schölvinck1, Paul Diederen1 & Ingeborg Meijer2

1 Rathenau Institute, The Hague, the Netherlands

2 Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, the Netherlands

References

Bührer, S. et al. (2018). Monitoring the Evolution and Benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation (MoRRI). Report on the researchers’ survey. Brussels: European Commission.

Felt, U. (2017). “Response-able Practices” or “New Bureaucracies of Virtue”: The Challenges of Making RRI Work in Academic Environments. In: Asveld L., van Dam-Mieras R., Swierstra T., Lavrijssen S., Linse K., van den Hoven J. (eds) Responsible Innovation 3. Springer, Cham.

Jasanoff, S. (2003). ‘Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science’, Minerva, 41: 223-244.

Jones, R.A.L. (2014). Reflecting on public engagement and science policy. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 27-31.

Kullenberg, C. & Kasperowski, D. (2016). What Is Citizen Science? – A Scientometric Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE, 11(1), 1-16.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. (2001). ‘Re-thinking science – Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty’, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Stilgoe, J., Owen. R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568– 1580.

Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science?. Public understanding of science, 23(1), 4-15.

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) are the primary institutions when it comes to the production and diffusion of intangibles. While clearly ensuring private returns to the owners, it is much less clear whether they fulfill the promise of social returns to other actors and to society enlarge. Over the last years, IPR regimes have tended to allow both broader and stronger rights, prompting questions about the effectiveness of these institutions at balancing the inherent tradeoffs between private and public benefits. The monopoly rents generated by IPRs may restrict access to knowledge and innovation that can change the lives of many. For instance, IPRs may hamper access to HIV and other life-saving treatments, prevent poor farmers from using seeds once they are patented or legitimize cultural appropriation of heritage of indigenous communities.

These and similar issues pose a number of policy challenges, which need to be addressed to ensure that IPR institutions deliver the societal goals that they are designed for. Such a discussion can be informed by collecting systematic evidence on practices of use of IPRs across industries, markets and nations, to highlight emerging tensions. Research in this domain is scant and largely confined to law scholarship, but economists, innovation and transition scholars should also engage and use the insights when shaping economic and innovation policy.

The aim of this special session is to welcome contributions on the following topics of interest:

  • The foundation of IPRs: do IPRs work as genuine property rights or are they just monopoly rents restricting access to knowledge and inventive activities?
  • IPRs and sustainability transitions: do IPR-based governance models help or hinder diffusion of sustainable innovation?
  • IPR protection on issues such as access to knowledge outputs, to data, to health treatment, to learn, to equipment and protection of the right to education, health,  and democratic access to cultural and scientific outputs;
  • IPRs and dynamic competition: which factors affect the balance between IPRs as barriers to entry and IPRs as drivers of competition?
  • Biases in access to IPRs: assessing the Global North, large corporation, gender and other biases.
  • Overlapping IPRs: how problematic is it when actors strategically combine IPRs?

Theoretical, empirical (both quantitative and case-based), and policy-oriented papers alike are welcomed. We strive at collecting enough relevant high-quality contributions to build the case for a special issue proposal in Research Policy.

Organizers

Prof. Carolina Castaldi, Utrecht University

Prof. Elisa Giuliani, University of Pisa

Prof. Alessandro Nuvolari, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Rather than just engaging in arms-length technology transfer transactions, the need to invest over the long run in building science-industry co-creation is increasingly recognised. Co-creation can be defined as the process of joint knowledge production between industry, research and possibly other stakeholders, such as civil society. It often involves long-term relations among various actors who combine their knowledge and resources (money, people, data, equipment and/or facilities) to innovate jointly. This allows building up critical mass and aligning supply and demand for technology more efficiently. Deep collaborations between science, industry and civil society are particularly important to trigger the kind of transformative changes required to address pressing global challenges such as climate change (Grillitsch et al., 2019; Schot and Steinmueller, 2018). 

The importance attributed to co-creation among policy-makers has grown substantially over the last decade (Koschatzky and Stahlecker, 2016; OECD, 2019). Among other factors, this can be explained by the urgency to tackle grand societal challenges such as climate change and by the opportunities and challenges associated with digital technologies and artificial intelligence. In particular, several European countries have launched new policy initiatives to promote co-creation, among others the Finnish Co-creation program (launched in 2018), Research Campus in Germany (2012), CoLab in Portugal (2018), the Swedish Strategic Innovation Programmes (2013), and the Catapult centres in the UK (2015). It is a timely moment to reflect on the opportunities and policy options to foster co-creation based on a review of international experiences. 

The proposal is connected with ongoing work on co-creation being undertaken as part of the 2019-2020 programme of the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP) 

Specific questions to be addressed in these sessions include the following: 

  • What are the conditions for effective science-industry co-creation?  
  • How can co-creation better contribute to knowledge transfer and to addressing grand societal challenges?  
  • How does co-creation contribute to digital innovation and AI? What are the implications for data sharing? 
  • What have been effective models for involving civil society in co-creation?  
  • What kind of policy initiatives have emerged in recent years to support co-creation? What can be learnt from international experience?

Co-organizers:  

  • Dr. José Guimón, Associate Professor of Economics at Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM) and member of the UAM-Accenture Chair in Economics and Management of Innovation (jose.guimon@uam.es 
  • Dr. Caroline Paunov, Senior Economist at the OECD and Head of Secretariat for the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP) (Caroline.PAUNOV@oecd.org)

References 

Grillitsch, M., T. Hansen, L. Coenen, J. Miörner and J. Moodysson (2019), “Innovation policy for system-wide transformation: The case of strategic innovation programmes (SIPs) in Sweden”, Research Policy, 48(4), 1048-1061. 

Koschatzky, K. and T. Stahlecker (2016), Public-private partnerships in research and innovation: Trends and international perspectives, Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag. 

OECD (2019), University-Industry Collaboration: New Evidence and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, Paris,   

Schot, J. and W.E. Steinmueller (2018), “Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change”, Research Policy, 47, 1554–1567. 

Motivation

Contemporary society faces a series of grand challenges on topics such as energy production, transport, social equity, and affordable healthcare. These challenges require systemic, innovative solutions in the development of which all sectors of society are involved. Motived by moral obligation to help address these challenges, and pressured from the outside to legitimize themselves in relation to societal needs, existing institutions and actors in the knowledge economy are playing new roles and entering new configurations of collaboration across sectoral divides.

The Quadruple Helix Collaboration (QHC, henceforth) is an example of such a constellation in which academia, industry, citizens and the government collaborate within the innovation process to create robust, systemic solutions to grand challenges (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009, 2010, 2014; Carayannis, Grigoroudis, Campbell, Meissner, & Stamati, 2018). As strategies for addressing grand challenges, QHCs are closely related to the idea of responsible research and innovation (RRI), especially the concept of stakeholder inclusion widely discussed in RRI (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Grunwald, 2011; Jeroen van den Hoven, 2014; Owen, Bessant, & Heintz, 2013). Thus, QHCs seem to be an ideal setting in which responsible innovation can be fostered and researched.

Session description

The session on QHC-RRI invites paper on quadruple helix collaborations and their relationship with responsible research and innovation. With this call we would like to give special attention to the study of QHCs and their relationship with RRI from an empirical point of view. We invite scholars and practitioners to explore cases of QHCs more closely as they occur in real-life settings – their ‘natural habitat’ with a specific focus on their ultimate impact for the responsibility of the innovation process. The following research questions are indicative of the type of questions that might be asked at the intersection between these themes/approaches are given in what follows. Track contributions are not limited to these specific formulations. Similar questions within the theme given above are very much welcome and will be taken into consideration.

Research topics

We here give some possible research questions for papers submitted to this session. These are merely meant as illustrations and are thus not the definitive list of acceptable questions:

  1. How are QHCs initiated and how are the partners selected and maintained?
  2. What does the interaction/partnership within QHCs consist of and how frequent is the interaction between partners?
  3. What kind of conflicts and differences of opinion arise in QHCs?
  4. How are conflicts managed? To what extent is the difference in organisational aim and structure between partners affect the conflict-management process?
  5. Is RRI present in the everyday life of QHCs participants? If so, what is the effect of such a presence in the QHC processes?
  6. What is the distance (ethical, social, economic, cognitive) between partners and situations in which this distance becomes relevant
  7. What are the competencies that are needed/useful in participating in a QHC?
  8. What are the inter-personal competencies that are relevant for a successful quadruple helix collaboration?
  9. What do participants learn and take back to their own organization/helix?
  10. How can the ‘RRI level’ of an innovation process can best be measured within the context of a QHC?

For more information, please contact the track convenors: Vincent Blok (vincent.blok@wur.nl)

Vincent Blok (Wageningen University), Elias Carayannis (George Washington University School of Business, Loet Leydesdorff (University of Amsterdam) & Eugen Popa (Wageningen University)

Blok, V., & Lemmens, P. (2015). The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation. In B.-J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, & J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications (pp. 19-35). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). ‘Mode 3’and’Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International journal of technology management, 46(3-4), 201-234.

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other?: a proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD), 1(1), 41-69.

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2014). Developed democracies versus emerging autocracies: arts, democracy, and innovation in Quadruple Helix innovation systems. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 12.

Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Campbell, D. F. J., Meissner, D., & Stamati, D. (2018). The ecosystem as helix: an exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models. R&D Management, 48(1), 148-162. doi:10.1111/radm.12300

Grunwald, A. (2011). Responsible Innovation: Bringing together Technology Assessment, Applied Ethics, and STS research: Karlsruhe Institure of Technology.

Jeroen van den Hoven, N. D. T. S., Bert-Jaap Koops Henny Romijn (2014). Responsible Innovation 1: Innovative Solutions for Global Issues. New York London: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg.

Owen, R., Bessant, J., & Heintz, M. (2013). Responsible Innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. UK: WILEY & Sons,Ltd. , Publication.

The last few years have witnessed a major shift towards greater consideration of societal challenges as a driver for innovation policy (Mazzucato 2013; Weber and Rohracher 2012; Schot and Steinmueller, 2018). There is emerging consensus that innovation policy should address complex policy challenges or so-called ‘wicked problems’ that characterize our society and world today. This in turn requires a stronger role for the state (Mazzucato, 2013), which goes beyond supporting the capability and connectivity of and within systems to innovate to become “a major actor in shaping the directionality of innovation” (Boon and Edler, 2018; p.435).

Grand challenges may often be global in nature but challenges are faced differently in different places, and different places are differently endowed with the knowledge, resources and organisational capacities to respond (Wanzenbӧck and Frenken, 2018; Uyarra et al, 2019). Places can therefore become laboratories for experimentation in terms of different public and private strategic responses to challenges (Morgan, 2018).

However, there is little place sensitivity in the discussion of challenge-oriented innovation policy (Coenen et al, 2015). Furthermore, recommendations about challenge orientation tend to be provided in an institutional and governance vacuum, with at best a vague allusion to the need for “regional, local and national” coordination. Finally, there is a disconnection between the debate about challenge orientation and the concerted efforts taking place across Europe to promote and support ‘smart specialization’ strategies (Hassink and Gong, 2019).

This special session aims at analyzing and comparing the role of the state in the current generation of innovation policy from a multi-scalar, multi-actor perspective, focusing on the role of the region in new forms of innovation policy.

In particular, we welcome submissions that deal with, but are not necessarily constrained to the following topics:

  • How can we best understand the role of regions in new conceptions of innovation policy?
  • How might different grand challenges targeted by innovation policy map onto different spatial scales and governance levels? Do different challenges require different multi-level divisions of labour?
  • How far do local and regional actors have leeway to influence mission-oriented policies?
  • How can smart specialization and its requisite entrepreneurial discovery processes affect mission-oriented innovation policies?

Elvira Uyarra1, Huiwen Gong2, Robert Hassink2, Edurne Magro3, Kevin Morgan4, Lars Coenen5, Kieron Flanagan1

1 Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester,  2 Department of Geography, Kiel University; 3 Orkestra-Basque Institute of Competitiveness, University of Deusto;  4 School of Geography and Planning, Cardiff University; 5 Mohn Centre for Innovation and Regional Development, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences.

References

Boon, W., & Edler, J. (2018). Demand, challenges, and innovation. Making sense of new trends in innovation policy. Science and Public Policy45(4), 435-447.

Coenen, L., Hansen, T., & Rekers, J. V. (2015). Innovation Policy for Grand Challenges. An Economic Geography Perspective. Geography Compass9(9), 483-496.

Foray, D. (2018). Smart specialization strategies as a case of mission-oriented policy—a case study on the emergence of new policy practices. Industrial and Corporate Change27(5), 817-832.

Hassink, R., & Gong, H. (2019). Six critical questions about smart specialization. European Planning Studies27(10), 2049-2065.

Mazzucato, M., (2013). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public Vs. Private Sector Myths. Anthem Press.

Morgan, K. (2018). Experimental governance and territorial development. Paris: OECD (Background paper for seminar 5: Experimental governance 14 December 2018).

Schot, J., Steinmueller, W.E., (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy 47, 1554–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011

Uyarra, E., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Flanagan, K., & Magro, E. (2020). Public procurement, innovation and industrial policy: Rationales, roles, capabilities and implementation. Research Policy49(1), 103844.

Wanzenböck, I., & Frenken, K. (2018). The subsidiarity principle: Turning challenge-oriented innovation policy on its head (No. 1806). Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography.

Weber, K.M., Rohracher, H., (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy 41, 1037–1047.

Many governments, as well as the European Union, are shifting the orientation of parts of their science and innovation policies from stimulating economic growth to bringing about transformative change (Kuhlmann and Rip, 2018; Schot and Steinmueller, 2018). In particular, we witness the rise of mission-oriented innovation policies, systemic public policies that draw on frontier knowledge to attain broader societal goals (Mazzucato, 2018a) such as the 17 Sustainable Development Goals set in the UN 2030 Agenda.

The growing literature about mission-oriented policies for science and innovation describes their rationales, background and main principles. There are also publications about the formulation and selection of missions (Mazzucato, 2018b), but to date, the available literature provides little guidance for the implementation of mission policies in actual policy instruments. It is clear that the realization of missions requires the mobilization of a mix of policy instruments, such as research funding, legislation, career incentives, living laboratories and public-private partnerships.

This session will focus on missions oriented at bringing about transformative societal change, i.e. novel configurations of actors, institutions and practices that bring about a new mode of operation of entire sectors or systems of production and consumption (Weber and Rohracher, 2012). These transformative missions can be distinguished from other missions, such as the archetypical Manhattan project or the development of the Apollo spacecraft. Typical for transformative missions is a lack of consensus about both the problem definition and adequate solutions (Wanzenböck et al., 2019).

The central question of this session will be how to organize research programs in such a way that they effectively mobilize actors and knowledge to contribute to societal transformation. Although we do acknowledge that research programs are only one of the many policy instruments required for effective mission policies, we choose to focus on research programs because they can make a crucial contribution but in order to do so they need to be transformed themselves.

One potential source of guidance in this context is the literature on transdisciplinary research. The fulfillment of transformative missions will require joint efforts of both researchers and a range of other actors, such as policy-makers, entrepreneurs, civil society organizations (Schneider et al., 2019). This implies that the principles of transdisciplinarity, a collaborative mode of knowledge production with contributions from both researchers and practitioners (Hadorn et al., 2008), can provide guidance. Lessons and experiences of transdisciplinary research with joint problem formulation, collaborative knowledge production and knowledge integration may turn out useful for the design of mission-oriented research programs.

In this session we invite contributions on the following topics/questions:

  • Governance and coordination of mission-oriented research programs
  • Roles of non-traditional research funders such as regional or local governments and private foundations
  • Involvement of societal actors in development and management of research programs
  • Programming of research for societal transformation
  • Joint problem formulation and integration of practical and scientific knowledge in mission-oriented research programs

Organizers: Laurens Hessels1,2, Jos van den Broek1, Flurina Schneider3, Meritt Polk4

  1. Rathenau Instituut, The Netherlands
  2. Leiden University, The Netherlands
  3. University of Bern, Switzerland
  4. University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Hadorn, G.H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., Zemp, E., 2008. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer.

Kuhlmann, S., Rip, A., 2018. Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and Public Policy 45, 448-454.

Mazzucato, M., 2018a. Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change 27, 803-815.

Mazzucato, M., 2018b. Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission.

Schneider, F., Buser, T., Keller, R., Tribaldos, T., Rist, S., 2019. Research funding programmes aiming for societal transformations: ten key stages. Science and Public Policy 46, 463-478.

Schot, J., Steinmueller, W.E., 2018. Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy 47, 1554-1567.

Wanzenböck, I., Wesseling, J., Frenken, K., Hekkert, M., Weber, M., 2019. A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: Alternative pathways through the problem-solution space.

Weber, K.M., Rohracher, H., 2012. Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy 41, 1037-1047.

The need to align the capacities of societies to innovate for addressing the grand challenges they face is increasingly recognised at various levels of research and policymaking. The sustainable development goals (SDGs), for example, imply the mobilisation of innovation policies in a range of areas. At the same time, we are confronted with fast-changing technological developments, for instance in the digital field, which offer many new opportunities, but also require new forms of institutional framing in order to tame their unsustainable dynamics. The misalignment between stated goals and existing innovation policy led many scholars to propose rekindling the innovation policy under an emerging paradigm, which has been labelled Transformative Innovation Policy (TIP).  

Central to this concept is the notion of “transformation” which encompasses different scales, spaces and actor groups. It refers to ongoing, systemic transformations, with active participation from diverse actors in steering, guiding and facilitating change processes, managing directionality and the interests of different stakeholders. At the heart of this process, is therefore, co-creation and co-learning between academics, policymakers, businesses and other parties involved. TIP also has its roots in theories of change such as sustainability transition, open and social innovation which highlight the role of experimentation for alternatives, in order to generalise new practices and solutions, and alter existing unsustainable regimes.  

The European Forum for Studies of Policies for Research and Innovation (Eu-SPRI), together with the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC) has been the co-initiator of an ongoing internetwork dialogue along with other communities such as Sustainability transitions research network (STRN), Global Network for Economics of Learning, Innovation, and Competence Building Systems (Globelics) and its regional counterparts. The TIP approach has been debated in several sessions, workshops and conferences in the past two years including Eu-SPRI conference 2019. These discussions have built a shared agenda around the issues of politics and governance of STI, role of different actors such as business, government agencies and civil society organizations, specific instruments, methodologies and tools, and the different geographical and cultural contexts in which TIP is implemented. These themes will be developed in a conference report and proto agenda, that will be advanced in various instances of future dialogue in the new emerging “TIP research network” following the TIPC conference in November 2019. 

The session proposed for Eu-SPRI conference 2020 seeks to advance this emerging shared agenda on the main themes of transformative innovation policy, as developed in conversation with the different participant networks. The session will showcase the stateofart in the TIP research along with bringing together learnings from other communities and scholars on the topic 

Co-convenors:  

Bipashyee Ghosh (SPRU, University of Sussex, UK) Email: b.ghosh@sussex.ac.uk 

Matthias Weber (AIT, Austria) Email: Matthias.Weber@ait.ac.at 

Carla Alvial Palavicino (U-Globe, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands) Email: c.m.e.alvialpalavicino@uu.nl 

Current debates about transformative innovation policy (TIP) stress the importance of engaging with a much wider variety of actors and stakeholder than the “usual suspects”, i.e. science, industry and government. The intention of enhanced participation is a) to enable normative debates about the directionality of innovation, and b) to facilitate the coherent implementation of TIP. As a consequence, the level of inclusiveness of the processes through which TIP is defined, implemented and evaluated has become a policy goal in itself 

Participatory approaches, methods and techniques are increasingly being mentioned in debates on science and innovation policies, as means to make the claim for inclusiveness operational. Such participatory processes face (at least) three main challenges: 

  • The selection of the participants and the balancing of the relationships among them: These issues include, but are not limited to, the role of incumbents in participatory process that aim to destabilise current regimes, the power relationships among participants, and the criteria and mechanisms to involve broad constituencies in policy decisions. 
  • The process design of participatory debates and discussions: The issues to be addressed range from the opening up of debates and the breadth of perspectives admitted to the reaching of conclusions and ultimately of specific decisions (“closing-down” the debate). 
  • The specific tools and techniques to channel participation: There is a very broad variety of methods to encourage and organise participation, but they originate in a wide variety of fields of practice and are seen more as a “craft” than a systematic, “robust” endeavour (not a “science-based” practice). They are often embodied in the skills and tacit knowledge of practitioners and facilitators, they may be codified in “how to” guides but they are rarely the objective of academic discourse, possibly with the exception of foresight, constructive TA, and – more recently – RRI; approaches for which participation plays an important role.

In addition, although participatory methods have long been addressed, practised and debated extensively in organisational management and development policy, science and innovation policies have with the exception of the aforementioned specialised areas of foresight, CTA and RRI – paid little attention to them. From here derives the main challenge we want to address in this session: As participation becomes increasingly common in the context of transformative innovation policies, when trying to organise such participation we run the risk of re-inventing the wheel and investing a lot of effort to justify and set up participatory mechanisms that may reproduce those used in other, sometimes adjacent fields of practice. 

Against this backdrop, the session will focus on existing methods, tools and practices – no matter the policy field from which they originate and where they are used that could be or are applied in (transformative) innovation policy contexts. The terms here are broadly understood to include also participatory practices in other areas like social policy or development policy. Submissions from researchers and practitioners from any of these areas are welcomed.  

The objective of the session(s) is to discuss different tools and techniques (no matter how much they might be based on “craft practice”) that can be of interest to the definition, implementation and evaluation of STI policies in general, and Transformative Innovation Policies in particular.  

Jordi Molas Gallart (CSIC-Ingenio, Valencia, jormoga@ingenio.upv.es) and  

Matthias Weber (AIT Center for Innovation Systems and Policy, Vienna, matthias.weber@ait.ac.at)  

System transitions are fundamental change in the way societal functions are fulfilled, “entailing changes in both the components and the architecture of the systems” (cf. OECD 2015, p. 3). Transforming such systems towards more sustainable modes of production and consumption is a cross-cutting endeavor: system-wide sustainability transitions typically result from a series of interrelated sectoral transitions, e.g. technological, social, economic, and political changes. Such systemic sustainability transitions may be driven by e.g. disruptive technological innovation, social change or external events and crises. Thus, there is good reason to assume transition processes are highly idiosyncratic.

The roles of governance and policy need to be adapted to these diverse settings: there is no one-size-fits-all approach (Schot et al. 2019, p. 20). At the same time, the ambition and scope of how policies can shape such transitions are shifting paradigmatically (Edler and Fagerberg 2017; Schot and Steinmueller 2018), to include understanding research and technological development as solution pathways for challenges as expressed by the Sustainability Development goals (SDGS), and to promote and experiment with alternative solution pathways when addressing overarching sustainability goals. Further, solution pathways should be broader than merely technological, widening the scope to social innovation and behavioral change. Such transformative policies are typically not located within one policy field; instead, they require whole-government action (e.g. Weber and Rohracher 2012, Lindner et al. 2016, Kern et al. 2019).

Large gaps in conceptual knowledge and empirical evidence concerning such approaches exist, including:

  • For governance that intends to shape system transition, a range of aspects are new or need revisiting, such as (but not limited to) the role of the state, the governance of emerging technologies, governance of demand articulation, the governance of societal agreement on directions of system transition (meta-governance), and participatory governance.
  • Policies for system transitions, i.e. policy mixes, cross-domain approaches across different policy fields, policy instruments rarely used in STI policies which are now coming into focus, and policy instruments which are adapted in order to address aspects of system transformation.
  • Novel requirements as regards policy capacities, strategic intelligence (e.g. monitoring, evaluation, foresight, experimentation), and the development of policy narratives.

Based on this background, this session asks for contributions to improve our insights in the policy-driven shaping of system transitions. Aiming to broaden our understanding of the roles policy and governance may play in systemic transitions towards sustainability, this session explicitly invites papers from a broad range of domains (e.g. energy, agri-food, mobility etc.), including cross-domain approaches. While we value conceptual contributions, we explicitly encourage empirical papers.

In case the call generates a large amount of abstracts, we propose two alternative strategies: splitting into multiple sessions following the themes of each bullet point above; or structuring the session in a fishbowl format, with short ‘pitches’ by each presenter followed by a general discussion. We will make a final decision after having consulted with the organizers and the selected speakers.

Behind this session proposal stands a larger group of researchers who intend to hand in paper proposals. They will also, in their role as networkers and multipliers, distribute the call for papers for this session widely, particularly aiming to motivate colleagues from other communities (sustainability research, energy transitions, emerging technologies, technology assessment, sociology of agricultural development etc.) to contribute to this session. We believe true conceptual and analytical academic progress, also for the field of STI policy studies, will be made only in genuine, open interaction and mutual learning with other disciplines and perspectives, and with insights from policy areas beyond STI policy.

Session organizers: Katharina Schiller and Stephanie Daimer (Fraunhofer ISI), Adrian Ely (SPRU)

Session networkers and multipliers: Jakob Edler (Fraunhofer ISI & University of Manchester), Ralf Lindner (Fraunhofer ISI), Karoline Rogge (Fraunhofer ISI & SPRU), Marie Claire Brisbois (SPRU)

Cited Literature
Borras, S.; Edler, J. (eds) (2014) The Governance of Socio-Technical Systems: Theorising and Explaining Change. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Edler, J.; Fagerberg, J. (2017) Innovation Policy: What, Why & How, in: Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33 (1): 2-23.
Kern, F.; Rogge, K.S.; Howlett, M. (2019) Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies. In: Research Policy, online first. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103832.
Lindner, R.; Daimer, S.; Beckert, B.; Heyen, N.; Köhler, J.; Teufel, B.; Warnke, P.; Wydra, S. (2016) Addressing directionality: Orientation failure and the systems of innovation heuristic. Towards reflexive governance. Discussion Papers Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis Nr. 52. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.
OECD (2015): Systems Innovation: Synthesis report.
Schot, J.; Boni, A.; Alvial-Palavicino, C.; Ramirez, M. (2019) Transformative Innovation Policy & Social Innovation. Socialinnovationatlas. Open access at: https://t.co/hW3Q6wmjOG.
Schot, J. and Steinmueller, W.E. (2018) Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), pp.1554-1567.
Weber, K.M.; Rohracher, H. (2012) Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41, 1037-1047.

Clearly, technologies are part and parcel of current systemic problems around climate change and global justice, both as problem and as solution. When the role of technologies is studied, however, the tendency is to focus on the emergence of new socio-technical arrangements. Yet, what about the fate of old technologies that threaten more sustainable modes of production and consumption? What about the ‘trajectories of erosion, decay, and fossilisation’ as Elisabeth Shove and Gordon Walker once coined the reverse dynamics? Governing discontinuation and phase-outs can open up new horizons for, among others, effective climate action policy. Alongside nurturing niches and supporting sustainable novelties, a phasing-out of undesired technologies seems required to speed up low-carbon transition, not unlike the precedents of DDT and inefficient light bulbs discontinuation or the ongoing phasing out of nuclear and coal energy in Germany or gas in the Netherlands. Yet, a phase-out may pose many risks to economies, welfare, democracy and the natural environment (e.g. lost jobs, threatened food security, increased costs). This session invites contributions to describe, characterize and analyze the decline, discontinuation, ‘death’ and ‘afterlife’ of (formerly) established technologies. How radically is discontinuation pursued in various cases? What remains (e.g., waste, special purpose technology, unused expertise, stranded assets)? One can also study discontinuation from a systemic point of view and ask (a) which parts of a larger system are phased out and which remain, and (b) what happens to the remaining parts, whether they change after the removal of other parts. We welcome empirical cases of discontinued technologies; comparisons between technologies, sectors or countries; and theoretical elaborations on trajectories of phase-outs.

Submitted by:

 

Zahar Koretsky

MUSTS

Maastricht University

 

Harro van Lente

MUSTS

Maastricht University

 

Peter Stegmaier

STePS

University of Twente

Social and economic inequality, weak provision of public goods and services, political violence, segregation: these are just some examples of the ‘millenary problems’ that countries in the Global South still face. How come we haven’t been able to effectively solve them yet considering the abundant resources and knowledge that developing countries have? As part of the answer, innovation scholars argue that innovation policies have been traditionally focused on economic growth and competitiveness, ignoring the negative externalities that science and technology can cause in society and the environment; and overlooking the potential that innovation policies have with regard to social inclusion, peace and human development. These recent trends on innovation policy move beyond the traditional techno-scientific and academic innovation and knowledge approaches, in order to highlight the potential of practice-based, context-specific, co-produced and locally situated knowledge and innovation. 

This session is about that: innovation governance, policies, instruments and practices that have the potential to contribute to societal challenges in developing countries. We seek to discuss research on current innovation and innovation policy practices that have successfully fostered social inclusion, or that have failed, whether in the global, national, regional or local levels; and future innovation governance frameworks to effectively address grand challenges like the above mentioned. Some of the questions of the targeted papers may include: 

  • What are the conditions under which transformative STI policies can be effectively implemented in developing countries? 
  • How can STI policy contribute to social inclusion and peace in developing countries? 
  • How is ‘development’ reframed under these new innovation policy approaches? 
  • What are the appropriate innovation policy instruments to operationalize transformative innovation policy?  
  • What kind of innovation and knowledge is needed for STI policy to contribute to societal challenges? 
  • What kind of innovation practices contribute to social inclusion and peace?  
  • Who are the new players and what is their role in innovation policies aimed at social inclusion? 
  • What is the role of politics in transformative innovation policy design and implementation? 
  • What are the current and future challenges for STI policy regarding societal challenges? 

This session is interested in research regarding the underlying practices and rationales of innovation policies, instruments and practices aimed at transformative change, social inclusion, sustainable development goals, peace, grand challenges, sustainability transitions and human development. 

Convenors: 

Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros 

Juan Pablo Centeno 

At the intersection of two themes, ‘Social innovation: enabling factors and existing practices for sustainable social needs’ and RRI and the responsiveness of science and technology developments, institutions and policies’, we propose a session on the topic of Responsible Social Innovation, both  in and out of the innovation-growth context. 

Social innovation has been highly debated during the last decade, not least due to the significant emphasis placed on exploring different forms of innovation in view of economic growth. Several attempts have been made to understand the concept, understand its evolution and assign a suitable definition, which proved to be subject to the context and purpose of the use of the term. (Edwards-Schachter and Wallace, 2017; Howaldt  and Kopp R, 2012) Social innovation may be differently defined within a range of different orientations, for example as ‘ideas’, ‘services’ or new ‘systemic’ transformations under an outcome-orientation. driven primarily by economic conceptualisations, or as “social practices” that change social relations under a process-orientation, derived from sociological conceptualisations as noted by Van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016).  

Yet, most if not all of the studies of social innovation are placed in the context of innovation-based growth, within the free market economy, although it has been highlighted that the creation of social value is superseding private interests as the main motive (Phills, et. al. 2008). Social innovation is seen as a means for the public sector to respond to challenges that are ignored or not considered worthwhile for an adequate market response from the private sector (Murray, et al. 2010). This serves the mainstream economic paradigm but what happens if the context of economic growth is taken away?  

Benneworth, et al. (2015) note that a key concern for social innovation is the ‘upscaling’ to achieve more environmentally sustainable and ‘socially just societies. Edwards-Schachter et al. (2017) conclude that social innovation can be understood as the intersection of three interrelated evolving ‘areas’: social innovation involving big societal transformation (‘processes of social change’) in close dialogue with the aspiration of (sustainable) ‘development’ and a progressive delimitation of the ‘services sector’. These arguments link social innovation closely with transformation and sustainability, hinting to a close relationship to ‘responsible innovation’ (von Schomberg, 2013). 

Schot and Steinmueller (2018) note that  a third frame is emerging and shaping STI policies that is  linked to contemporary social and environmental challenges, such as the Sustainable Development Goals and calling for transformative change. This may provoke a re-examination of the earlier two, well-established frames that shaped STI policies, characterised by the central role of government support with the presumption that this would contribute to growth and address market failure with an emphasis on competitiveness which is shaped by the national systems of innovation in private provision of new knowledge and commercialisation. Examining how responsible indeed is  ‘Responsible Innovation’, de Saille and Medvecky (2016) question the present growth driven paradigm based on resource consumption and pace of development in over-productive or risky sectors and technologies, an intrinsic part of responsible innovation, rather than its opposite.  

This not only brings social innovation even more prominently into the responsible innovation policy discourse but also makes the ground of innovation-based growth frame rather shaky. Triggered by the transformative potential attributed to social innovation by Haxeltine et al., (2013) as a change in social relations, involving new ways of doing, organising, framing and/or knowing which challenges, alter and/or replace dominant institutions/structures, in a specific social context and considering the changing frames of innovation discourses and policies, we are interested in better understanding how social innovation is conceptualised, enabled and practiced inside as well as outside the innovation-based, growthdriven paradigm.  

Intrigued by recent works such as Banerjee et al. 2019, we are also seeking to address how social innovation is conceptualised under people centred development approaches, which adopt a global, rather than dominant European perspective and which engage with very different experiences of marginality across the global north and south. This brings to the fore concepts such as that of thesocial and solidarity economy’ and thus socio-economic contexts beyond the EU. We believe that this exchange of knowledge and experience on social innovation conceptualisations, practices and the role of the underlying socio-economic contexts is valuable to further our understanding of social innovation, as well as of the type of innovation-based paradigm that is best suited to meet the challenges of the not so distant future. We welcome both theoretical/conceptual and or empirical papers. 

The aim of the suggested session will be twofold:  

  1. to inform the analytical debate of social innovation under the RRI approach and in diverse socio-economic contexts, 
  2. to examine the role of the economic-growth paradigm for social innovation conceptualisation and practice, 
  3. to take our understanding of social innovation a step further by studying cases of social innovations beyond the growth-driven European paradigm, 
  4. based on such type of analyses, including empirical evidence, to reflect on consequent implications for innovation policy development, 
  5. to bridge ‘northern’ understandings of change and improvement with ‘southern’ theory and practices to benefit our understanding from epistemological diversity and contextual diversity.  

This session is to be organised in the following way 

  • There will be sessions involving a set of papers grouped thematically;  
  • Each paper will be presented orally followed by a commentary presented by a discussant specified beforehand and is then opened up for questions and comments; 
  • Each session allows time after all papers are discussed for a common reflection on themes emerging through the session; 
  • A special issue edition of an appropriate journal will be negotiated to accommodate publication of the best contributions

References 

Banerjee, S., Carney, S., & Hulgård, L. (Eds.) (2019). People Centered Social Innovation: Global Perspectives on an Emerging Paradigm. In S. Banerjee, S. Carney, & L. Hulgård (Eds.), People Centered Social Innovation: Global Perspectives on an Emerging Paradigm Routledge. Routledge Studies in Social Enterprise & Social Innovation 

Benneworth P., Amanatidou, E., Edwards Schachter M., Gulbrandsen, M., (2015). Social innovation futures: beyond policy panacea and conceptual ambiguity. TIK Working Papers on Innovation Studies No. 20150127  

Stevienna de Saille & Fabien Medvecky (2016) Innovation for a steady state: a case for responsible stagnation, Economy and Society, 45:1, 1-23, DOI: 10.1080/03085147.2016.1143727 

Edwards-Schachter, M.,Wallace, M.L.. (2017) ‘Shaken, but not stirred’: Sixty years of defining social innovation, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 119, 64–79 (2017) 

Haxeltine A, René Kemp, Adina Dumitru, Flor Avelino, Bonno Pel and Julia Wittmayer, (2015). TRANSIT WP3 deliverable D3.2 – “A first prototype of TSI theory” Version 1.1 of 30th April 2015 

Howaldt J, Kopp R (2012) Shaping social innovation by social research. In: Franz HW, Hochgerner J, Howaldt J (eds) Challenge social innovation. Potentials for business, social entrepreneurship, welfare and civil society. Springer, Berlin, pp 43–56. 

Murray Robin, Julie Caulier-Grice, Geoff Mulgan. (2010). The Open Book of Social Innovation. Social Innovator Series: Ways To Design, Develop And Grow Social Innovation. The Young Foundation and NESTA.  

Phills Jr. James A., Kriss Deiglmeier, & Dale T. Miller. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review.  

Schot, J., Steinmueller, W., E, 2018 Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy 47 (2018) 1554–1567 

Van der Have R. P., Rubalcaba L. (2016) Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies? Research Policy 45 (2016) 1923–1935 

Von Schomberg, R. (2013) “A vision of responsible innovation”. In:  R. Owen, M. Heintz and J Bessant (eds.) Responsible Innovation. London: John Wiley 

Abstract

The field of health and medicine is one of the areas where the rate of advancement in science and technology (S&T) has been remarkable over the last decades. There are, however, growing societal concerns that advancements in S&T do not sufficiently translate into affordable and accessible health innovations that address the unmet needs of patients. It has been argued that existing health technological trajectories prioritise end-of-pipe solutions (e.g. treatment rather than prevention), patients in affluent societies and promote narrow understandings of health. Concerns are particularly pressing in current debates about the societal and economic value of personalised healthcare solutions. These solutions offer benefits for individual patients, but also put increasing pressure on current healthcare budgets resulting in heated debates.

So far, the innovation challenges are often perceived as market failure problems that can be addressed by changing incentives within a linear system of innovation. This is evident from the range of suggested solutions focusing on changing stage-gate R&D strategies (e.g. open innovation) and market-entry models (e.g. price negotiations, expedited access). In recent years, new forms of innovation have however emerged that challenge these linear health innovation models and seek more systemic change and disruptive reforms starting from the demands and needs of patients worldwide. Examples include magistral and in-hospital preparation of pharmaceuticals, Do-It-Yourself Medicine, platform-based preventive health solutions and public-private partnerships for rare and neglected diseases. While these initiatives are still scattered and fragmented, they comprise new R&D and business models that seek to address health inequalities and vulnerabilities. They are not exclusively driven by companies but characterized by collaborations between private companies, public institutions and diverse concerned societal groups (including patient organizations, caregivers).

This session invites papers that aim to better understand these new health innovation models and how they can lead to building a more sustainable health innovation system. Contributions can cover, but are not limited to, the following topics:

  • Priority-setting in health S&T to understand whether and how health S&T is responsive to unmet global needs;
  • Characterising new forms of distributed and hidden health innovations to understand how they defy existing institutional and regulatory practices and the linear model of innovation;
  • Understanding how governance and regulatory frameworks can facilitate the emergence of new health innovation models and de-institutionalise existing innovation practices;
  • Understanding the relationships between innovation policy and health policy to simultaneously address problems of availability and accessibility. What kind of innovation instruments are needed? What is the (entrepreneurial) role of governments?
  • What kind of institutions and innovation policy instruments are needed to make prevention-based health innovation or business models work?
  • The relationship between S&T and social innovation in health;
  • Understanding the growing role of hospitals, academic centres and patient groups in the generation of new forms of health innovation; and, more generally, the role of bottom-up, grassroots initiatives in new health innovation models
  • Identifying leverage points for changing existing health innovation systems and characterising the contours of alternative health innovation systems;

Jarno Hoekman1*, Wouter PC Boon1, Michael M Hopkins2, Ellen HM Moors1, Ismael Rafols2,3,4

1 Innovation Studies Group, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University

2 Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, United Kingdom

3 Ingenio, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain

4 Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands

*Corresponding author: Jarno Hoekman, P.O. Box 80115, 3508 TC Utrecht, email: j.hoekman@uu.nl

Description: Recent innovations in renewable energy generation, energy storage, and energy efficient consumer goods offer a great promise for the transition towards a low-carbon economy. However, in order to achieve rapid decarbonization in line with the Paris Agreements goals, a new generation of low-cost, competitive and widely accessible clean energy technologies is urgently needed to phase out of the incumbent technological paradigm largely based on fossil fuels. Particularly challenging is the decarbonization of industrial and transportation sectors such as steel, cement, freight or shipping, as well as the commercial deployment of greenhouse gas removal technologies.  

Accelerating clean energy innovation that will advance the mission of energy transition requires, among other things, broad multidisciplinary, cross-sectoral and cross-border collaboration; mobilization of the innovation capacity of the private sector worldwide; innovation policies and frameworks that go beyond support just for R&D but also advance technology deployment; and balancing differential needs and capabilities of both developed and emerging economies (International Energy Agency, 2019).  

This session invites contributions on research that provides evidence for strategic decision making in policy and industry related to these and other approaches to accelerating clean energy innovation. Of particular interest are contributions based on new sources of (micro)data, new metrics and novel methods investigating, but not limited to the following topics and research questions: 

  • Looking under the hood of clean energy innovation: how does it happen? How do flows of knowledge and information between technologies, firms and organizations across industries as well as public and private sectors affect the pace and direction of clean energy innovation? What are the mechanisms of knowledge creation and transfer in this field? How important are interdisciplinarity and collaboration?  
  • Clean energy innovation and policy dynamics: how can governments effectively and efficiently support clean energy innovation beyond R&D funding and deployment subsidies? How, in turn, policy makers as well as industry can handle competing technologies (e.g. battery powered or fuel cell powered electric vehicles) by systematically accounting for innovation dynamics in strategic planning and decision making? How can we model these processes and assess the effectiveness of policies? 
  • Globalization of clean energy innovation: how does the global landscape of clean energy innovation evolve over time? What are the driving forces? How can firms and organizations from different countries participate in and benefit from the globalization of clean energy innovation? What are the impacts of the geographical shifts in R&D, manufacturing and markets on the pace and direction of clean energy innovation?    
  • Clean energy innovation and development: how to ensure that emerging economies are equitably included in the innovation process and benefit from technologies and products tailored to their specific contexts and needs, including the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals? 

Session proposers: 

Deyu Li 

dl650@cam.ac.uk, Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance (C-EENRG), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge 

Sergey Kolesnikov 

sk2063@cam.ac.uk, Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance (C-EENRG), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge 

Martin Beuse 

mbeuse@ethz.ch, Energy Politics Group, ETH Zurich 

References: 

International Energy Agency. (2019). Technology Innovation to Accelerate Energy Transitions. URL: https://webstore.iea.org/technology-innovation-to-accelerate-energy-transitions 

Next to the 19 session tracks, it is possible to submit a paper proposal to the ‘open track’ of the conference. In the open track the selected papers will also be grouped to form coherent sessions.  

Submission of paper proposals 

We would like to invite you to submit paper proposals to one of the 19 session track themes or to the open track. Eu-SPRI2020 provides a range of formats to stimulate scholarly debate:  

Paper presentation sessions: Acceptance to a paper presentation session is based on an extended abstract (min. 1,000 words, max. 2,000 words) of a well-developed paper with a description of a study that you would like to present at the conference. Extended abstracts should specify a clear research question, relevance, theoretical framework, data and methodological approaches, (expected) results, conclusions and policy issues. 

Speed talk sessionsSpeed talks briefly introduce new research ideas, data and analytical insights to provide a basis for collective discussion or to discuss ideas at an early stage. Submission of short abstract (min. 500 words, max. 750 words) is required for speed talk sessions. 

Review procedure: All submissions will be reviewed anonymously by the scientific committee and the session organizers, based on quality and fit to the Eu-SPRI research agenda, the conference and session theme. The Committee reserves the right to re-assign a paper to other session tracks and/or formats than as indicated during submission. Participants can only present one paper at the conference. 

 

All proposals should be made through EasyChair.org. 

 

Submission of Round Table sessions 

Round Table sessions: Sessions that aim to stimulate discussion and debate around a particular thematic focus. These sessions are proposed by a session organiser / chair, with pre-agreed speakers. Round table sessions should be appealing for a wide audience and should include a diverse group of speakers. The session organiser should propose the precise format of the session, which could be a panel, a sequence of speakers, a debate or workshop. Session proposals should be sent by the session organisers (min. 500 words, max. 1,000 words). Please note that due to capacity constraints, only a limited number of Round Table sessions will be accepted. 

 

All proposals should be made through EasyChair.org. 

 

Important dates: 

  • Opening of Submissions for paper proposals: 1 January 2020 
  • Closing of Submissions for paper proposals: 15 February 2020 
  • Announcement of selected papers, speed talks and roundtables: 15 March 2020 
  • Registration open: 1 March 2020 
  • Conference: 3-5 June 2020 

 

Local organizing committee: 

Gaston Heimeriks, Koen Beumer, Wouter Boon, Koen Frenken, Iris Wanzenböck 

Practical information: euspri2020.nl  

Scientific committee: euspri2020.nl 

Secretariat: euspri2020@uu.nl