Evaluating Evaluations of Innovation Policy: Exploring Reliability, Methods, and Conflicts of Interest
(2022) 1. p.157-173- Abstract
- Expansions of innovation policies have been paralleled with an increase
in the evaluations of such policies. Yet, there are few systematic evaluations of how such evaluations are conducted, by whom, and their overall conclusions.
We analyze 110 evaluations of innovation policy in Sweden from 2005 to 2019. Our findings show that the majority of these evaluations are positive, about one-third are neutral in their conclusions, and very few are negative. The majority of evaluations were conducted by consulting firms, close to one-third by expert government agencies, and around 10% by university researchers or as self-evaluations by the governmental agencies responsible for the policy themselves. Few evaluations employed causal methods... (More) - Expansions of innovation policies have been paralleled with an increase
in the evaluations of such policies. Yet, there are few systematic evaluations of how such evaluations are conducted, by whom, and their overall conclusions.
We analyze 110 evaluations of innovation policy in Sweden from 2005 to 2019. Our findings show that the majority of these evaluations are positive, about one-third are neutral in their conclusions, and very few are negative. The majority of evaluations were conducted by consulting firms, close to one-third by expert government agencies, and around 10% by university researchers or as self-evaluations by the governmental agencies responsible for the policy themselves. Few evaluations employed causal methods to assess the potential effects of policies. We discuss conflicts of interest and question the reliability of evaluations of innovation policy. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Expansions of innovation policies have been paralleled with an increase in the evaluations of such policies. Yet, there are few systematic evaluations of how such evaluations are conducted, by whom, and their overall conclusions. We analyze 110 evaluations of innovation policy in Sweden from 2005 to 2019. Our findings show that the majority of these evaluations are positive, about one-third are neutral in their conclusions, and very few are negative. The majority of evaluations were conducted by consulting firms, close to one-third by expert government agencies, and around 10% by university researchers or as self-evaluations by the governmental agencies responsible for the policy themselves. Few evaluations employed causal methods to... (More)
- Expansions of innovation policies have been paralleled with an increase in the evaluations of such policies. Yet, there are few systematic evaluations of how such evaluations are conducted, by whom, and their overall conclusions. We analyze 110 evaluations of innovation policy in Sweden from 2005 to 2019. Our findings show that the majority of these evaluations are positive, about one-third are neutral in their conclusions, and very few are negative. The majority of evaluations were conducted by consulting firms, close to one-third by expert government agencies, and around 10% by university researchers or as self-evaluations by the governmental agencies responsible for the policy themselves. Few evaluations employed causal methods to assess the potential effects of policies. We discuss conflicts of interest and question the reliability of evaluations of innovation policy. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/2d40b3db-52b3-433d-aec9-80ad1ad7c43f
- author
- Collin, Elias LU ; Sandström, Christian and Wennberg, Karl
- organization
- publishing date
- 2022
- type
- Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Evaluation, Consultants, Evaluating practice, Meta-Evaluation, Sweden, Innovation policy
- host publication
- Questioning the Entrepreneurial State : Status-quo, Pitfalls, and the Need for Credible Innovation Policy - Status-quo, Pitfalls, and the Need for Credible Innovation Policy
- editor
- Wennberg, Karl and Sandström, Christian
- volume
- 1
- edition
- 1
- pages
- 17 pages
- publisher
- Springer
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85133769216
- ISBN
- 978-3-030-94275-5
- 978-3-030-94273-1
- DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-030-94273-1_9
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 2d40b3db-52b3-433d-aec9-80ad1ad7c43f
- date added to LUP
- 2022-04-29 16:35:21
- date last changed
- 2024-07-12 21:24:58
@inbook{2d40b3db-52b3-433d-aec9-80ad1ad7c43f,
abstract = {{Expansions of innovation policies have been paralleled with an increase<br/>in the evaluations of such policies. Yet, there are few systematic evaluations of how such evaluations are conducted, by whom, and their overall conclusions. <br/>We analyze 110 evaluations of innovation policy in Sweden from 2005 to 2019. Our findings show that the majority of these evaluations are positive, about one-third are neutral in their conclusions, and very few are negative. The majority of evaluations were conducted by consulting firms, close to one-third by expert government agencies, and around 10% by university researchers or as self-evaluations by the governmental agencies responsible for the policy themselves. Few evaluations employed causal methods to assess the potential effects of policies. We discuss conflicts of interest and question the reliability of evaluations of innovation policy.}},
author = {{Collin, Elias and Sandström, Christian and Wennberg, Karl}},
booktitle = {{Questioning the Entrepreneurial State : Status-quo, Pitfalls, and the Need for Credible Innovation Policy}},
editor = {{Wennberg, Karl and Sandström, Christian}},
isbn = {{978-3-030-94275-5}},
keywords = {{Evaluation; Consultants; Evaluating practice; Meta-Evaluation; Sweden; Innovation policy}},
language = {{eng}},
pages = {{157--173}},
publisher = {{Springer}},
title = {{Evaluating Evaluations of Innovation Policy: Exploring Reliability, Methods, and Conflicts of Interest}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94273-1_9}},
doi = {{10.1007/978-3-030-94273-1_9}},
volume = {{1}},
year = {{2022}},
}