English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 86525/115230 (75%)
Visitors : 23157775      Online Users : 537
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/52525

    Title: 科技政策研究社群如何影響政策?-以英國為例
    In what way can STI policy research community influence policy? -Case of the United Kingdom
    Authors: 李沛錞
    Lee, Pei Chun
    Contributors: 吳豐祥
    Ben. R. Martin
    Lee, Pei Chun
    Keywords: 科技政策研究社群
    STI policy research community
    Strategic decision making perspective
    Research policy relationship
    Date: 2011
    Issue Date: 2012-04-12 13:56:19 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究旨於探討政策研究社群(STI policy research communities)在政策實務中所扮演的角色、與政策實務間的關係及互動,以及該社群隨著不同政策情境其所累積的知識結構。本文以英國科技政策研究社群SPRU及MIoIR為例,首先以Top-down的方式從整體制度及機構面進行探討,第二部份則進一步描述及探討SPRU及MIoIR這兩個研究社群在英國政策實務中所扮演的角色及定位。第三部份旨於探討在英國的政策研究及決策支援制度情境下,政策研究社群與政策實務間的互動關係,以及影響兩者關係的關鍵因素。第四部份則進一步探討如何橋接政策與研究之間的缺口,以及研究社群如何透過不同的研究成果擴散模式,進而政策產生影響與效益。第五部份,本文綜合英國科技政策社群所處之制度及機構情境、政策研究社群之知識產出、政策與研究之間的缺口、以及兩者間的互動關係,從Bottom-Up的角度提出一全面性的理論架構,填補過去文獻在探討政策與研究兩者間關係時,僅探討部份、或分析特定議題之理論缺口。
    The importance of scientific research which positively motivates economic growth has been widely recognised by governments of most countries in the world. A government needs to formulate policies for sustaining national developments, but a sound policy usually has to be evident by academic findings provided by academic researcher. On the opposite, an academic researcher can conduct research needed by the government only if they can be funded by the government. The mutual reliance on each other for academic researchers and the government as well as the relationship between them have been investigated previously in literature. The complex relationship between the government and researcher is modelled as “principal-agent relationship” (Pratt & Zeckhauser, 1985).

    The interdisciplinary STI (Science, Technology and Innovation) policy research, which seeks to solve socioeconomic problem at national level, creates knowledge much closer to what the government needs and can be used directly to inform policy formulation. The relationship between the government and STI policy research community is therefore much stronger and more sensitive than that between the government and other research communities.

    In the process of delivering research to policymakers, the agenda and concern underlying different interacting scenarios between actors are varied from academia, funding agency, governmental organisation and policy makers. Therefore, changing the way of communication is becoming important for academic researchers to make the whole process more smoothly or effectively. However, in this interacting process research actors not only need to turn around the language, but also change the perspective they view from different scenarios especially when there is conflicting interest or view exited between academia and politics. The purpose of this study aims to investigate in what way can STI policy research community influence policy as well as interaction between STI policy research community and the government by bottom-up approach, i.e. from STI policy researcher to the government and three different perspectives proposed by Allison (1971), i.e. 1) Bounded Rational Perspective, 2) Organisational Behaviour Perspective, and 3) Governmental Politics Perspective.

    This study selects the two prestigious research organisations in the UK- SPRU and MIoIR (formerly PREST) as the case study and a total of sixteen renown interviewees are interviewed, since the UK is the leading country in STI policy research and the most outstanding research organisations in the UK STI policy research community are SPRU and MIoIR which have contributed to STI policymaking since 1970s, interaction between the UK government and this research community are analysed. Further, the UK Technology Foresight programme undertaken jointly by SPRU and MIoIR is used as a representative event to demonstrate the responding strategy of STI policy research community to the UK government.

    It is found in this study that a successful contribution from STI policy research community to the government critically relies on appropriate responding strategies which are dependent on whom (on the government side) exactly the researcher is interacting with. A successfully interaction between researcher and the government takes a sound strategy which eventually lead to contribution of research to policy practice. Finally, this study develops several propositions for suggesting how to sustain effective policy contribution from STI policy researcher and sound interaction between STI policy research community and the government.
    Table of Contents Page
    1. Introduction
    1.1 Research Background………………1
    1.2 Research Question…………………5

    2. Literature Review
    2.1 The Origin and Evolution of STI Policy……………8
    2.2 Three Convergent Research Streams of STI Policy Research....12
    2.3 Relationship between Research and Policy…………13
    2.4 Linkage between Research and Policy…………………15
    2.5 Principal-Agent Theory…………………………………22
    2.6 Strategic Decision Making Perspectives…………28
    2.7 Theoretical Gap……………………33

    3. Research Design
    3.1 Three Strategic Decision Making Perspectives…36
    3.2 Research Method……………………………………42
    3.3 Selection of Case Study………………………………43

    4. The UK STI Policy System
    4.1 Development of STI policy White Paper in the UK……46
    4.2 Lead department-Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)……47
    4.3 UK Research Evaluation System…………………………51
    4.4 UK STI Policy Research Community……………………53

    5. Relationship between UK Government and STI Policy Research Community…………………………56

    6. Case Study
    6.1 Historical Background of Establishments of SPRU and MIoIR …………64
    6.2 Bounded Rational Perspective ..........75
    6.3 Organisational Behaviour Perspective……88
    6.4 Governmental Politics Perspective………102
    6.5 Technology Foresight Programme……………106
    6.6 Proposition Development……………………121

    7. Discussion…………………………………………136
    8. Conclusion ………………………………………142
    Reference: Adboye, T., & Clark, N. (1997). Methodological issues in science and technology policy research: technological capability. Science Technology & Society, 2(1), 73.
    Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1971). Essence of decision. Boston Mass.
    Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (2nd ed.). Longman.
    Anderson, P. A. (1983). Decision making by objection and the Cuban missile crisis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 201–222.
    Arensberg, C. M. (1955). American communities. American Anthropologist, 57(6), 1143–1162.
    Arensberg, C. M. (1961). The Community as Object and as Sample*. American Anthropologist, 63(2), 241–264.
    Aucoin, P. (1988). Contraction, managerialism and decentralization in Canadian government. Governance, 1(2), 144–161.
    BIS. (2010).About BIS. Retrieved from http://www.bis.gov.uk/about
    Babu, S. C., & Gulati, A. (2005). Economic reforms and food security: the impact of trade and technology in South Asia. CRC.
    Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and Conflict in the University. J. Wiley.
    Ball, S. J. (1995). Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies. British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3), 255–271.
    Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
    Ziman, J. (1987). Knowing everything about nothing: specialization and change in scientific careers. New York, NY (EUA). Cambridge Univ.
    Ziman, J. (1994). Prometheus bound: Science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge Univ Pr.
    Borum, F. (1980). A power-strategy alternative to organization development. Organization Studies, 1(2), 123.
    Braun, D. (1993). Who governs intermediary agencies? Principal-agent relations in research policy-making. Journal of Public Policy, 13(02), 135–162.
    Braun, D. (1998). The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research Policy, 27(8), 807–821.
    Braun, D., & Guston, D. H. (2003). Principal-agent theory and research policy: an introduction. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 302–308.
    British Council. (2009). Expertise in Science and Technology Policy. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/science-gost_4.1_expertise_in_science_and_technology_policy.pdf
    Brooks, H. (1971). Science, Growth and Society: A New Perspective. OECD.
    Brown, M. K. (1988). Remaking the welfare state: retrenchment and social policy in America and Europe. Temple University Press.
    Martin, B. (2008). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies, Working Papers on Innovation Studies.
    Bulmer, M. (1978). Social policy research. London: Macmillan.
    Bulmer, M. (1986). Social science and social policy. London: Allen & Unwin.
    Bush, V. (2004). Science: The endless frontier. AYER Co. Pub.
    CENTRIM. (2011). Complex Product Systems (CoPS) Innovation Centre. Retrieved from http://centrim.mis.brighton.ac.uk/research/projects/cops-ic
    CRIC. (2006). CRIC Final Report to ESRC October 2003 – September 2006.
    Carter, C. F., & Williams, B. R. (1964). Government scientific policy and the growth of the British economy. Minerva, 3(1), 114–125.
    Chesnais, F. (1992). Technology and The Economy: The Key Relationships. Paris: OECD.
    Clarke, R. (2001). The New Economy beyond the hype. OECD.
    Coleman, J. S. (1994). Foundations of social theory. Belknap Press.
    Collingridge, D., & Reeve, C. (1986). Science speaks to power: the role of experts in policy making. Pinter.
    Martin, B. (2010). The origins of the concept of “foresight” in science and technology: An insider’s perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2010), 1438-1447.
    Cosier, R. A. (1981). Dialectical inquiry in strategic planning: A case of premature acceptance? The Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 643–648.
    Cosier, R. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Agreement and thinking alike: Ingredients for poor decisions. The Executive, 4(1), 69–74.
    Court, J., & Young, J. (2006). Bridging research and policy: insights from 50 case studies. EVIDENCE AND POLICY, 2(4), 439.
    Cutcliffe, S. H., & Mitcham, C. (2001). Visions of STS: Counterpoints in science, technology, and society studies. State Univ of New York Press.
    DETYA-Education. (2011). Recent Development in the Evaluation of Higher Education Research Outcomes in the United Kingdom. Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/respubs/value/garrett.htm
    Dean, J. W., & Sharfman, M. P. (1993). PROCEDURAL RATIONALITY IN THE STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING PROCESS*. Journal of management studies, 30(4), 587–610.
    Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. The American Economic Review, 57(2), 347–359.
    Dukeshire, S., & Thurlow, J. (2002). Understanding the Link between Research and Policy. Rural Communities Impacting Policy project, 1-18.
    Dunn, W. (1994). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs: Prentic-Hall.
    ESRC. (2010). Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved from http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/about/
    McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of community psychology, 14(1), 6–23.
    Edgerton, D. (1996). The “White Heat”revisited: the British Government and technology in the 1960s. Twentieth Century British History, 7(1), 53.
    Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 532–550.
    Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1990). Charting strategic decisions in the microcomputer industry: Profile of an industry star. Mary Ann Von Glinow & Susan Albers Mohrman (Eds.), Managing complexity in high technology organizations, New York: Oxford University Press.
    Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 17–37.
    European Commission. (2006). Using foresight to improve the science-policy relationship.
    European Commission Report. (2006). Improving the science/policy relationship with the help of Foresight: a European Perspective. Rand Europe.
    Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2006). The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, USA.
    Finch, J. (1986). Research and policy: The uses of qualitative methods in social and educational research. Falmer Press London.
    Fox, D. M. (1990). Health policy and the politics of research in the United States. Journal of health politics, policy and law, 15(3), 481.
    Frankish, C. J. (1997). Participatory health promotion research in Canada: A community guidebook. Health Canada.
    Mehlenbacher, B. (2002). The rhetorical nature of academic research funding. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on, 37(3), 157–162.
    Freeman, C., Poignant, R., & Svennilson, I. (1963). Science, economic growth, and government policy. OECD.
    Freilich, M. (1963). Toward an operational definition of community. Rural Sociology, 28(2), 117–127.
    GOS. (2009). Science & Engineering in Government – An Overview of the Government’s Approach.
    GOS. (2010). GOS-test. Government Office for Science. Retrieved from http://www.bis.gov.uk/go-science/about
    Gamson, W. A. (1961). A theory of coalition formation. American sociological review, 26(3), 373–382.
    Gieryn, T. F., & others. (1995). Boundaries of science. Handbook of science and technology studies, 405.
    Glaser, E. M., Abelson, H. H., & Garrison, K. N. (1983). Putting knowledge to use: facilitating the diffusion of knowledge and the implementation of planned change. Jossey-Bass San Francisco.
    Glasziou, P., & Haynes, B. (2005). The paths from research to improved health outcomes. Evidence Based Medicine, 10(1), 4.
    Green, L. W., & others. (1995). Study of participatory research in health promotion: Review and recommendations for the development of participatory research in health promotion in Canada.
    Gusfield, J. R. (1975). Community: A critical response. Harper & Row New York.
    Metcalfe, J. S. (1995). The economic foundations of technology policy: equilibrium and evolutionary perspectives. Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change, 409–512.
    Guston, D. H. (1996). Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy. Science and Public Policy, 23(4), 229–240.
    Guston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science. Social Studies of Science, 29(1), 87.
    Hartmann, I. (1990). Begutachtung in der Forschungsf\örderung: die Argumente der Gutachter in der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. RG Fischer, Frankfurt.
    Henkel, M. (1999). The modernisation of research evaluation: the case of the UK. Higher Education, 38(1), 105–122.
    Hennink, M., & Stephenson, R. (2005). Using research to inform health policy: barriers and strategies in developing countries. Journal of health communication, 10(2), 163–180.
    Hickson, D. J., & Centre, U. of B. M. (1986). Top decisions: Strategic decision-making in organizations. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    Higgins, J. (1980). The unfulfilled promise of policy research. Social Policy & Administration, 14(3), 195–208.
    Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural sociology, 20(2), 111–123.
    Hillery, G. A. (1968). Communal organizations: A study of local societies. University of Chicago Press.
    Hills, P. V. (1995). Prest’s experience of evaluation. Scientometrics, 34(3), 401–414.
    Metcalfe, J. S., & Georghiou, L. (1997). Equilibrium and evolutionary foundations of technology policy.
    Hills, P. V., & Dale, A. J. (1995). Research and technology evaluation in the United Kingdom. Research Evaluation, 5(1), 35–44.
    Hinings, C. R., Hickson, D. J., Pennings, J. M., & Schneck, R. E. (1974). Structural conditions of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(1), 22–44.
    Huberman, M. (1993). Linking the practitioner and researcher communities for school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4(1), 1–16.
    Hughes, M., McNeish, D., Newman, T., & Barnardo, I. (2000). What works? Making connections: Linking research and practice.
    Innvaer, S., Vist, G., Trommald, M., & Oxman, A. (2002). Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 7(4), 239.
    Irvine, J., & Martin, B. (1984). Foresight in science: picking the winners. Pinter London.
    Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes.
    Janis, I. L. (1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisis management. Free Pr.
    Kreiner, K. (1976). Ideology and management in a garbage can situation. Ambiguity and choice in organizations, 156–173.
    Lee, A. S. (1989). A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS quarterly, 33–50.
    Miles, I., & Keenan, M. (2003). Ten Years of Foresight in the UK. documento presentado en la segunda conferencia internacional sobre prospectiva tecnológica, Tokio (Vol. 27).
    Leydesdorff, L. (2010). PREST. Retrieved from http://www.leydesdorff.net/necsts/manchest.htm
    Lightman, E., & Irving, A. (1991). Restructuring Canada’s welfare state. Journal of Social Policy, 20(01), 65–86.
    Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of“ muddling through.” Public administration review, 19(2), 79–88.
    METRIS. (2011). Monitoring European Trends in Social Sciences and Humanities. Retrieved from http://www.metrisnet.eu/metris/index.cfm/report/findByStructureAndCountry/33/75
    MIOIR. (2010a). Manchester Institute of Innovation Research- About the Institute. Retrieved a from
    MIOIR. (2010b). Manchester Institute of Innovation Research- Our Research. Retrieved b from
    MIOIR. (2010c). Manchester Institute of Innovation Research- Research Themes. Retrieved c from
    Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K. M., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. Family Health International, 13–27.
    Macnee, C. L., & McCabe, S. (2008). Understanding nursing research: using research in evidence-based practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
    Macrina, F. L. (2000). Scientific integrity: An introductory text with cases. ASM Press Washington, DC.
    Miller, G. J. (1993). Managerial dilemmas: The political economy of hierarchy. Cambridge Univ Pr.
    Majchrzak, A. (1984). Methods for policy research. Sage Publications, Inc.
    Manchester. (2011). The RAE process. Retrieved from http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/rae2008/more/
    March, J. G. (1962). The business firm as a political coalition. The Journal of Politics, 24(04), 662–678.
    Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26(6).
    Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1982). Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firm. The Academy of Management Journal, 25(3), 465–499.
    Mitroff, I. I., & Chubin, D. E. (1979). Peer review at the NSF: A dialectical policy analysis. Social Studies of Science, 9(2), 199.
    Barker, D., & Lloyd, P. (1997). Evaluation of Scientific Research in the United Kingdom. The Evaluation of Scientific Research: Selected Experience, OECD/GD.
    Moavenzadeh, F. (2006). The Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development. Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development: MIT.
    Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777.
    Moore, A. (2000). Science funding and infrastructures in Europe. Trends in Genetics, 16(8), 329–330.
    Morlacchi, P., & Martin, B. (2009). Emerging challenges for science, technology and innovation policy research: A reflexive overview. Research Policy, 38(4), 571–582.
    Morris, N. (2002). Tower power: academics commitment to the wealth creation mission. Industry and Higher Education, 16(6), 337–348.
    Morris, N. (2003). Academic researchers as agents of science policy. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 359–370.
    Mulkay, M. J. (1979). Science and the Sociology of Knowledge. Allen & Unwin Winchester, MA.
    NESTA. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/
    Nutley, S., Davies, H., & Walter, I. (2002). Evidence based policy and practice: Cross sector lessons from the UK. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Working paper 9. Available at http://kcl. qc. uk/content/1/c6/03/46/00/wp9b. pdf.
    Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. . (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. The Policy Press.
    Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2009). Gatekeeping: A Critical Review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 43, 433–478.
    Nutt, P. C. (1989). Making tough decisions: Tactics for improving managerial decision making. Jossey-Bass.
    OECD. (2010). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2010. OECD.
    OECD. (2011). John Baber. John Baber. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/speaker/0,2879,en_21571361_31834434_33720356_1_1_1_1,00.html
    OPEN INOVATON BLOG. (2011). Professor Christopher Freeman. Retrieved from http://blog.openinnovation.net/2010/08/freeman-obituary.html
    OST. (1993). Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology. London: HMSO.
    Olsen, J. P. (1976). Choice in an organized anarchy. Ambiguity and choice in organizations, 82–139.
    Parliament. (2010).Bioengineering - Science and Technology Committee Contents. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/220/22006.htm
    Peters, B. G. (1996). The policy capacity of government. Research Paper No. 18. Canadian Centre for Management Development.
    Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision-making. HarperCollins Publishers.
    Pettigrew, A. M. (1985). The awakening giant: Continuity and change in Imperial Chemical Industries. Blackwell, Oxford Oxfordshire New York, NY.
    Bass, A. Z. (1969). Refining the“ gatekeeper” concept: A UN radio case study. Journalism Quarterly, 46(1), 69–72.
    Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Pitman Publishing.
    Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power. Harvard Business School Press.
    Pinfield, L. T. (1986). A field evaluation of perspectives on organizational decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 365–388.
    Polanyi, M. (1951). The logic of liberty: reflections and rejoinders. University of Chicago Press.
    Pratt, J. W., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (1985). Principals and agents: an overview. Principals and agents: The structure of business, 1–35.
    Pullan, B., & Abendstern, M. (2004). A History of the University of Manchester, 1973-90. Manchester Univ Pr.
    Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism (Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin). Inc.
    REF. (2010).Research Excellence Framework. Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/
    Real, B. (1980). Technical change and economic policy: science and technology in the new economic and social context: sector report: the machine tool industry. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
    Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. Free Pr.
    Ben-David, J. (1971). The scientist’s role in society. Prentice Hall.
    Rommetveit, K. (1976). Decision making under changing norms. Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
    SPRU. (2010a). Draft- SPRU Strategy - 2010-2015.
    SPRU. (2010b). SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research- People. Retrieved b from www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/
    SPRU. (2010c). SPRU- Science and Technology Policy Research. Retrieved c from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/people
    SPRU. (2010d). SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research- Researchthemes. Retrieved d from www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/
    Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. PS: Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147–156.
    Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and use of power in organizational decision making: The case of a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), 453–473.
    Sapolsky, H. M. (1972). The Polaris system development: Bureaucratic and programmatic success in government. Harvard University Press.
    Savoie, D. J. (1994). Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney: in search of a new bureaucracy. Univ of Pittsburgh Pr.
    Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus. The Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 51–71.
    Bernal, J. D. (1967). The social function of science.
    Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Rechner, P. L. (1989). Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 745–772.
    Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press).
    Serrat, O. (2005). Linking Research to Practice.
    Simmonds, P., & Bak, J. (2009). International comparison of research on innovation policy and its use within national STI policy analysis. Technopolis Group.
    Sismondo, S. (2008). Science and technology studies and an engaged program. The handbook of science and technology studies, 13–32.
    Stevenson, W. B., Pearce, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1985). The concept of“ coalition” in organization theory and research. The Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 256–268.
    Stone, D. (2001). Getting research into policy. Presented at the the third Annual Global Development Network Conference on “Blending Local and Global Knowledge,” Rio De Janeiro,.
    Stone, D., Maxwell, S., & Keating, M. (2001). Bridging research and policy. Background paper presented for An International Workshop Funded by the UK Department for International Development, Radcliffe House, Warwick University.
    Sturges, P. (2001). Gatekeepers and other intermediaries. Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 53, pp. 62–67).
    Surr, M., Barnett, A., Duncan, A., Speight, M., Bradley, D., Rew, A., & Toye, J. (2002). Research for poverty reduction: DFID research policy paper. London: Department for International Development.
    Berridge, V., & Thom, B. (1996). Research and policy: what determines the relationship? Policy studies, 17(1), 23–34.
    Sutton, W. A., & Kolaja, J. (1960). The concept of community. Rural Sociology, 25(2), 197–203.
    Technopolis Group. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.technopolis-group.com/
    Theodori, G. L. (2000). Levels of analysis and conceptual clarification in community attachment and satisfaction research: Connections to community development. Community Development, 31(1), 35–58.
    Treasury, H. M. (2006). Science & innovation investment framework 2004-2014: next steps. The Stationery Office.
    Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26(11), 1071–1085.
    UK government. (1993). White Paper ’Realising Our Potential.
    UKIRC. (2011). IN MEMORIAM - CHRIS FREEMAN. Retrieved from http://www.ukirc.ac.uk/newsandevents/news/article/?objid=3698
    VINNOVA. (2007). European eGovernment Research Network: D5.1 Impact Indicator Overview.
    Van der Meulen, B. (1998). Science policies as principal-agent games:: Institutionalization and path dependency in the relation between government and science. Research Policy, 27(4), 397–414.
    Van der Meulen, B. (2003). New roles and strategies of a research council: intermediation of the principal-agent relationship. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 323–336.
    Bianco, W. T., & Bates, R. H. (1990). Cooperation by design: Leadership, structure, and collective dilemmas. The American Political Science Review, 84(1), 133–147.
    Van der Meulen, B., Westerheijden, D. F., Rip, A., & Van Vught, F. A. (1991). Verkenningscommissies tussen veld en overheid (Evaluatie-onderzoek verkenningscommissies). Den Haag: Ministerie Onderwijs en Wetenschappen.
    Wagner, P. (1991). Social sciences and modern states: National experiences and theoretical crossroads. Cambridge Univ Pr.
    Wamae, W. (2008). STI Policy Research and the STI Policy Environment in Africa: A Scoping Paper for the IPS Program Area of IDRC. IDRC, Ottawa, Canada.
    Weiss. (1991). Policy research: data, ideas, or arguments? Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads. P. WAGNER, C. HIRSCHOM WEISS, B. WlTTROCK & H. WOLLMAN.
    Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431.
    Weiss, C. H. (1998). Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 21.
    Wikipedia. (2010a). Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU). Retrieved a from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPRU
    Wikipedia. (2010b). Victoria University of_Manchester. Retrieved b from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_University_of_Manchester
    Wikipedia. (2011a). William Stewart. William Stewart (scientist). Retrieved a from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stewart_%28scientist%29
    Wikipedia. (2011b). Asa Briggs. Retrieved b from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Briggs,_Baron_Briggs
    Blume, S. S. (1970). Science policy and science policy research. Nature, 228(5268), 215.
    Wooding, S., Scoggins, A., Lundin, P., & Ling, T. (2005). Talking policy: an examination of public dialogue in science and technology policy..-. Santa Monica; RAND Corporation; 2005. 105 p. ilus, tab, graf.
    Description: 博士
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096359503
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback