Category: policy

Developing a Framework for Innovation Intermediation

matjazvidmar/ / benchmarking, evaluation, impact, Innovation, methods, outcomes, policy, Post, process, research, science

My exciting journey with the Innovation Caucus started one rainy morning in Spring 2017, when by chance I spotted an advertisement for internship applicants doing the rounds over email. This was followed by an email from my supervisor, asking all of his PhD students if we have seen the call and whether we were interested. Not being someone who declines any opportunity, my reply was immediate – yes!

Having found out about the Innovation Caucus and its work some months previously, when putting together a notice for the departmental newsletter about our engagement with policy, I was really excited by the opportunity to further translate my research interest into useful knowledge for policy-making. Having applied and made it through to the interview, I was ecstatic! Speaking to Tim and his team was interesting and inspiring, and once I was offered the internship, it took even less time than before to say “yes” and accept it.

As I am really passionate about my PhD research topic (social aspects of technology development and innovation) and my subject matter (Space Industry – yes, the stuff “up there”) I took quite some convincing to take on new challenges within the Innovation Caucus brief. In part, this was because I really wanted to create a new space of shared knowledge and sense-making, i.e. to challenge the theoretical concepts with empirical findings and policy realities – and I could only envisage doing so within the topics about which I was already somewhat knowledgeable.

However, in discussion with Innovate UK and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), I did eventually reshape my interest into developing a broader framework and typology of innovation intermediation in any geographically bound sectoral system of innovation. This was of value to Innovate UK, since it supported the ongoing development of their portfolio of Catapults and Knowledge Transform Networks, as well as other projects and policies.

This experience was a great lesson for me, not only in working with and delivering for a policy-making system, but also in expanding my own research interests into domains I did initially find uncomfortable. Presenting the headline findings of this work at one of the most prestigious innovation conferences in the world, DRUID (2018), helped me appreciate the power of broader generalisation of academic knowledge, in order to achieve more substantial societal impact.

The lessons learned and experiences from this project also enabled me to engage better with new concepts, unfamiliar settings and unknown stakeholders in my subsequent work. For instance, these skills have proved critical in working on a consultancy project for the OECD and as a Research Assistant in academia.

I have to express my big thanks to Tim and his team for their support and mentorship and to all involved with the Innovation Caucus, particularly Innovate UK and the ESRC teams involved with my internship. It was your determination and generosity that turned this project from a 3-month desk-job into a transformational professional journey.

lxvchcxo_400x400

This post has been published in October 2018 at Innovation Caucus blog: Developing a framework for innovation intermediation.

Find out more about Innovation Caucus.

What is not to like about regeneration?

matjazvidmar/ / Innovation, Notes, policy, Post, research, science, value

 and  wrote a short piece about regeneration for Manchester Policy Blogs, as part of a collaboration inspired by Postgraduate Forum in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies (PF-STIS) workshop “What is at Stake?” in December 2017 at SPRU in Brighton.

The blog-post is available here:

What is not to like about regeneration? 

Outer Space – The Next Empire? (A Brief Interview)

matjazvidmar/ / arts, Edinburgh, Innovation, Outreach, policy, Post, research, Satellites, science, Space, Space Agencies, Space Exploration, STEM

Matjaz and Pippa’s CoDI show ‘Outer Space – The Next Empire?’ is on at 1.50pm, Saturday 5th August at the New Town Theatre (Fringe Venue 7).

Tickets: bit.ly/OuterSpaceEmpire

Tell us a bit about yourselves

Matjaz Vidmar – research student in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies Space Exploration and Industry in Scotland at The University of Edinburgh; science communicator at the Royal Observatory Edinburgh and elsewhere; occasional blogger and writer; involved in many “out-there” ideas, including a project proposing a geostationary space station.

Pippa Goldschmidt – a “recovering Astronomer” with a PhD from The University of Edinburgh/Royal Observatory Edinburgh; worked on Outer Space policy in the UK Government, including puzzling questions such as “What is Outer Space and where does it start?”; now an acclaimed writer about science in fiction. Winner of 2016 Suffrage Science award (for women in science). Author of novels, short stories, poems and essays.

How does your CoDI show fit in with your research?

The exciting CoDI show we are hatching together fits perfectly with Matjaz’s work in trying to use arts to understand the role and importance of Space Exploration and Industry for society at large and Pippa’s creative work on how science and technology inspires and informs artistic expression.

Why is the topic ‘dangerous’?

The topic dares ask a question about what are we humans doing in and to Outer Space? In the not very distant future, humans will for the first time visit another planet (Mars). Later on we will likely establish some interplanetary outposts.

What does this mean for society down here on Earth? By reaching so far away from our planet, are we taking enough care over the possible harm we might cause to other planetary environment and life, and the possible harm we might do to ourselves?

Are Outer Space resources ours for the taking? Even if they are – who are “we”? Will it be whoever first plants the flag or do we come to a broader agreement on sharing?

How do we make sure we don’t choke our own planet in Space Debris, which is bits of disused space craft and rockets already swarming around the Earth and possibly increasing exponentially in the next few years?

Does it rightly have this label? Is the topic unjustly controversial? 

If Space Debris starts raining down on Earth, as outlined in one of Pippa’s stories, it will get pretty dangerous pretty quickly! And that is only one of the topics we will explore in the show! It may also get very dangerous for Space Dodos (whatever they are)!

The severity of danger is really in the eyes of the beholder, but we think we need to have an inspired and inspiring conversation about the scientific, technological and societal implications of exploration of Outer Space and how it touches upon other aspects of the everyday life of us Earthlings (as well as Martians!).

Describe your show in three words

Serious Space Fun

Why should the unenlightened Fringe-goer attend your show? What will they learn?

They will learn a bit about what we are up to in Outer Space and what possible futures await us.

There will be examples of how Scotland is “reaching for the stars” and how it contributes to more space waste. We will discuss whether humans are ready for space travel and if so, where you should buy your ticket!

We will talk about science, technology, ethics, politics, achievements, beliefs and imagination, mix them all together and throw in a big measure of drama and humour.

We will read some short stories and see if we can disentangle facts about Outer Space from Science Fiction.

To sum up, we will have some serious fun with some serious issues – and all in the name of science!

Are we trying to build a new Empire in the Outer Space?

matjazvidmar/ / arts, Edinburgh, Innovation, Outreach, policy, Post, research, science, Space, STEM, Travel, value

As part of this year’s Edinburgh Fringe Festival, I am teaming up with an ex-astronomer and acclaimed science fiction author, Pippa Goldschmidt, to debate the future of human activity beyond the Earth in a show titled: Outer Space – The Next Empire?

Pippa is a Royal Observatory Edinburgh graduate and has later worked both at Imperial College, London, as well as in civil service, including on outer space policy. She has since been writing fiction about science and scientists, including a novel about an astronomer who discovers the Universe and loses her mind, ‘The Falling Sky’ and a collection of short stories ‘The need for Better Regulation of Outer Space’. Pippa has been writer in residence in several science and social science research centres and is currently Visiting Fellow at the Science, Technology and Innovation Studies Group (my “home” department) at the University of Edinburgh.

In an hour of literary drama, comedy and engaging discussion with the audience, Pippa and I will be exploring big questions such as: Who does outer space belong to, and are humans its only intelligent tenants/owner-occupiers? Will colonising space soon become our business-as-usual, and should we be doing it at all? Can we cause any harm to whoever else might be out there or are we likely to be harmed ourselves?

The event is part of the Cabaret of Dangerous Ideas series, which is a joint Beltane Public Engagement Network and Fair Pley production, successfully taking science to the Fringe for the fifth time in 2017. You might even remember that I have done another Cabaret show last year, called “Let Big Brother Watch!”

Hence, I am delighted to be returning to the Fringe with this show, as we are planning to make it as exciting for the audience as any of the big Fringe productions, but with more discussion and engagement. Pippa is an amazing story-teller and I am so honoured to be working with her to create this very special event.

Though we will intertwine fact with fiction to set the scene, we are looking forward to talking about the scientific and social impact of space exploration, whilst also questioning some of the accepted norms and challenging pre-conceptions. Arts, and especially literature, is great in enabling an open and frank discussion about not only the present, but also the future of scientific and technological development.

 This is very well illustrated in this review (by Iain Maloney) of Pippa’s collection of short stories, ‘The Need for Better Regulation of Outer Space’: “Science is a tool for understanding the universe, but in Pippa Goldschmidt’s hands it is also a metaphor through which we can better understand ourselves.”

Outer Space – The Next Empire? is on 5th August, 1.50pm, at the New Town Theatre in George Street.

Tickets can be bought via the Fringe Box Office or on-line: bit.ly/OuterSpaceEmpire 

Poster

It is “Ignition” for UK’s Spaceport(s)!

matjazvidmar/ / policy, Post, research, Satellites, Space, Travel

The UK is well on its way to establishing the first set of spaceports outside the USA. Though the first Government consultation on the issue completed as far back as 2014 and preparations are well underway at several locations, the publication of the draft Spaceflight Bill in February has finally put on paper the future outlook for UK space access capabilities, with first launch activities scheduled for 2020.

The joined ministerial statement accompanying the launch of the draft Bill noted: “We want to see UK spaceports enabling the launch of small satellites from the UK, as well as sub-orbital spaceflights and scientific experiments. Our new laws will put British businesses at the forefront of these new space services and create jobs in communities that have not previously considered themselves to be part of our space sector.”

Instead of direct targeted government investment, which has been discussed in the past, the draft Bill is making provisions for a licensing scheme, enabling any spaceport operator to acquire permission for multi-phase launch from mainland UK, as long as they are satisfying safety requirements and having a viable business case. To assist the development of spaceports Government grants could be made available to successful applicants.

Though most operators are considering what is called a “horizontal launch”, i.e. a modified aircraft deploying a rocked powered 2-stage vehicle over the Atlantic Ocean after a “normal” runway take-off, the Bill is making provisions for “vertical launchers”, i.e. free-standing rockets, as well.

The scheme could see the establishment of a whole series of spaceports, with specialist airfields from Newquay in Cornwall, Snowdonia in Wales, and Sutherland, Campbeltown, Prestwick and Southern Isles in Scotland all separately attempting to bid for licences.

However, Stuart Macintyre from Orbital Access, who are developing a horizontal launch system to operate from the UK, sees potential for a more networked approach. He told the BBC recently that they “envisage a system of collaborating spaceports and a system of operators whose needs will describe the capabilities that are required at those spaceports.” In particular, as they would “need a diversionary site if for any reason we cannot land back at the runway from which we took off.”

But the Bill is not all about “health and safety”. The science minister, Jo Johnston, noted that “spaceflight offers the UK the opportunity to build on our strengths in science, research and innovation” and that “it provides opportunities to expand into new markets, creating highly-skilled jobs and boosting local economies across the country. That is why it is one of the key pillars of our Industrial Strategy.”

So, while not quite in the lift-off stage yet, the vision of UK spaceports clearly got to “ignition”!

 

This brief analysis was published in the May-June 2017 edition of the Popular Astronomy magazine by the Society for Popular Astronomy. Image copyright: Orbital Access.

New Space Strategies for “New Space”

matjazvidmar/ / Innovation, policy, Post, Satellites, science, Space

Two reports published over the past couple of months clearly indicate that the “New Space” concept has well and truly landed. “New Space” is the label attached to the radical shift in the Space Sector make-up, which is looking to exploit the advances in technology development and new sources of funding to establish rapid design, manufacturing and deployment of small, cheap and dispensable (or even replaceable) satellites for an increasing variety of applications, accessible to a growing number of users worldwide.

On 27th October, the OECD published its Space and Innovation report, analysing in great detail the current trends in the Space Sector and the variety of policy responses countries have been adopting. It suggests three approaches for state (and private) actors: reviewing policy in light of new developments, direct involvement in new (downstream) space activities and capturing spin-offs and technology developments. The report optimistically predicts that a new “the space sector seems to be on the verge of a new cycle of development”, with new scientific breakthroughs, technological achievements and a growing market for space(-powered) applications – and all very beneficial to the global economy.

The key contribution of the Space Sector to the economy is also recognised in the European Commission’s Space Strategy for Europe, published on the 26th October.  It sets out ways in which the EU seeks to boost growth in the sector and knowledge spill overs in other domains, both through flagship programmes such as Galileo (satellite navigation) and Copernicus (satellite imaging), science and infrastructure investment, as well as financial support for start-ups and spin-outs based on space-related technologies.

Hence Elżbieta Bieńkowska, Commissioner for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, noted that although “Space is a key industrial sector in Europe’s economy, and a strategic asset supporting Europe’s autonomy of action at the global stage […], it needs more entrepreneurs and more private investment if it is to stay ahead of the curve.” This can of course only be achieved through public and private actors working together and pulling the (financial) weight.

Of course, these are long-term strategies and it is unclear in what way the UK Government will pursue them, though UK leadership in this area has been very strong in the past. If fact, UK National Space Policy, last updated in December 2015, is very much at the heart of the current OECD and EU thinking, however the changing global context, in particular the role of the UK in European affairs, may well jeopardise our hard-earned  position of global leadership in the Space Industry.

We may have to wait until next year’s UK Space Conference, this time in Manchester, to measure the strength of the new Government’s commitment to the sector and also global partners’ reaction to our changing position in the world.

 

 

This brief analysis was published in the January-February 2017 edition of the Popular Astronomy magazine by the Society for Popular Astronomy. Image copyright: European Commission.

 

Networking 101

matjazvidmar/ / impact, Innovation, methods, outcomes, policy, Post, research, ROE, Royal Observatory Edinburgh, science, Space, University of Edinburgh

This is a belatedly late post about some of my (early) research findings  – and my efforts to disseminate them.

This is build around Phase 1 of my research into the facilitation of technology transfer from basic research into high-tech industry, which is (hopefully) leading to overall economic growth and prosperity.

I am focusing on the Space Sector, the historic development of which is in its 3rd phase, sometimes referred to as the “New Space”, – after the initial state monopoly (1st phase) and the technology being commercialised by large multinational corporations (2nd phase), it is now being democratised through innovation and entrepreneurship as the (previously complex and expensive hardware becomes smaller, more standardised and cheaper (Space IGS, 2010). In the context of this transition and growth of the sector, there is a government target of increasing the UK share of global Space market from 7% to 10% by 2030 (Space IGS, 2010).

For small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) – which are the subject of my research – this is also denoting a transition in SMEs from “technology-push” to “market-pull” new product development (NPD) orientation, based on a shift from “supplying” to larger companies to “selling” to end customers/users, which is also moving from “mass-manufacturing” to developing Complex Products and Services (CoPS) (Hobday, 1998) and vertical value chain integration.

In order to help facilitate technology transfer at this transition point – one of the objective of my research – a key link between the systemic understanding of the sector and the innovation processes and practices in companies must be established. Given the prevalence of network research – which is at the core of Innovation studies both at macro as well as micro level (Freeman, 1991), due the fact that it covers the crucial aspect of knowledge commercialisation, namely interaction – this is an obvious choice to bridge the two.

In particular I am using ego-centric Social Network Analysis (SNA) (Scott, 1988; Giuliani, 2007) to plot the business network for each of the three studied companies (see table above). This is based on a survey-style questionnaire, with multiple-choice answers, but options for other (more expanded) answers as well. This enabled me a comprehensive analysis of the knowledge network, in particular the flows of knowledge and a qualitative analysis of the NPD process, by examining the specific “innovation moments” (i.e.  points at which decisions about developing an innovation into a product take place) (Edwards et. al., 2000), the role external partners play in those instances and how the differences in companies’ network make-up affect the creation of new products (and vice-versa).

Presently, the study is in its pilot incarnation, focusing on three case studies, carefully selected to represent key elements of the population of the field (upstream /downstream; hardware/software; start-up/spin-off; “Classical”/”New Space”; products/services), i.e. a set of typical cases (Yin, 2009), as summarised here:

ResTable
Analysed SMEs and their properties (Vidmar, 2015)

In short, these are the key findings so far:

  1. The networks are larger for the “New Space”, rich with open innovation, and significant knowledge flows across the firm’s boundary are detected (see the network plots below). This dynamics is gradually diminishes as we examine the other two cases, with the “classical” Space company having a very one-directional flow (and retain all of their IP within the company) and a relatively small core network.
  2. The more “New Space” a company is, the more it relies on knowledge flow from public institutions for R&D, BD and commercial transactions, and the more such partners it has. In contrast a more “classical” Space company has more private sector partners, mainly engaged in purely commercial activities, such as distributors and suppliers, through which it is sourcing components and maximising the reach of its supply.
  3. Interestingly, when analysed through the framework of Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2006), we again find a very clear divide between hardware and software; upstream and downstream; and “classical” and “New Space”, with hardware upstream (“classical Space”) companies tend to exhibit more “closed” innovation models than software and downstream (“New Space”) ones.
  4. Analysis of the companies participating in the pilot suggests that the more the innovation process is “open” the less hierarchical it is, but also the more structured/standardised and formalised. This is in line with anecdotal experience from most successful high-tech areas, where more formalised, yet less restrictive, NPD protocols are being to be established in order to capitalise on as much innovation as possible (Neapole, -2015).
ResProfile
The network plot for Classical (left); Transitional (centre) and New Space (right) SMEs. (Vidmar, 2015)

Of course, these are only preliminary observations and substantial further research is being planned to further this work, including expanding the study to analyse all Scottish Space Sector companies.

If you are interested in a more full account of my research click through for the full paper presented at Reinventing Space 2015 conference  (Oxford, 9th-13th November 2015)

Here is also a photo of my poster (from SUPA Cormack Meeting 2015):

WP_20151123_007
At SUPA Cormack Meeting, Royal Society of Edinburgh, 23th November 2015.

Space is Up!

matjazvidmar/ / impact, Innovation, policy, Post, research, science, Space, Travel

The Global Space Innovation Conference (GLIC) 2015, which was held in Munich between 23rd and 25th June 2015, was preceded by an “unconference” based on the Space Up template – Space UP GLIC.

This template means, that the “participants decide the topics, schedule, and structure of the event”, which in this instance was themed around Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Space Sector. We aimed quite high; for instance, one of the (preparatory) questions from Twitter reads:

The day was mainly filled with short presentations from a variety of speakers presenting on topics ranging from protection against Near Earth objects (NEOs):

to dancing in zero gravity:

I also added my ramblings to the mix; I ended up wrapping up the presentations section with my talk “It IS Rocket Science!” about studying innovation, New Product Development (NPD) and networks in the Space Industry:

This was followed by some debate time drawing on two key questions: What is innovation? and Does investment stimulate innovation or vice versa?

The outcomes of this discussion and a summary of our contributions was also presented at the close of the “main” conference, including a video vlog of the day:

For my part, on top of being introduced to a variety of interesting ideas and projects, I was also introduced to so many exciting and very talented people, all passionate about space and ready to actively participate in the future of Space exploration. That in itself made this event the place to be for any budding Space enthusiast and I am looking forward to meet my new friends again, as soon as might be.

Embedded image permalink
“On top of Munich!”

Perhaps, we might even get SpaceUp to Scotland some time soon…

Think Global, Act Global!

matjazvidmar/ / impact, Innovation, outcomes, policy, Post, research, science, Space, Travel, value

Few and far in-between are times when an interdisciplinary researcher working across different fields, such as myself, find themselves at a conference comfortably covering nearly the entire theme of their work. Most often, I myself sit with two crowds – innovation studies researchers’ meetings cater for participating in academic discussions and I attend the gatherings of the space community to keep up to speed in the trends in my research area, the Space sector.

However, the importance of bringing together of these two crowds has recently been noted within the international Space community and from 23rd to 25th June 2015, I have found myself in Munich attending the “conference of my dreams” – the Global Space Innovation Conference.

GLIC conference banner, (c) IAF

For me, the event was two part, as the “main” conference was preceded by the SpaceUp GLIC “unconference”, which provides an alternative platform for facilitating networking and discussions amongst (younger/young at heart!) Space enthusiasts. Little snippets from this event are published separately in the post “Space is Up!”.

The theme of the conference was “From Government Programmes to Entrepreneurial Actions” and was based on two main premises:

1. There is significant appetite, both from the government as well as industry point of view for more private-public partnerships or direct private enterprise to get involved in the (national and international) Space exploration efforts, including but not limited to benefiting from the (civil/non-space) applications of technology originally developed for Space exploration. 

2. There are important (negotiated?) roles for all stakeholders (public, private, academic, non-profit, etc.) in the entrepreneurial system the industry is embedded in. This system was defined along the lines of (Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994):

  • Socioeconomic Environment,
  • Entrepreneurial and Business Skills,
  • Non-financial Support,
  • Financial Support, and
  • Government Policies and Procedures

These five elements were also the themes of the GLIC’s five key discursive panels (2-6):

  • Panel 1. The View from Entrepreneurs
  • Panel 2. Socioeconomic Environment for Entrepreneurs
  • Panel 3. Entrepreneurial Education and Training
  • Panel 4. Non-Financial Assistance for Venture Creation
  • Panel 5. Financial Support for Venture Creation
  • Panel 6: Policies and Laws for Entrepreneurship

The key findings, in my view, are that stakeholders have to work to reduce the burdens on the entrepreneurs by, on one hand, (public and private) funders increasing investment in early-stage technology development and on the other, providing clever institutional support (mainly in business development) to the entrepreneurs. In theory, this should also lead to a (more) competitive and dynamic Space economy, including breaking corporate monopolies currently supported by targeted government procurement.

However, the appreciation of the complexity of the products in the Space sector is necessary and my own research here is in many ways an embodiment of the above programme and an expression of the anxiety associated with it in particular with respect to the need for a more detailed understanding of the product development processes (NPD) and the role the different stakeholders play in it. In particular, the entrepreneurial networks through which expertise and action are channelled play a crucial role here as, the project complexity requires an increased knowledge flow into the NPD or innovation process.

In fact, this was the main part of my contribution to the event, made in the context of the SpaceUp GLIC, where I outlined these important concerns and my plans to address them in the context of my research in Scotland/UK.

WP_20150623_004
Presenting the talk: “It IS Rocket Science!” at SpaceUp GLIC, Munich, 23rd June 2015

More of those plans to follow in a white paper draft to be published later this year…

“Means, Motive, Opportunity” – ER2

matjazvidmar/ / evaluation, impact, outcomes, policy, Post, process, research, value

In order to frame this enquiry, let’s begin with a small the exploration of the motivations behind commissioning and performing the evaluations in the first place. Though examples here are from social research, these are easily compared with parallels in any intervention, including investment in the development of the science, technology (and business support facilities and services (for example STFC, 2014:5-7).

Firstly, an important part of the evaluation research is process evaluation (Rossi, 1972:34), used in order to improve on the delivery of the intervention, or – as beautifully listed in an interview with Waverley Care (a Edinburgh charity) CEO – “what we need to stop doing, what we want to keep doing and what we are not doing that we should be doing”. When working along this strand of evaluation, it is crucial that the researcher provides recommendations that can be acted upon. The best way to carry out such evaluation is often to focus on a specific small area of the intervention, for example how does an organisation collect feedback and implement changes reflecting the concerns raised by internal and external customers. Having said that, conclusions and recommendations can often be very general.

In the process evaluation, there is further check on the identifying emerging needs and (geographical, social, economic) individualisation of the delivery of outputs. This is particularly important for social projects (such as the Waverley Care), where there is significant variation across the different locales in which they work. However, this is also important in terms of social and geographical inclusiveness of science and technology investment. Hence, evaluation research in this context can provide important checks on the “fairness” of the intervention whilst it is underway.

Then there is the often missed – but in my opinion very important objective in evaluation – the inward facing component, i.e. the improvement of morale of the people engaged in the programme/intervention/organisation by celebrating their success. It is very important for the staff to appreciate the whole picture, “take a step back” to frame their work within a wider context. This is both a good motivation for future work as well as a huge morale boost as one can see how they personally and as a team are making a significant difference to people’s lives.

Finally, the primary motivation for impact evaluation is (always?), to understand the impact/difference an intervention/organisation is making. Evaluation is often considered important for funding applications, i.e. both assessing the need for the intervention as well as monitoring the delivery of outcomes (to evaluate the VALUE generated).

My research is similarly linked to the need for accountability when spending public money (Nutley, Walter and Davies, 2007:254) and in particular the effectiveness of the investment in natural sciences research (mainly cost benefit analysis), which is currently epitomised in cost benefit analysis, but that is already the topic of the next post…

“The Case for Space” – ER1

matjazvidmar/ / big science, evaluation, impact, Innovation, methods, policy, Post, research, Space

To start at the beginning, as you might know my main research is in innovation form (basic) natural sciences and its commercialisation in the form of spin-outs and entrepreneurship. My specific field is Space Technologies here in the UK and in Scotland, so I look at emerging technologies ranging from satellite hardware to the use of the expertise developed in large telescopes for designing medical devices, such as Retinal Densitometer.

My research is tied in with the development of a new Space-related business incubator in Edinburgh, the Higgs Centre for Innovation. The expected growth of this sector is part of a wider UK government’s initiative to grow the UK’s share of the global Space Sector to 10% by 2030.

qjCWLWS
The design for the Higgs Centre for Innovation building (bottom right) at the Royal Observatory Edinburgh. (C) STFC

As such, a major part of my work will be the evaluation of past and present incubation programmes, to learn about their effectiveness and suggest examples of good practice. This work is done in collaboration with my research partners, the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), who are launching the said new incubator and who run frequent impact evaluation exercises to justify the investment of public funds and bid for further funding allocation.

I have worked on some impact evaluation previously, for example I have recently written a summative report about the impact of CERN (the European Organisation for Nuclear Research) on science in general and on the UK economy and society in particular, spanning the first 60 years of its operation (up to 2014), which is partially included in a chapter of the last STFC Impact Evaluation Report (2014).

However, while impact evaluation frameworks in the context of science and technology policy are well developed (see STFC example), I have come to realise that their methodology is less so and that there is little available literature to easily form a new coherent approach to this topic (Autio, 2014; Zuijdam et.al., 2011; Markman, Siegel and Wright, 2008). Crucially, most methodological discussions included in the impact evaluation exercises that I have been drawing upon, often focus solely on econometric parameters and their calculations, rather than discussing any holistic framework of evaluation or any of the qualitative or comparative methodology.

Hence, I am looking at programme evaluation elsewhere to cross-reference the methods I encountered in my past research with the well developed theories of policy evaluation in social sciences, in particular concerning social policies and to come up with a rounded impact evaluation logic. Even though my past and present impact evaluation is about research in natural sciences and its impact on the socio-economic situation in the UK, many themes emerging from social policy evaluation match directly the ones I encounter(ed) in my research.

Impact Evaluation Series – ER0

matjazvidmar/ / evaluation, impact, methods, outcomes, policy, Post, research, science, University of Edinburgh, value

Hello, finally a “proper” post after a while!

In fact, this post may not be so “proper” after all, as it is only marking a start of a short series about impact evaluation, an important part of my research in science, technology and innovation.

The plan is to have four posts (ER1-4): (1) an introduction to my research in (impact) evaluation; (2) an exploration of key themes in evaluation research; (3) an analysis of the cost benefit analysis model, dominant in the policy sphere; and (4) an outline of a new methodology -Quantified Correlated Impacts (QCI).

This is very much work in progress so, perhaps, more posts will appear later on and I would very much like to hear your comments on any of it!

Importantly, this effort is part of 2015 incarnation of  Evaluation Research Methods course, a postgraduate course in the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh.

Please, do spare a minute or two and have a look at a host of other contributions at our collective blog and follow our Twitter discussion marked with: #evalres15.