Environmental complexity and stakeholder theory in formal research network evaluations

Abstract

Governments in OECD countries are turning more and more towards creating networked entities as a means of organising cross-sector and multidisciplinary research. Yet, there is little discussion of how such networks operate and how they differ in evaluation terms from other research entities (individuals and organisations). This particularly relates to the policy objectives of networks. In this paper, we use the literature on evaluation, impact and value as a lens through which to focus on the nature and benefits of formal research networks. This paper seeks to refine our concepts of research networks and, in defining the concept of formal research networks, to map the policy issues in evaluating networks. We argue that, to do this, it is important that two extant literatures (stakeholder theory and organisational environments) be introduced into the analysis of network operations. We focus particularly on the significance of environmental complexity for network evaluation.

How can we establish more successful knowledge networks in developing countries? Lessons learnt from knowledge networks in Iran

“…The main objective of network analysis is to find out the answer to a simple question: Has an actual network been formed? [ 26 ]. All network analysis methods focus on a knowledge network’s management and formation.…”

Canada's Neglected Tropical Disease Research Network: Who's in the Core—Who's on the Periphery?

“…While collaborative research networks have many attributes and characteristics, they can loosely be defined as formal or informal networks of individuals and organizations that are working together and share similar mandates, goals or activities [1] , [2] . Formal research networks are typically established to meet specific organizational or policy goals (e.g., building research capacity; encouraging connections between researchers and users; building multi-disciplinary research agendas) within specific fields.…”

“…On the contrary, informal research networks are often characterized as dynamic and responsive collectives of researchers that tend to evolve on the periphery of formality and structure; often a result of researchers who partner with other researchers based on common and complimentary interests, expertise, and access to resources in a specific field [1] , [5] . Literature related to informal NTD research networks has largely been published in the form of bibliometric co-authorship mapping studies and is increasingly emerging to inform critical dialogue and commentary about the role of publicly funded researchers and institutions in ensuring under-resourced regions have more equitable access to NTD innovations and delivery solutions [6] , [7] .…”

New Science Institutions for Global Sustainability

“…According to Hessels (2013), large-scale research programmes can be understood as "intermediary organisations with a coordinating mission" (Hessels, 2013, p. 317). They are formally established and mandated organisations that aim to establish or strengthen relationships among researchers and research systems in order to enhance their common effectiveness (Hessels, 2013;Jappe, 2009;Withycombe Keeler et al, 2015;Wixted & Holbrook, 2012). The term 'intermediary' refers to the position of these organisations mediating between the daily practices of researchers and the (inter)national research environments in which these practices take place (Hessels, 2013).…”

“…Coordinating research programmes have multiple strategies at their disposal, including setting a common research agenda, sharing resources, mobilising capacity, facilitating knowledge transfer and shaping funding priorities (Cummings & Kiesler, 2007;Wixted & Holbrook, 2012). Doing so, they may enhance interdisciplinary collaboration, shape global research agendas and practices, contribute to the development of research domains and share research insight and solutions across different contexts (Hessels, 2013;Jappe, 2009;Withycombe Keeler et al, 2015;Wixted & Holbrook, 2012).…”