The relationship between research and innovation in the public sector – an analysis of five cases from labour and welfare services

Abstract

Many public agencies promote renewal in the public sector through projects that require a productive combination of research and innovation activities. However, the role of research in innovation processes is a neglected theme in the public sector innovation literature. We address this gap through an analysis of five cases from the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. We find few examples of innovations based directly on research, but several examples of research on innovations and on more complex co-evolutionary processes of the two activities. Research seems to be particularly important for the diffusion and scaling up of innovations. We find that research has an impact on innovation in later phases of the innovation process through the formalisation of practice-based and unsystematic knowledge, codification of experiences, and legitimation to ensure political support and funding. This new conceptualisation contributes to the public sector innovation literature and may help improve policies that set up a rather limited role for research.

Research circles as a method for implementing new services in the public health and welfare system

“…The results show that both the two service interventions were designed based on a departure in the participants’ own experiences, and did not necessarily depart from what research pointed to as the most urgent need for service improvement. Questions can be asked regarding whether the two prevailing logics for service innovation in public sector, co-creation (Osborne, 2021 ; Torfing et al, 2019 ) and research-based innovations (Gulbrandsen et al, 2021 ), are compatible or contradictory. Including multiple stakeholders, partners, and networks in service interventions makes other knowledge relevant, including the experience-based type that can deviate from or even be in tension to the research-based form (Osborne et al, 2023 ).…”

“…The demands for services to be based on research-based knowledge have become increasingly important, leading to new challenges regarding its inclusion (Gulbrandsen et al, 2021 ). The non-integration of research-based knowledge into health and welfare services has led to a research-practice gap (Gulbrandsen et al, 2021 ).…”

“…The demands for services to be based on research-based knowledge have become increasingly important, leading to new challenges regarding its inclusion (Gulbrandsen et al, 2021 ). The non-integration of research-based knowledge into health and welfare services has led to a research-practice gap (Gulbrandsen et al, 2021 ). Studies have shown that implementing research-based knowledge into health services takes many years and pointed to several difficulties in this regard (Gabbay & le May, 2023 ; Graham et al, 2006 ; Khan et al, 2021 ; Morris et al, 2011 ; Straus et al, 2013 ).…”

“…Professionals also need to change their roles from acting as providers of services to managing collaborative service provision processes (Steen et al, 2018 ). Thus, to solve present and future issues, there is a need to explore how to apply research-based knowledge through innovative designs (Gulbrandsen et al, 2021 ).…”

Hva slags data får vi av intervjuer? Hvordan gripe praksis, taus kunnskap og mer enn forskjønnende selvpresentasjoner med intervjuer

“…Gjennom oppdragsgivernes egen fremstilling av hva slags kunnskap og hvilke typer forskningsdesign som etterspørres på arbeidsinkluderingsfeltet, blir man introdusert for en grunnfortelling om at feltet har gjennomgått en transformasjon der man tidligere satset på «tro, håp og idealisme», mens man i dag satser på «tro, håp og facts» (Informant i direktoratet). Dette kommer også til syne ved at de nesten uten unntak trekker frem de store randomiserte studiene som eksempler på vellykkete studier som har blitt tatt i bruk på feltet (se også Gulbrandsen & Høiland, 2021). En årsak til dette kan vaere at arbeidsinkluderingsfeltet er et av landets største politikkområder målt i offentlige utgifter, og at forskningsbaseringen tilsynelatende reduserer risikoen for å trå feil i valg av tiltak og virkemidler.…”