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.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the valuable comments of two anonymous reviewers. The paper has also benefited from the contributions of the editor, Stuart Macdonald, and Tim Kastelle. We recognise the contribution made by a large number of people who have heard and responded to various seminars and special workshops in Canada and Australia. The early thinking for this paper stems from our analysis of results from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research funded Health of Population Networks (HoPNs) workshop Navigating Network Evaluation. The workshop was coordinated by Dr. Gloria Gutman (BC Network for Aging Research) and Dr. Bonita Sawatzky (Disabilities Health Research Network).

Notes

1. The literature often focuses on social and business networks: our focus is on networks for the creation and diffusion of knowledge.

2. Although the Australian entities are called ‘centres’ they have many similar features to the NCEs of Canada as they are collaborative, multiorganisational, multidisciplinary and a distributed multisite structure.

3. Read, for example, the approach to the evaluation of four proposed NCEs available from http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/_docs/reports/selec-renewal-oct07_e.pdf. The document does not even refer to the fourth NCE (the Canadian language and literacy research network), the only social science NCE being considered. It was not recommended for renewed funding.

4. The term ‘economics’ is used here advisedly as a catch-all for analysis that attempts to capture the inputs and outputs in a broad productivity-based framework. Much of the work has indeed been on the benefits to the economy (Nelson, 1959) or to specific firms arising from this public research (see RCUK, 2008). This framework can be pushed too far and become worthless (see Corbyn, 2008).