Advertisement

Configurational Analysis in the Evaluation of Complex Public Programs: Application in the Area of Knowledge Transfer

  • Dariusz SzklarczykEmail author
  • Seweryn Krupnik
  • Jan Strycharz
  • Patrycja Antosz
  • Zuzanna Drożdżak
  • Karolina Łukasiewicz
  • Anna Szczucka
Chapter
Part of the FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship book series (FGFS)

Abstract

The aim of the chapter is to present the lessons learnt from the application of the configurational method to the evaluation of the “SPIN” public regional program. The objective of this complex program was to increase the intensity of knowledge transfer (KT) between universities and enterprises. After pilot implementation of the Model, there was a huge need for an evaluation study which would provide recommendations relating to the enhancement of the success of the further applications. Comparative case study methodology was applied in order to cope with the complexity of the program. As a result of the analysis, three models of implementation were distinguished.

Keywords

Case study Configurational analysis Evaluation Knowledge transfer 

References

  1. Antosz, P., Drożdżak, Z., Górniak, J., Orkisz, W., & Worek, B. (2010). Ewaluacja oparta na użyteczności—analiza w kontekście realizacji zasady good governance w wybranych programach operacyjnych. Center for Evaluation and Analysis of Public Policies, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland. Retrieved from http://www.portal.uj.edu.pl/documents/4628317/5fd8f097-8ce8-4ad7-af64-6c386fa6a51e
  2. Antosz, P., Drożdżak, Z., Krupnik, S. Z., Łukasiewicz, K., Strycharz, J., Szczucka, A., et al. (2015). Centres for knowledge transfer as an innovative knowledge transfer mechanism. Lessons learned from the program implemented in Lesser Poland. Paper presented at the International Conference on Innovation through Knowledge Transfer 2015, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  3. Antosz, P., Strycharz, J., Krupnik, S. Z., & Szklarczyk, D. (2015). How to establish and develop an knowledge transfer centre? User guide. Krakow, Poland: Center for Evaluation and Analysis of Public Policies, Jagiellonian University.Google Scholar
  4. Avdagic, S. (2010). When are concerted reforms feasible? Explaining the emergence of social pacts in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 43(5), 628–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Befani, B. (2013). Between complexity and generalization: Addressing evaluation challenges with QCA. Evaluation, 19(3), 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B.-S. (2003). Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1–2), 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving science-industry links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emmenegger, P., Kvist, J., & Skaaning, S.-E. (2013). Making the most of configurational comparative analysis: An assessment of the QCA applications in comparative welfare state research. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 185–190.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2015). Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards/files/ius-2015_en.pdf
  11. Gilbert, M., & Cordey-Hayes, M. (1996). Understanding the process of knowledge transfer to achieve successful technological innovation. Technovation, 16(6), 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2012). Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities. Research Policy, 41(2), 262–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jassimudin, S. M. (2007). Exploring knowledge transfer mechanisms: The case of a UK-based group within a high-tech global corporation. International Journal of Information Management, 27(4), 294–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, Y. S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25(6), 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Legewie, N. (2013). An introduction to applied data analysis with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14(3). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1961
  16. Leydesdorff, L. (2013). N-Tuple of helices. In E. G. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship (pp. 1400–1402). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a triple helix of university—industry—government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23(5), 279–286.Google Scholar
  18. Marx, A., & Dusa, A. (2011). Crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA), contradictions and consistency benchmarks for model specification. Methodological Innovations Online, 6(2), 103–148.Google Scholar
  19. Mookherji, S., & LaFond, A. (2013). Strategies to maximize generalization from multiple case studies: Lessons from the Africa Routine Immunization System Essentials (ARISE) project. Evaluation, 19(3), 284–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Owen, D. H., & Wahl, Z. (2010). Defining four pillars for successful applied knowledge transfer. In R. J. Howlett (Ed.), Innovation through knowledge transfer (pp. 83–93). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Rihoux, B., & Lobe, B. (2009). The case for qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Adding leverage for thick cross-case comparison. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of case-based methods (pp. 222–243). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfeld, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Vellema, R. S., Ton, G., de Roo, N., & van Wijk, J. (2013). Value chains, partnerships and development: Using case studies to refine programme theories. Evaluation, 19(3), 304–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yin, R. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3), 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Zhang, J., Baden-Fuller, C., & Mangematin, V. (2007). Technological knowledge base, R&D organization structure and alliance formation: Evidence from the biopharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 36(4), 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dariusz Szklarczyk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Seweryn Krupnik
    • 1
  • Jan Strycharz
    • 1
  • Patrycja Antosz
    • 1
  • Zuzanna Drożdżak
    • 1
  • Karolina Łukasiewicz
    • 1
  • Anna Szczucka
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Evaluation and Analysis of Public PoliciesJagiellonian UniversityKrakowPoland

Personalised recommendations