🔸
KEM's for mission-driven innovation
Download pdf in DutchNederlandse versie
  • Key Enabling Methodologies (KEMs) for mission-driven innovation
  • Tabel of contents
  • Introduction to the agenda
    • 1. Introduction
      • 1.1 Background: Mission-driven Innovation Policy
      • 1.2 Key Enabling Methodologies or KEMs
      • 1.3 Categories of KEMs
      • 1.4 Conditions and the use of KEMs
      • 1.5 This agenda
  • Categories
  • 2 Vision and imagination
    • 2.2 State of the art
    • 2.3 Challenges and research questions
    • 2.4 References
  • 3. Participation and co-creation
    • 3.2 State of the art
    • 3.3 Challenges and research questions
    • 3.4 References
  • 4. Behaviour and empowerment
    • 4.2 State of the art: perspectives on behavioural change
    • 4.3 Challenges and research questions
    • 4.4 References
  • 5. Experimental Environments
    • 5.2 State of the art: from modeling to experimentation
    • 5.3 Challenges and research questions
    • 5.4 References
  • 6. Value Creation and upscaling
    • 6.2 State of the art
    • 6.3 Challenges and research questions
    • 6.4 References
  • 7. Institutional change
    • 7.2 State of the art
    • 7.3 Challenges and research questions
    • 7.4 References
  • 8. System change
    • 8.2 State of the art
    • 8.3 Challenges and research questions
    • 8.4 References
  • 9. Monitoring and effect measurement
    • 9.2 State of the art
    • 9.3 Challenges and research questions
    • 9.4 References
  • Methods in the Mission-Driven Innovation Policy
    • 10. Methods in the Mission-Driven Innovation Policy
      • 10.1 Programming and KEM research
      • 10.2 Methodological challenges in the missions
      • 10.3 Cohesive application
  • Notes
    • About the development of this agenda
    • Colophon
Powered by GitBook
On this page
Export as PDF
  1. 7. Institutional change

7.4 References

Alexander, E. R. (2005). Institutional transformation and planning: from institutionalization theory to institutional design. Planning theory, 4(3), 209-223.

Collier, D. (2011). Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(4), 823-830.

De Bruijn, J. A., ten Heuvelhof, E. F., & in 't Veld, R. J. (2010). Process management: why project management fails in complex decision making processes. Berlin: Springer.

Gupta, J., Termeer, K., Klostermann, J., Meijerink, S., van den Brink, M., Jong, P., & Nooteboom, S. (2010). Institutions for climate change: A method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13, 459-471.

Johansson, R. (2009). Vision Zero - Implementing a policy for traffic safety. Safety Science, 47(6), 826–831.

Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In: J. Mahoney, & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (1, 1-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meijerink, S., & Stiller, S. (2013) What kind of leadership do we need for climate adaptation? A framework for analyzing leadership functions and tasks in climate change adaptation. Environment and Planning C, 31(2), 240-256.

Ministerie van Economische Zaken. (2016). Werken aan toekomstbestendige wetgeving en een toekomstbestendig wetgevingsproces, 6 juli, DGBI-R&I / 16098216.

Morgan, G., Campbell, J., Crouch, C., Pedersen, O. K., & Whitley, R. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Institutional Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419-422.

Pelzer, P., Frenken, K., & Boon, W. P .C. (2019). Institutional entrepreneurship in the platform economy - How Uber tried (and failed) to change the Dutch taxi law. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 33, 1-12.

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2015). The institutional logics perspective. Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: an interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource, 1-22.

van Bueren, E., & Klievink, B. (2017). Institutionele leegte: nieuwe bronnen, nieuwe uitdagingen. Bestuurskunde, 26(3).

Van Est, R., & Brom, F.W.A. (2012). Technology assessment: Analytic and democratic practice. In: Chadwick, R. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (2nd ed., 4, pp. 306-320). San Diego: Academic Press.

Waardenburg, M., Groenleer, M., de Jong, J., & Keijser, B. (2020). Paradoxes of collaborative governance: investigating the real-life dynamics of multi-agency collaborations using a quasi-experimental action-research approach. Public Management Review, 22(3), 386-407.

Previous7.3 Challenges and research questionsNext8. System change

Last updated 4 years ago