Why Research Partnerships Really Matter: Innovation Theory, Institutional Arrangements and Implications for Developing New Technology for the Poor

By A. Hall, G. Bockett, S. Taylor, M. Sivamohan, N. Clark. 2001

398 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Business and International Management, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3c69d303bf5d371d94f91bb296078de47d402a4b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Business and International Management

1. L. Klerkx
2. C. Leeuwis
3. A. Hall
4. C. Kilelu
5. John Hagedoorn
6. Ning Wang
7. J. Sumberg
8. John Thompson

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

1. L. Klerkx
2. C. Leeuwis
3. C. Kilelu
4. John Thompson
5. A. Hall
6. J. Sumberg
7. John Hagedoorn
8. Ning Wang

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. John Hagedoorn
2. Ning Wang
3. A. Hall

Citations in the corpus

• Why agronomy in the developing world has become contentious (2013, methodology): “Indeed our analysis is underpinned by a systems of innovation perspective (Hall et al., 2001) that views formal agronomic research as but one (important) part of a rich, interactive picture in which producers, service providers and others are intimately involved in knowledge generation and…”
• An analysis of power dynamics within innovation platforms for natural resource management (2014, background): “…2014 Vol. 4, No. 2, 259–275, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.921274 (AIS) concept, influenced by ideas from Lundvall (1992) on national systems of innovation and developed by Hall et al. (2001, 2006) within the agricultural research arena (Klerkx, van Mierlo, and Leeuwis 2012, 463).”
• Green Revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications of Imposed Innovation for the Wellbeing of Rural Smallholders (2016, background): “The impacts of policies seeking innovation depend upon the actual processes by which growth is pursued: the practical implementation of those policies and the multitude of pathways and interactions through which the lives of the poor are impacted (Hall et al., 2001).”
• Systemic problems affecting co-innovation in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System: Identification of blocking mechanisms and underlying institutional logics (2016, background): “Literature on AIS has noted hat institutions for example influence the inclination for joint nowledge development and sharing [8], but they also shape intelectual property rights law that provides protection for innovators 9].”
• Collective action for market chain innovation in the Andes (2009, background): “The relationship between research and economic activity is not simple and linear but complex and interactive (Hall et al., 2001; Engel and Salomon, 2003; World Bank, 2007).”
• Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: Contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme (2013, background): “…such as coalition s (Biggs, 1990 ); innovation configurations (Engel, 1995 ); innovation networks (Leeuwis and van den Ban, 2004 ); public–private partnerships (PPPs) (Hall et al., 2001; Spielman et al., 2010 ); and innovation platforms (Adekunle and Fatunbi, 2012; Nederlof et al., 2011 ).”
• Is there complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D strategies? (2012, methodology): “Thus, the application date of a granted patent is closely tied to the timing of the new knowledge creation and should be used as the relevant time placer for patents (Hall et al., 2001; Trajtenberg, 1990).”
• From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research (2003, methodology): “The application of this concept of a national system of innovation framework in the agricultural research sector is gaining ground (Hall et al., 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002a,b; Rasheed Sulaiman and Hall, 2002; Mehra, 2000; Clark, 2002; Clarke et al., 2001; Ekboir and Parellada, 2001).”
• Beyond knowledge brokering: an exploratory study on innovation intermediaries in an evolving smallholder agricultural system in Kenya (2011, background): “Further, innovation stems from collaboration and interactions among a diverse network of actors, forming innovation coalitions (Engel, 1995) or, more recently, public-partnerships (Hall et al., 2001; Hartwich and Tola, 2007).”
• Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Capacity: Are Innovation Brokers the Answer? (2009, background): “Other players such as the private sector or civil society organizations have a prominent role, not just as passive knowledge users or transmitters, but as pro-active agents who are interdependent in working towards effective socio-technical innovations in agriculture (Hall et al., 2001; Leeuwis, 200”