Search

In recent years, ecological metaphors have been widely used in the field of innovation. Such excessive preoccupation of researchers with common ecological metaphors such as ecosystems and lack of due attention to the development of other ecological axioms challenges its systematic conceptual web. This renders such metaphor “boundary object” which would hinder linking theoretical discussions on innovation ecosystem to practical usages and policy making. Therefore, there is a need for an evidence-based approach to define and map the innovation ecosystem in a metaphorical way that the deployed concepts would constitute a part of the conceptual network of innovation ecosystem. As an endeavor to EBP in the field of innovation ecosystem, this study draws on Scaringella’s and Radziwon’s (2019) systematic review framework and the comparative-qualitative content analysis method based on the structured matrix which grounded in metaphor mapping. Upon analyzing the content of the selected articles, the ecological metaphors grounded in innovation ecosystems can be classified into two general categories: metaphors concerned with actor (species, population, and community) and metaphors concerned with environment (landscape, biome, and ecotone). As a tool, the developed framework enables innovation policymakers to make decisions based on an effectual understanding of seven hierarchical metaphorical layers of innovation ecosystems. Consequently, policymakers should not restrict their governance to the recommendations provided by the literature on ecosystems that is popular at the present time; rather, with the same energy, they should consider the multiple dimensions of innovation ecosystems in terms of actors, environment, and the relationships between them based on an ecological perspective. Methodology: As an endeavor to EBP in the field of innovation ecosystem, this study draws on Scaringella’s and Radziwon’s (2019) systematic review framework and the comparative-qualitative content analysis method based on the structured matrix which grounded in metaphor mapping.Findings: Overall, we have contributed to the innovation ecosystem literature by identifying the seven hierarchical layers of ecological metaphor integrated in a conceptual framework that tend to be a metaphorical redefinition and mapping of innovation ecosystem : landscape, biome, ecotone , species, population, community and ecosystemConclusion: As a tool, developed framework enables innovation policymakers to make decisions based on an effectual understanding of the multiple dimensions of innovation ecosystems. Also our results suggest that in the definition and developing of the innovation ecosystem, the conceptual network of this metaphor (especially the seven hierarchical layers) should be considered in order to achieve a more accurate understanding of the dynamics of ecosystem through the lens of ecology. Consequently, policymakers should not restrict their governance to the recommendations provided by the literature on ecosystems that is popular at the present time; rather, with the same energy, they should consider the multiple dimensions of innovation ecosystems in terms of actors, environment, and the relationships between them based on an ecological perspective.

The independence of evaluations has gained increasing attention in research. So far, research has mainly focused on evaluators’ experiences when confronted with pressure, leading to a restricted view of the complex context in which evaluations take place. Therefore, this article broadens the debate and follows the call by previous studies to pay attention to evaluation clients, which have been identified as the main influencing stakeholders within evaluation processes. The findings of an online survey among Swiss evaluation clients show that most clients have never been told by evaluators that they put the latter under pressure, even though previous studies found that half of the evaluators feel pressured. Nonetheless, clients frequently experience conflicts during evaluations that are often caused by a lack of a common understanding between evaluators and clients. Thus, we conclude that preventive measures are needed to increase the parties’ mutual comprehension, and ultimately, the quality of evaluation results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]