In the EU, it is believed that the potential benefits of academic R&D are not fully reaped. Much attention is, therefore, given to enhancing commercialisation in the form of academic spin-offs, patents and licences. There are, however, a number of problems with this way of analysing the effects of academic R&D. Its contribution must instead be captured by a systems approach and we go some way towards developing such an analytical framework. This enables us to capture, explain and assess the effects of academic R&D on the dynamics of an innovation system. We apply this framework to the received literature which informs us of a great variety of impacts on such systems. Conventional indicators cover, therefore, just a small part of the full impact of academic R&D.

In assessing the performance of academic research, there is a growing interest in combining excellence with impact criteria. A frequently encountered belief is that impact should be understood in terms of new firms and patents. Others argue that academic R&D generates impacts that greatly exceed such commercialization efforts by academic researchers. The tension between these two beliefs reveals a risk that the criteria for assessing the impact of academic R&D, including criteria for allocating performance-based funding, may neglect vital aspects of how science is made useful. With insights gained from a comprehensive analysis of a well-reputed academic body, Chalmers Energy Initiative, we address this risk with the aim of contributing to the eventual design of an evidence-based science policy with appropriate evaluation routines.

In 2014, the Swedish innovation agency Vinnova set up the program ‘Gender and Diversity for Innovation’, which has its roots in norm-critical innovation. In line with rationales for responsible innovation, a central aim of the program is to identify and challenge discriminatory norms to develop more inclusive and equal innovation processes. This article presents the findings of an in-depth analysis of 34 projects funded under the program. It explores how norm-critical innovation has been practiced and performed in various empirical settings and whether norm-critical innovation practices could be a way forward for the implementation of responsible innovation. Using a qualitative research design, we identify the most common activities and outputs in the projects and carve out the core characteristics of norm-critical innovation practice. Furthermore, the paper explores the value and limitation of norm-critical approaches for fostering responsible innovation and addressing societal challenges more broadly.

It is commonly believed that the academic sector does not generate enough value for society. This value is often measured in terms of new firms, patents and products, leading to policy responses which aim to enhance ‘commercialisation’ by academics. However, others maintain that academic research generates benefits in many ways, some of which are difficult to measure, and that policy must look beyond the academic sector to find ways of improving the impact of academic R&D. Applying a new version of the ‘technological innovation system’ framework to nanotechnology in Sweden, we find a rich pattern of impact, including substantial ‘commercialisation’. However, the effect of academic activities is constrained by factors exogenous to academia, in particular a lack of knowledge about environmental and health risks, institutional and market uncertainties, poorly coordinated policies and insufficient access to innovation-related capital. Policy-makers seeking to improve the impact of academic R&D should help to resolve these issues.