Abstract
This chapter constitutes the report of the Innovation Evaluation Framework. It includes a reflection on the indicators of innovations and management performance used in the CEVIS project in terms of their conceptual definitions, operational definitions, and proxies indicators. These reflections are based on how these operational definitions actually were measured when making the comparisons to test hypotheses. The substantive content of the IEF is then summarized though a discussion of the CEVIS project’s main conclusions. Finally, the chapter includes a discussion on the contribution of the project and its learning achievements.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A discussion of cross-, multi- and trans-disciplinary scientific cooperation is found in the introductory chapter. In our usage of the terms, multi-disciplinary means that scientists work on a common problem while remaining within their own discipline’s methods and ways of framing questions. Cross-disciplinary means that scientists from more than one discipline work together on the problem, but still remain within one of the discipline’s methods and frames. Trans-disciplinary means that common concepts and methods are developed that reflect the theories and methods of more than one discipline.
- 2.
An argument defending the importance of economic efficiency can be found on the early pages of Chapter Eleven.
- 3.
Please see http://flr-project.org/doku.php and http://www.efimas.org/
References
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
Wilson, D. C., & Pascoe, S. (2006). Delivering complex scientific advice to multiple stakeholders. In L. Motos & D. C. Wilson (Eds.), The knowledge base for fisheries management: Vol. 36. Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science Series (pp. 329–353). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wilson, D.C., Hauge, K.H., Aranda, M. (2009). Conclusion: The Innovation Evaluation Framework. In: Hauge, K., Wilson, D. (eds) Comparative Evaluations of Innovative Fisheries Management. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2663-7_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2663-7_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2662-0
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2663-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)