Magnus Gulbrandsen

• Edler, Jakob; Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Molas-Gallart, Jordi & Tellmann, Silje Maria (2026). Introduction: the role of science for policy—new requirements, new challenges. Science and Public Policy. ISSN 0302-3427. 53(3), s. 432–435. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scag031. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  This Special Section of Science and Public Policy brings fresh perspectives on the impact of science on policy. This has long been a subject of scholarly interest, which has generated a substantial body of literature analysing the processes and conditions under which scientific knowledge can exert different types of influence on policymaking processes. Issues addressed include the barriers to the uptake of scientific evidence and the types of institutional arrangements that facilitate interactions between researchers and the non-academic beneficiaries of their work in general. There is also a broad literature on the interaction of science with policy makers more specifically as part of broader studies of science-society relations, public policy, and social studies of science.

• Tellmann, Silje Maria; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Høiland, Gry Cecilie Lunder (2026). Finding the right research: articulating and implementing demands for research-based policy advice. Science and Public Policy. ISSN 0302-3427. 53(3), s. 478–488. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scag035. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  This study examines the dynamics of research-based policy advice in two Norwegian policy fields: work inclusion and minority integration. By adopting the perspective of policymakers, we show that seeking research-based advice entails navigating a complex advisory subsystem that includes universities, research institutes, consultancies, and internal research and development (R&D) units. We find that policymakers typically prioritize the relevance and quality of advice over the location or academic credentials of advisory actors. This has led to an increasing reliance on contract research, which provides greater control over outputs but may obscure important differences among providers. Furthermore, we emphasize that the search for relevant research is an active, collaborative process requiring significant capacity from policymakers. We conclude that analyses of research-based policy advice should extend beyond academia and advocate for more structured dialogues between advisory actors and policymakers to foster a shared understanding of research needs to enhance the legitimacy of the overall process.

• Thune, Taran Mari; Reymert, Ingvild; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Tellmann, Silje Maria (2026). Research use in policy organizations: a qualitative comparative analysis of Norwegian ministries. Science and Public Policy. ISSN 0302-3427. 53(3), s. 418–431. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scag030. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Why do some ministries use research more intensively than others and what organizational capacities are associated with frequent use of science in policymaking? We explore this question through a qualitative comparative analysis of 14 Norwegian ministries. Using a mixed-methods data set, our analysis draws on a large-scale survey of government employees, budget and strategy documents, and interviews with policymakers. Our findings show that analytical capacity in policy organizations influence research use, and in particular a dimension of capacity we call organizational commitment. We identify three distinct combinations of capacities associated with high degree of research use in policy, and we discuss possible explanations for the variation between ministries. Our results underscore the need for future scientific work, as well as policies to improve research-policy interaction, and that these need to pay stronger attention to demand side conditions.

• Rake, Bastian; Gulbrandsen, Magnus; McKelvey, Maureen & Miller, Fiona A. (2025). Rethinking medical innovation: organizing R&D, responding to crisis, delivering health services. Innovation: Organization and Management. ISSN 1447-9338. 27(1), s. 1–20. doi: 10.1080/14479338.2024.2446894. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of different types of medical innovations. It also increased attention to the policies and practices that drive medical innovation, and which enable rapid development of some essential products while permitting high and rising prices, and persistent unmet needs. Responses to the pandemic thus also triggered a more scientific question: Do we need to rethink more fundamentally how we should understand and investigate medical innovation? This question forms the starting point for the current special issue. This editorial article first reviews three key characteristics of medical innovation: 1) the complex relationship medical innovation has to both demand and need; 2) the critical importance of various forms of scientific knowledge and collaboration; and 3) the centrality of governments and regulations. We next review each individual contribution and highlight how each article touches upon at least two of these key characteristics and prompts reflection on how medical innovation may be rethought. In the final section, the editorial article highlights the unanswered questions that warrant further research from organisation, management, policy, and innovation perspectives. There is still much we need to know about how actors involved in developing and implementing medical innovation can and should respond to crises in general, including what innovation policies and regulations are needed to strengthen innovation capacity, as well as the deep and complex links between medical innovation and the delivery of care.

• Oxley, Kristin Synnøve & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2024). Variability and negligence: grant peer review panels evaluating impact ex ante. Science and Public Policy. ISSN 0302-3427. 52(2), s. 254–268. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scae081. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Building on extensive observations of grant review panels and interviews with panellists in five funding organizations, we explore how such panels assess societal impact. We find that impact assessments are accorded little weight and are prone to substantial reviewer variability unless competitions feature dedicated societal impact criteria with clearly assigned weight, which are scored collectively based on highly structured discussions. These findings cast new light on the general phenomenon of variability in grant assessments. While earlier literature has tended to see inter-rater variability as a flaw in the review process that should be rectified, an unavoidable part of the process, or a desirable feature, we advocate a more nuanced understanding. Introducing the concepts of productive and unproductive variability, we show the dual nature of variability and provide concrete policy recommendations for how unproductive variability, caused by differing interpretations or gaming of the organizational framework, can be reduced.

• Scordato, Lisa Adina & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2024). Resilience perspectives in sustainability transitions research: A systematic literature review. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. ISSN 2210-4224. 52. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2024.100887. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Resilience is traditionally seen as the capability to bounce back to normal from undesired change, while sustainability transitions research seeks to understand how a radical change can be promoted. This may be seen as a puzzle, not least considering the increasingly frequent combination of both sets of concepts in policy and scholarly approaches. In this article we systematically review scientific publications that combine these concepts. The findings highlight that resilience is an emerging analytical lens, owing especially to perspectives developed within socio-ecological resilience thinking. This internalizes “nature” more explicitly into conceptual and empirical work, not least regarding energy systems. Future research may be related to issues like stability and change and capabilities for various forms of change, but also needs to pay attention to trade-offs emerging from assumptions about normative resilience, and undesirable resilience which may exist or emerge in different phases and places in transitions.

• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Tellmann, Silje Maria (2024). Productive interactions without impact? An empirical investigation of researchers’ struggle to improve the elderly’s oral health. Evidence & Policy. ISSN 1744-2648. 20, s. 36–50. doi: 10.1332/17442648Y2023D000000017. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Background: Achieving impact of research is often seen as requiring productive interaction between researchers and stakeholders. Still, interactions are sometimes not ‘productive’ and lead to no visible impacts. Aims and objectives: This article studies repeated attempts by researchers to involve different stakeholders to facilitate pathways to societal impact. We look in particular at possible explanations for the lack of impacts. Methods: This is a longitudinal case study of an interdisciplinary group of researchers where we acted as participant observers over a period of close to six years. The studied researchers have in various ways targeted the societal challenge of oral healthcare for the elderly. Findings: We see the societal challenge as a ‘problem area’ where researchers are one of many stakeholder groups, and where the different stakeholders vary in salience, legitimacy and power. A lack of funding for the research led to continuous efforts to involve new stakeholders, envision new forms of impact, and establish a sense of urgency of the societal challenge. Discussion and conclusion: The case highlights different gaps in the problem area that are organisational, social, and institutional. We also find that there are gaps in how the fundamental societal issue is described and prioritised, and in how responsibilities for finding solutions are distributed. This seems to lead researchers away from extensive interaction and towards more traditional forms of impact through randomised controlled trials and technology push initiatives.

• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Simensen, Erlend Osland (2024). Industrial innovation processes and societal challenges: How Telenor's mobile phone data became a tool for fighting pandemics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. ISSN 0040-1625. 201. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123277. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Processes of innovation and scientific breakthroughs are not linear, and their outcomes are notoriously difficult to predefine. This paper contributes with an inductive longitudinal case study of how industrial R&D and innovation activities in a multinational telecom firm contributed to tracking the spread of Covid-19, a societal challenge unrelated to the starting point of the firm's relevant R&D. After twenty years, insights and methods from network analysis using call detail records of mobile phone users eventually ending up in the pandemic response toolbox. We find that the process was dependent upon prolonged activities of key individuals in the firm, serendipitous meetings between people with common interests, and space and support in the organisation for activities with an uncertain effect for the company. The shift from commercial to public health goals was a process of exaptation, and later scaling up was tied to the emergence and perception of Covid-19 as a major societal challenge, which also helped deal with complex issues like privacy to generalise the use of mobile phone data for handling pandemics. This played out over three distinct phases of experimentation, exaptation and scaling up.

• Saidi, Trust & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2023). Emergency circumstances call for extraordinary measures: a study of research council COVID-19 emergency call projects. Innovation: Organization and Management. ISSN 1447-9338. doi: 10.1080/14479338.2023.2187813. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Medical research and innovation to meet urgent demands in society is crucial, but the process contains many challenges. Moreso, impacts from medical research and innovation can take many years to materialise, not least because these activities are infused with various types of complexities due to heterogeneous networks, systems, and contexts. Although acceleration is currently a trending topic, little is known about the temporal complexities embedded in research and innovation processes. This paper analyses the time dimension of medical research and innovation through an empirical investigation of 30 research projects that were set up to respond quickly to the COVID-19 situation from June 2020 to July 2022. Funders and scientists were able to find ways to speed up many tasks, but many of the projects also saw delays and deceleration. An important explanation is that temporality is tied to a myriad of contextual characteristics that limit the opportunities of project leaders for coordinating and accelerating activities and outcomes. Attempts at acceleration seem to work best when substantial ongoing research activities can be shaped incrementally into new directions. Nevertheless, the results of the projects may be of limited value to the pandemic which served as their rationale, but they can serve as a foundation for better policies and practices that invoke the need for rethinking medical innovation in the future.

• Thune, Taran Mari; Reymert, Ingvild; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Simensen, Erlend Osland (2023). Populating the science-policy co-production space: academic and policymaker perspectives on knowledge exchange. Studies in Higher Education. ISSN 0307-5079. 48(5), s. 733–746. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2023.2187772. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  In this paper, we seek to provide a fresh perspective on knowledge exchange by addressing both academics’ and policymakers’ experiences with such exchange. Through two large Norwegian surveys of academics and policymakers, we look at the characteristics of the academics that are engaged in various forms of knowledge exchange with policymakers – and vice versa – as well as the channels and mechanisms of knowledge exchange seen from both sides. Through comparing the patterns that emerge in the two studies, we discuss how this exchange arena, which we conceptualise as a ‘co-production space’ involves a small number of individuals with similar experiences and practices that set them apart from their peers.

• Tellmann, Silje Maria & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2022). The other side of the boundary: Productive interactions seen from the policy side. Science and Public Policy. ISSN 0302-3427. 49(4), s. 621–631. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scac013. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  The literatures on productive interactions and related frameworks depict impact processes as collaborative efforts to permeate various boundaries between research and societal stakeholders. However, the impact literature is biased towards looking at these processes from the researcher side. This paper analyses policymakers’ interactions with researchers and the different forms of boundary work that ensue, which contributes to improved understanding of the stakeholder side of interactions. Our point of the departure is the interactions related to Research and development (R&D) units and their networks in the central administration in Norway. Using in-depth interviews with twenty-two civil servants in the field of welfare policy, we show how the combination of competitive and collaborative modes of boundary work makes interactions productive. Because research is a strategic asset in the policy domain, control over knowledge production and autonomy to decide when to follow the evidence (or not) is a central feature of knowledge work in policy organisations.

• Wenaas, Lars & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2022). The green, gold grass of home: Introducing open access in universities in Norway. PLOS ONE. 17(8). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273091. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Grimsby, Gard Sveinung & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2022). European novel food, patents and brokers of knowledge. British Food Journal. ISSN 0007-070X. 124(6), s. 1959–1974. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-01-2021-0078. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  The purpose of this paper was to study how public regulation promotes or hinders openness in the food industry, specifically how European novel food regulation has affected external ties among novel food pioneers seen through patents and their inventors. Design/methodology/approach A multiphase mixed-methods design was used to combine data as follows: Worldwide patents originating from Norwegian novel food pioneers 2004–2019, downloaded through the European Patent Office database. Application data and interviews were analysed together with substantial information on 88 patents. Findings Firms use patenting and novel food applications as part of a wider intellectual property rights strategy to guard against unintended spillovers and to shape external collaboration. Examinations of patents indicate a pattern of selective partnership with research and development (R&D) providers. Practical implications Food industry actors can combine property rights strategies to maintain a pattern of openness and external collaboration. R&D providers should consider the food industry's flag-planting strategies by integrating these into contractual regulations. Originality/value Little is known earlier about how novel food pioneers collaborate with suppliers, research actors, governmental actors, distributors and customers regarding new product development.

• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Gonzalez, Jakoba Sraml (2021). Innovation in established industries undergoing digital transformation: the role of collective identity and public values. Innovation: Organization and Management. ISSN 1447-9338. doi: 10.1080/14479338.2021.1938578. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  This paper discusses how established industries adapt to digital transformation. While digitalisation is perceived as an impetus for change, either due to the opportunities or threats it brings about, not all industries are able to change unlimitedly. We seek to understand digital transformation concerning products and services perceived to have a wider public value. Our empirical case is the newspaper industry in Norway, which has a strong collective identity tied to the societal function of independent journalism. We find that an industry with a resilient identity leaning towards preservation can learn how to use the digital space to adapt and innovate effectively. The adaptation and innovation processes are shaped by the interplay between the collective identity and the nature of digital work and innovation. The outcome is a continued emphasis on retaining the core mission but with an increasingly pragmatic approach to how and in what form it is safeguarded. Continuous collaborative experimentation and deliberation on the fit between innovations and the collective identity is a key change mechanism. Our study contributes to a better understanding of collective identities and their interplay with innovation.

• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Høiland, Gry Cecilie Lunder (2021). The relationship between research and innovation in the public sector – an analysis of five cases from labour and welfare services. Nordic Journal of Social Research. 12(2), s. 46–69. doi: 10.7577/njsr.3687. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Many public agencies promote renewal in the public sector through projects that require a productive combination of research and innovation activities. However, the role of research in innovation processes is a neglected theme in the public sector innovation literature. We address this gap through an analysis of five cases from the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. We find few examples of innovations based directly on research, but several examples of research on innovations and on more complex co-evolutionary processes of the two activities. Research seems to be particularly important for the diffusion and scaling up of innovations. We find that research has an impact on innovation in later phases of the innovation process through the formalisation of practice-based and unsystematic knowledge, codification of experiences, and legitimation to ensure political support and funding. This new conceptualisation contributes to the public sector innovation literature and may help improve policies that set up a rather limited role for research.

• Andersen, Allan Dahl & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2020). The innovation and industry dynamics of technology phase-out in sustainability transitions: Insights from diversifying petroleum technology suppliers in Norway. Energy Research & Social Science. ISSN 2214-6296. 64, s. 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101447. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Rasmussen, Einar; Benneworth, Paul & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2020). Motivating universities to support spin-off firms: Stakeholders and start-up incubation ecosystems. I Novotny, Adam; Rasmussen, Einar; Clausen, Tommy Høyvarde & Wiklund, Johan (Red.), Research handbook on start-up incubation ecosystems. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISSN 9781788973526. s. 418–434. doi: 10.4337/9781788973533.00032. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Thune, Taran Mari (2020). Hybridity and research organisations. I Billis, David & Rochester, Colin (Red.), Handbook on Hybrid Organisations. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISSN 9781785366109. s. 116–134. doi: 10.4337/9781785366116.00015. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Enger, Simen G. & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2020). Orchestrating collaborative projects: Inside ICT networks in Horizon 2020. Science and Public Policy. ISSN 0302-3427. 47(3), s. 396–409. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scaa021. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  This article investigates decisions taken at the project level in establishing and managing collaborative ICT projects under the European Framework Programme Horizon 2020. Based on interviews with project coordinators from European research organizations, we offer a detailed examination of how projects are built and managed, and how decisions influence the formation of collaborative networks. Projects are typically set up in three stages. In the first, a smaller group that has worked together before decides on the main idea. This leads in the second stage to a gradual invitation of partners to satisfy professional and formal demands, which also defines the structure of the project. If funded, more detailed decisions on ownership and interaction are taken in the third stage. Coordinators are under pressure from the regulatory control of the EU Commission, which can explain the strong preference for well-known partners, but the formal monitoring also provides tools for project managers.

• Borlaug, Siri Brorstad & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2018). Researcher identities and practices inside centres of excellence. Triple Helix: A Journal of University-Industry-Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship. ISSN 2590-0366. 5(1). doi: 10.1186/s40604-018-0059-3. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Many science support mechanisms aim to combine excellent research with explicit expectations of societal impact. Temporary research centres such as ‘Centres of Excellence’ and ‘Centre of Excellence in Research and Innovation’ have become widespread. These centres are expected to produce research that creates future economic benefits and contributes to solving society’s challenges, but little is known about the researchers that inhabit such centres. In this paper, we ask how and to what extent centres affect individual researchers’ identity and scientific practice. Based on interviews with 33 researchers affiliated with 8 centres in Sweden and Norway, and on institutional logics as the analytical framework, we find 4 broad types of identities with corresponding practices. The extent to which individuals experience tensions depend upon the compatibility and centrality of the two institutional logics of excellence and innovation within the centre context. Engagement in innovation seems unproblematic and common in research-oriented centres where the centrality of the innovation logic is low, while individuals in centres devoted to both science and innovation in emerging fields of research or with weak social ties to their partners more frequently expressed tension and dissatisfaction.

• Castellacci, Fulvio; Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Hildrum, Jarle; Martinkenaite, Ieva & Simensen, Erlend Osland (2018). Functional centrality and innovation intensity: Employee-level analysis of the Telenor group. Research Policy. ISSN 0048-7333. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.004. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Recent research on employee-level innovation focuses on scientists’ ability to source advanced knowledge and use it to create new ideas and innovation within a firm. The present paper introduces a new dimension to this literature: functional departments. We argue that functional centrality, namely the extent to which a functional department is central in the intra-organizational network, affects employees’ innovation intensity. We make use of a rich novel dataset at the employee-level for the Telenor Group, based on a large-scale survey among nearly 16,000 employees in all business units and functions of the company. The empirical results point out that employees’ innovation intensity is higher in departments that are centrally positioned in the company’s internal network. Task characteristics such as quality orientation, entrepreneurial attitude and result pressure moderate the relationship between centrality and innovation.

• Thune, Taran Mari & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2017). Combining knowledge to generate novelty: a study of disclosed ideas for life science inventions. European Journal of Innovation Management. ISSN 1460-1060. 20(3), s. 446–462. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-11-2016-0114. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Purpose: This paper investigates how a combination of diverse sources of knowledge is important for the generation of new ideas, and it addresses how institutional infrastructures and practices support integration of knowledge across organizations in medicine and life sciences. Design: The paper investigates new product ideas that emerge from hospital and university employees and looks at the extent of interaction between clinical and scientific environments in the idea generation process. The paper utilizes a database of all new product ideas within life science that were filed in South-Eastern Norway in 2009 to 2011, including information about the individuals and teams that had been involved in disclosing these ideas. Interviews with inventors have also been carried out. Findings: Interaction and integration across scientific and clinical domains are common and important for generating new product ideas. More than half of the disclosed life science ideas in the database come from groups representing multiple institutions with both scientific and clinical units or from individuals with multiple institutional affiliations. The interviews indicate that the infrastructure for cross-domain interaction is well-developed, particularly for research activities, which has a positive effect on invention.

• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Thune, Taran Mari (2017). The effects of non-academic work experience on external interaction and research performance. Journal of Technology Transfer. ISSN 0892-9912. 42(4), s. 795–813. doi: 10.1007/s10961-017-9556-1. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  We ask whether academic employees with non-academic work experience differ from their colleagues with respect to interaction with external stakeholders and research performance. We use a science and technical human capital perspective and address the question through an analysis of 4400 survey responses from academic employees in Norwegian universities and colleges. Non-academic work experience is common in all academic fields; it characterises more than half of the tenured academic staff members in Norway. Our analysis indicates that, in general, external interaction is positively influenced by non-academic work experience, in line with prior research. Contrary to expectations, we find few signs of a trade-off or a “punishment” effect of non-academic work experience on scientific productivity. Non-academic work experience is neither significantly related to publication productivity nor share of publications in highly ranked journals, but there are important differences based on the type of previous work experience. The final version of this research has been published in Journal of Technology Transfer. © 2017 Springer Verlag

• Thune, Taran Mari; Reymert, Ingvild; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Aamodt, Per O (2016). Universities and external engagement activities: Particular profiles for particular universities? Science and Public Policy. ISSN 0302-3427. 43(6), s. 774–786. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scw019. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  We use a multilevel regression approach on a complex combined dataset including a survey of 4,400 Norwegian academics and detailed data on the 31 higher education institutions in which they are employed. The aim is to test whether university-level characteristics matter for participation in different kinds of external engagement, when we also control for the influence of individual- and discipline-level factors. We find that university-level variables explain few of the differences in external engagement among academic staff in general.

• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Aanstad, Siri (2015). Is innovation a useful concept for arts and humanities research? Arts and Humanities in Higher Education. ISSN 1474-0222. 14(1), s. 9–24. doi: 10.1177/1474022214533890. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Aamodt, Per O & Thune, Taran Mari (2015). Ja takk, begge deler? Grunnforskning og anvendt forskning i universiteter og høgskoler. I Frølich, Nicoline (Red.), Hva skjer i universiteter og høgskoler? Perspektiver fra vitenskapelig ansatte og studenter. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788215024349. s. 108–118. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Borlaug, Siri Brorstad; Thune, Taran Mari & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2015). Samspill mellom utdanning, forskning og innovasjon - kunnskapstriangelet i politikk og praksis. I Frølich, Nicoline (Red.), Hva skjer i universiteter og høgskoler? Perspektiver fra vitenskapelig ansatte og studenter. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788215024349. s. 136–148. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Thune, Taran Mari; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Aamodt, Per O (2015). Nettverk sett nedenfra. Samarbeid og kunnskapsoverføring blant vitenskapelig ansatte. I Frølich, Nicoline (Red.), Hva skjer i universiteter og høgskoler? Perspektiver fra vitenskapelig ansatte og studenter. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788215024349. s. 150–161. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Frølich, Nicoline; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Stensaker, Bjørn (2015). Hva har skjedd i universiteter og høgskoler? I Frølich, Nicoline (Red.), Hva skjer i universiteter og høgskoler? Perspektiver fra vitenskapelig ansatte og studenter. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788215024349. s. 163–170. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Solesvik, Marina (2015). Comparing University-Industry Linkages in Two Industrial Clusters in Norway. Academy of Management Proceedings. 2015(1), s. 18826–18826. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2015.18826abstract. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Thune, Taran Mari; Borlaug, Siri Brorstad & Hanson, Jens (2015). Emerging Hybrid Practises In Public–Private Research Centres. Public Administration. ISSN 0033-3298. 93(2), s. 363–379. doi: 10.1111/padm.12140. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  In this article we use a comparative case study of collaborative research centres that operate at the interface between public science and private industry to question the assumption that hybrid organizations lead to hybrid practices. Public–private partnerships are intended to contribute to new work practices that solve challenges in public service provision and influence industrial innovativeness by engaging public research capabilities. Analysis of eight Scandinavian centres indicates considerable variance with respect to levels of integration of public and private partners and tensions between them. Five of the cases display no or highly contested hybrid practices and there seem to be many barriers to hybridization. Large differences in work practices from earlier interaction between the partners and radical goals of commercialization of excellent public science are important explanations.

• Bentley, Peter; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Kyvik, Svein (2015). The relationship between basic and applied research in universities. Higher Education. ISSN 0018-1560. 70(4), s. 689–709. doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9861-2. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  What is the central research activity in modern universities? This paper uses a comprehensive survey among individuals from 15 countries to map differences in orientation towards basic/fundamental research, applied/practical research and a combination of the two. Despite some claims in the literature that basic research is no longer a preoccupation of universities, our findings point at a continued strong presence of basic research in universities but with large variations between countries and academic disciplines. At the individual level, most academics engage in a combination of basic and applied research, rather than specialising, with applied orientations generally more common. Academics specialising in basic research tend to receive less external funding, work in environments where applied research is less emphasised and hold weaker professional obligations to apply their knowledge to problems in society.

• Solesvik, Marina & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2014). Interaction for Innovation: Comparing Norwegian Regions. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI). ISSN 2299-7075. 10(3), s. 7–28. doi: 10.7341/20141031. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Thune, Taran Mari & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2014). Dynamics of collaboration in university–industry partnerships: do initial conditions explain development patterns? Journal of Technology Transfer. ISSN 0892-9912. 39(6), s. 977–993. doi: 10.1007/s10961-014-9331-5. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Solesvik, Marina & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2013). Partner selection for open innovation. Technology innovation management review. 7(4), s. 11–16. doi: 10.22215/timreview/674. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Kyvik, Svein (2012). FoU-begrepet i universitetssektoren. I Brofoss, Karl Erik & Søgnen, Randi (Red.), FoU-begrepet under press. Om møtet mellom forskningspolitikk og forskningsstatistikk. Tapir Akademisk Forlag. ISSN 9788251925266. s. 117–136. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Rasmussen, Einar & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2012). Government Support Programmes to Promote Academic Entrepreneurship: A Principal-Agent Perspective. European Planning Studies. ISSN 0965-4313. 20(4), s. 527–546. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.665035. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Rasmussen, Einar (2012). The use and development of indicators for the commercialisation of university research in a national support programme. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. ISSN 0953-7325. 24(5), s. 481–495. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2012.674670. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Clausen, Tommy Høyvarde; Fagerberg, Jan & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2012). Mobilizing for change: A study of research units in emerging scientific fields. Research Policy. ISSN 0048-7333. 41, s. 1249–1261. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.014. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv

Se alle arbeider i NVA

• Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Benneworth, Paul & Hazelkorn, Ellen (2016). The Impact and Future of Arts and Humanities Research. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9781137408983. 220 s. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Drawing on original international research by a cross-European social science team, this book makes an important contribution to the discussion about the future of arts and humanities research. It explores the responses of these fields to the growing range of questions being asked about the value, impact and benefit of publicly-funded research. The objective is to better understand what really matters rather than what is easily measured. The book increases our understanding of the contribution which university-based arts and humanities research makes to society and the economy by exploring how it is defined, appreciated and accounted for by researchers, policymakers and civil society. It identifies appropriate practices and methodologies to assess and demonstrate quality and value beyond the academy. The book will be essential reading for researchers and policymakers, as well as research organisations and anyone interested in the arts and humanities.

Se alle arbeider i NVA

• Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Zapffe, Linn & Tellmann, Silje Maria (2026). Organising impact by health research funders: a project perspective. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Tellmann, Silje Maria & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2026). Temporalities in the societal impact of research. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Solberg, Espen; Ingeborgrud, Lina & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2025). Hva er forskning - og hva er det ikke? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Vie, Knut Jørgen & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2025). På tide med lotteri i forskningsfinansieringen | Forskningspolitikk. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Å søke om forskningsmidler burde være motiverende, siden det dreier seg om å tenke kreativt om hvor man vil med forskningen sin. Dessverre opplever mange det heller som en rekke snublesteiner som må forseres. En lotteriordning kan gjøre at man tør å slippe seg mer løs.

• Solberg, Espen; Ingeborgrud, Lina & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2025). Hva er forskning? [Radio]. NIFUs podcast. Produsent: Nitro . Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Thune, Taran Mari; Reymert, Ingvild; Tellmann, Silje Maria & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2024). Organizational determinants of research use in policy making – a configurational approach ​. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Thune, Taran Mari; Reymert, Ingvild; Tellmann, Silje Maria & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2024). Organizational determinants of research use in policy making – a configurational approach. ​ ​. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Vie, Knut Jørgen; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Tellmann, Silje Maria (2024). Are research funding decisions related to applicants’ assessments of research ethics and integrity? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Olsen, Dorothy Sutherland; Torgersen, Glenn-Egil; By, Rune Todnem & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2023). Utdanning for det uforutsette. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2023). Noen perspektiver på læring i arbeidslivet fra studier av innovasjon. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Vie, Knut Jørgen & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2023). When the researcher and the user is that same person – A study of The National System for Managed Introduction of New Health Technologies within the Specialist Health Service in Norway. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Thune, Taran Mari; Reymert, Ingvild; Tellmann, Silje Maria & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2023). Organizational determinants of research use in policy making – a configurational approach ​. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Thune, Taran Mari; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Simensen, Erlend Osland (2022). Science – policy interaction spaces: experiences of government officials and social scientists”. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Vie, Knut Jørgen & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2022). When the researcher and the user is the same person. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Tellmann, Silje Maria; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Høiland, Gry Cecilie Lunder (2021). Finding the right research. Articulating and implementing demands for academic policy advice. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Tellmann, Silje Maria & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2021). What’s in a contract? Exploring the uses of contract research in two policy fields in Norway. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2021). Book review: Critical Studies of Innovation: Alternative Approaches to the Proinnovation Bias. Prometheus. ISSN 0810-9028. 37(2), s. 200–204. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Hovdhaugen, Elisabeth & Solberg, Espen (2021). Are physical meetings in teaching and research still needed? An empirical study among staff and students. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Tellmann, Silje Maria & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2021). På Borte(n)bane om forsknings­formidling. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Simensen, Erlend Osland & Thune, Taran Mari (2020). Hva vil brukerne av forskning ha? Forskningspolitikk. ISSN 0333-0273. 43(3), s. 20–21. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2020). Jubileum for tidenes viktigste forskningspolitiske dokument [75-årsjubileum for rapporten Science The Endless Frontier]. Forskningspolitikk. ISSN 0333-0273. 43(3), s. 37–39. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2019). Hva er forskjellen på fysikk, kjemi og biologi? Forskningspolitikk. ISSN 0333-0273. 42(1), s. 10–11. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Høiland, Gry Cecilie & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2019). 'An easy match? Evidence-based policy meets science-based impact' Working paper for EU-SPRI conference 2019. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Tellmann, Silje Maria; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Høiland, Gry Cecilie (2019). Practices in Public Agencies’ R&D Departments. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Sivertsen, Gunnar & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2019). Impact i anvendt forskning: begrepsavklaring og praksis. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Høiland, Gry Cecilie & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2019). Better together A critical discussion of the relationship between research and innovation in policy and practice. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Thune, Taran Mari; Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Tellmann, Silje Maria & Skogen, Kari-Elisabeth Vambeseth (2019). Kortreist kunnskap. Stat & Styring. ISSN 0803-0103. 29(2). Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Sivertsen, Gunnar & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2018). Impact i anvendt forskning: begrepsavklaring og praksis. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Andersen, Allan Dahl & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2018). Diversification into new markets: challenges and opportunities for petroleum supply firms. I Thune, Taran Mari; Engen, Ole Andreas Hegland & Wicken, Olav (Red.), Petroleum industry transformations : lessons from Norway and beyond. Routledge. ISSN 9781315142456. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Hopkins, Michael; Thune, Taran Mari & Valentin, Finn (2016). Hospitals and innovation: Introduction to the special section. Research Policy. ISSN 0048-7333. 45(8), s. 1493–1498. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.010. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Thune, Taran Mari (2016). Ikke-akademisk arbeidserfaring: bra for relevans, ikke for kvalitet? Forskningspolitikk. ISSN 0333-0273. 38(1), s. 28–29. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Grimsby, Gard Sveinung; Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Risvik, Einar & Kure, Cathrine F. (2016). Open innovation, co-creation and closed product development in the Norwegian cereal industry. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Klitkou, Antje (2015). Firms’ collaboration with domestic and foreign universities: what can co-authorship data tell us? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  This paper has two aims. First, to map the development of Norwegian private firms’ scientific co-authorship over the last 20 years. Second, to use knowledge of central events in the Norwegian research system to reflect upon the patterns seen in the data. The basic question we want to explore is whether we see signs of a mismatch between the knowledge needs of Norwegian industry and the profile of the domestic public research organisations. We ask the following specific research questions: Do Norwegian firms collaborate more over time with foreign universities, and does this come at the expense of national collaboration? Has the pattern of domestic collaboration changed with respect to the types of organisations that firms publish with?

• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Thune, Taran Mari (2015). Samspill i medisinsk innovasjon. I Oxley, Kristin (Red.), Eksellens. Innovasjon. Effekt. Resultater fra forskningen. Program: Kunnskapsgrunnlaget for forsknings- og innovasjonspolitikken - FORFI. Norges forskningsråd. ISSN 9788212033955. s. 34–38. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Thune, Taran Mari & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2015). Universitetenes roller i innovasjon: Kunnskapsstatus. I Oxley, Kristin (Red.), Eksellens. Innovasjon. Effekt. Resultater fra forskningen. Program: Kunnskapsgrunnlaget for forsknings- og innovasjonspolitikken - FORFI. Norges forskningsråd. ISSN 9788212033955. s. 26–33. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Thune, Taran Mari; Aamodt, Per O & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2014). Forskere deler sin kunnskap. 37(4), s. 4–5. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Forsberg, Ellen-Marie (2014). How can innovations be governed¬? Reflections on RRI from an innovation perspective. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Bye, Geir; Finne, Håkon & Njøs, Rune (2013). Er samarbeid alltid bra for innovasjon? Plan - tidsskrift for samfunnsplanlegging, regional- og byutvikling. ISSN 0805-083X. s. 4–9. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Rasmussen, Einar; Benneworth, Paul & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2013). Developing University Innovation Capacity: How can innovation policy effectively harness universities? capability to promote high-growth technology businesses? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Thune, Taran Mari (2013). Helseinnovasjon krever samarbeid. Forskningspolitikk. ISSN 0333-0273. 36(4), s. 14-15–14-15. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Thune, Taran Mari & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2012). Dynamics of cooperation in research and innovation partnerships. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Thune, Taran Mari & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2012). Synergies and tensions in innovation in the life sciences. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Hildrum, Jarle Moss & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2012). Mer FoU i Telenor enn antatt. Forskningspolitikk. ISSN 0333-0273. 35(4), s. 22–23. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Thune, Taran Mari; Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Borlaug, Siri Brorstad & Hanson, Jens (2012). Frontier research and mission oriented policies in university-based innovation centers- towards a new hybrid order? Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Solberg, Espen; Ramberg, Inge; Schwach, Vera & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2024). Kontrakt og kontakt. En studie av oppdragsforskningens rolle, utvikling og betydning i det norske forskningssystemet. NIFU Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning. ISSN 9788232706778. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Mye av norsk forskning skjer på oppdrag fra brukere i samfunns- og næringsliv. Til tross for det er oppdragsforskningen lite forstått og diskutert. Denne studien belyser ulike sider ved oppdragsforskningen i Norge, og svarer på noen av de spørsmålene som Kunnskapsdepartementet har reist i forkant av den kommende stortingsmeldingen om forskningssystemet. Noen sentrale funn er at: 1. Forskningsmiljøenes samlede oppdragsinntekter går ned, men mye av den brukerorienterte forskningen utføres og finansieres på andre måter. 2. Oppdragsforskningen er mer enn et marked og mer enn bare et levebrød. Den belyser konkrete problemer, kobler forskere med brukere og samspiller ofte med vitenskapelig aktivitet. 3. Kunnskapsbehovene endrer seg, ikke minst i næringslivet. Det trengs nytenkning om hvordan brukerorientert forskning skal møte de nye behovene.

• Bratseth, Katja; Rossebø, Beatrice; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Vie, Knut Jørgen (2023). Veileder for innbyggerinvolvering i forskning. Byantropologene. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Borlaug, Siri Brorstad; Korseberg, Lene Kirstine; Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Thune, Taran Mari & Svartefoss, Silje Marie (2022). Organisering av teknologioverføring ved norske forskningsinstitusjoner: Mulige modeller. NIFU Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning. ISSN 9788232705474. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Mandatet for denne rapporten er å utrede modeller for organisering og innretning av TTO-kontorene, med utgangspunkt i det norske systemet for teknologioverføring. På bakgrunn av en gjennomgang av internasjonal forskningslitteratur, kartlegging av nåværende organisering av de norske TTO-ene, fokus-gruppeintervjuer med sentrale aktører og en rundebordskonferanse, utledes og diskuteres fire modeller basert på følgende dimensjoner: eierskap, arbeidsdeling/oppgaver, finansiering, kompetanse og samarbeid.

• Solberg, Espen; Hovdhaugen, Elisabeth; Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Scordato, Lisa; Svartefoss, Silje Marie & Eide, Thea (2021). Et akademisk annerledesår: Konsekvenser og håndtering av koronapandemien ved norske universiteter og høgskoler. NIFU Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning. ISSN 9788232705092. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Denne rapporten beskriver funn fra en undersøkelse av konsekvenser og håndtering av koronapandemien ved norske universiteter og høgskoler. Arbeidet er gjort på oppdrag fra Kunnskapsdepartementet, og ble påbegynt sommeren 2020. Analysene bygger på to omfattende spørreundersøkelser til ca. 22 000 studenter og 4000 faglig ansatte. I tillegg er det gjort intervjuer med 36 personer ved tre institusjoner og innhentet supplerende informasjon fra en rekke beslektede studier.

• Grimsby, Gard Sveinung; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Kure, Cathrine Finne (2021). Radical innovation in a conservative industry. Selected cases of new product development in the Norwegian food industry. Universitetet i Oslo. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Through the lens of open innovation, questions about product development and partnership have been asked in combination with how appropriability affect collaboration and innovation. This thesis is set up to fill gaps in prior research theory on collaboration for innovation within the food industry. The study focuses on how the food industry conducts innovation processes during radical new product development. The domestic cereal industry and European novel food are selected cases. While the domestic cereal industry can be looked upon as a prototypical case, the novel food industry is an extreme case. Case studies with mixed data were used to achieve a deeper understanding. Findings from the domestic cereal industry demonstrate how transparency and interaction with machinery suppliers may result in successful types of innovation. Further, it exposed how mutual trust, asset control and distribution control were positive for openness during innovation processes. Findings from the novel food case demonstrated how interaction with research suppliers were common. Further, it was found that pioneers have been vulnerable to knowledge spill over during transparent approval processes. In addition, relationship between patenting and external collaboration was found. Open governance makes mutual trust and secrecy during collaboration between actors’ important factors in radical product development processes. Collaboration with suppliers, business customers and research partners play important roles during innovation processes for these industries. For the novel food industry patents, trademarks, scientific reports and health claims are all being combined in appropriation regimes. In addition, these flag-planting strategies build value into products.

• Fridstrøm, Lasse; Hovi, Inger Beate; Kristensen, Niels Buus; Madslien, Anne; Bruvoll, Annegrete & Gulbrandsen, Magnus [Vis alle 8 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). Transportmodeller for klimaanalyse. Transportøkonomisk institutt . ISSN 9788248017509. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Rapporten gjennomgår og vurderer de viktigste modellene for transporttilbud og -etterspørsel i Norge, med særlig henblikk på klimapolitisk analyse. Hovedvekten er lagt på modellene RTM, NTM6, NGM, GodsNytte, Pingo, BIG og FRAM3. RTM er et system av fem regionale persontransportmodeller for reiser inntil 70 km én veg. NTM6 er en nasjonal persontransportmodell for innenlandske reiser over 70 km én veg. NGM står for nasjonal godstransportmodell og dekker all godstransport til og fra norske kommuner. GodsNytte er en ettermodell til NGM til beregning av samfunnsøkonomisk nytte og kostnad ved ulike tiltak. Pingo er en romlig generell likevektsmodell for regionalisering av nasjonal økonomisk utvikling til bruk i NGM. BIG er et regnearksystem for strømmer og beholdninger av kjøretøy inndelt etter kjøretøyklasse, vekt, energiteknologi og alder, supplert med en logit-modell for kjøp av nye personbiler. FRAM3 er en beregningsmodell for samfunnsøkonomiske analyser av person- og godstransport, med hovedvekt på sjøfart.

• Maassen, Peter; Andreadakis, Zacharias; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Stensaker, Bjørn (2019). The Place of Universities in Society. Körber Stiftung. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Borlaug, Siri Brorstad; Langfeldt, Liv; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Ramberg, Inge (2019). Impacts of the SFF scheme on the Norwegian research system: Sub-report I to the SFF evaluation panel. NIFU Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning. ISSN 9788232704415. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  This report was commissioned by the Research Council of Norway (RCN) to serve as background information for an international scientific committee appointed to evaluate the SFF scheme. The report should be seen in conjunction with the parallel NIFU report providing bibliometric analysis and career mapping for the same evaluation (Sivertsen et al. 2019).

• Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Sivertsen, Gunnar (2018). Impact i anvendt forskning: begrepsavklaring og praksis. NIFU Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning. ISSN 9788232703654. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Formålet med dette arbeidsnotatet er å drøfte to spørsmål: Hva menes med begrepet impact, og hvordan passer det for anvendt forskning?

• Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2016). The humanities in Norway: research, research organisation and external engagement. NIFU Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning. ISSN 9788232702299. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  The humanities are widely discussed in the science policy debate in Norway. Several books have been published on the field’s nature and uniqueness, and its framework conditions are discussed in leading newspapers and especially in the weekly Morgenbladet, which for a long time ran a series about the “crisis in the humanities”. The field is currently undergoing one of the regular large-scale evaluations coordinated by the Research Council of Norway, and a White Paper on the humanities will be published in 2017. For all these purposes it is important to base them on solid empirical knowledge about what humanities researchers actually do, how they organise their research activities and how they collaborate inside and outside the higher education sector. In this report new analyses are carried out on a large-scale dataset based on a survey to tenured scientific personnel in Norwegian universities and colleges.

• Frølich, Nicoline; Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Vabø, Agnete; Wiers-Jenssen, Jannecke & Aamodt, Per O (2016). Kvalitet og samspill i universitets- og høgskolesektoren. NIFU Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning. ISSN 9788232701667. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Denne rapporten oppsummerer hovedfunn fra prosjektet «Kvalitet og samspill – universitets- og høgskolesektoren og samfunnet », og peker på implikasjoner for politikk og praksis. Prosjektets formål var å: 1. Forbedre kunnskapsgrunnlaget for universitets- og høgskolepolitikken 2. Bidra til kunnskapsoverføring og fungere som en læringsarena for Kunnskapsdepartementet

• Thune, Taran Mari; Aamodt, Per O & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2014). Noder i kunnskapsnettverket: Forskning, kunnskapsoverføring og eksternt samarbeid blant vitenskapelig ansatte i UH-sektoren. NIFU Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning. ISSN 9788232700103. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Denne rapporten dokumenterer i hvilken grad og hvordan faglige ansatte ved universiteter og høgskoler bidrar til å spre kunnskap, samt variasjonen mellom fagmiljøer og enkeltpersoner i hvordan slike aktiviteter foregår. Rapporten er basert på en spørreundersøkelse blant 4400 av de vitenskapelig ansatte som arbeider med forskning, undervisning og faglige lederoppgaver ved de offentlige universiteter og høgskoler i Norge. Det er med andre ord de vitenskapelige ansattes eget perspektiv på forskningsaktiviteter, kunnskapsoverføring og samarbeid med eksterne miljøer i offentlig sektor, næringslivet og frivillig sektor som dokumenteres i rapporten.

• Scordato, Lisa; Søreide, Frode Hovland & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2012). The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and global health issues. Chapter 3 in Meeting Global Challenges through Better Governance: International Co-operation in Science, Technology and Innovation. OECD. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Ramberg, Inge; Sarpebakken, Bo; Schwach, Vera; Sivertsen, Gunnar & Solberg, Espen [Vis alle 7 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2012). Er det noen SAK? Instituttsektorens rolle og organisering i Norge med spesiell vekt på samarbeid, arbeidsdeling og konsentrasjon (SAK). NIFU Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning. ISSN 9788272188886. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Hovedbudskapet i denne rapporten er at den norske instituttsektoren ser ut til å fungere noenlunde bra både faglig, økonomisk og organisatorisk. Samtidig er sektoren svært heterogen i seg selv med store variasjoner i størrelse, finansiering og en rekke andre forhold. Denne heterogeniteten får flere kompliserende dimensjoner når vi inkluderer hvordan universiteter og høgskoler (UoH) forholder seg til institutter i sin randsone, og hvordan departementer styrer forskningsbehov på sine områder. Slik styring og randsoneproblematikk er også preget av mangfoldige løsninger tilpasset lokale og historiske forhold.

• Thune, Taran Mari; Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Klitkou, Antje; Ramberg, Inge; Aanstad, Siri & Olsen, Dorothy Sutherland (2012). Produktivt samspill?: Forsknings- og innovasjonssamarbeid mellom næringsliv og FoU-miljøer. NIFU Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning. ISSN 9788272188459. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Denne rapporten oppsummerer et treårig forskningsprosjekt om samarbeid mellom næringslivet og den forskningsutførende sektoren i Norge, med hovedvekt på forsknings- og innovasjonssamarbeid mellom universiteter/høgskoler og næringslivet.

• Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Lekve, Kyrre; Rasmussen, Einar; Skule, Sveinung; Slipersæter, Stig & Stensaker, Bjørn (2012). Samspill i kunnskapstriangelet. Innspill til Kunnskapsdepartementets arbeid med forskningsmeldingen 2013. Norges forskningsråd. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv

Se alle arbeider i NVA