Research agenda. Although the chapter authors all focus on the key questions of this book and present in-depth case analyses, we recognize that an edited volume will always have limitations. We hope that additional effort will take the research past the limits of this work. A useful next step would be a more systematic test of one or more hypotheses on the strategies used by policy entrepreneurs. All findings, as summarized in Table 20.3, can also be read as hypotheses that need further testing and refinement in a broader range of cases. We see three research topics as particularly fruitful: the nature of coalitions and the art of coalition-building; the interaction between agency and windows of opportunity; and change strategies in the developing world. In terms of framing the research, a great deal of conceptual work needs to be done in the policy sciences. In this chapter we have made an analytical distinction between three types of coali- tions: those based on shared worldviews or meanings; those formed around shared policy preferences (strategic alliances); and those centred on resource dependencies. But how do policy entrepreneurs choose which of these types to build, and when, and using which strategies? We have seen, for example, how policy entrepreneurs may try to bridge and relate multiple ways of knowing water (meanings), which is an example of policy brokering. However they may also use narrative strategies to improve their advocacy and attract supporters. How do entrepreneurs balance advocacy and brokerage xxxxxx- xxxx? What makes them select a particular strategy or a combination? These kinds of questions go beyond an explanatory typology of strategies related to policy transition and could further guide the work of policy entrepreneurs. Policy entrepreneurs need opportunities in the form of problem and political windows to get their new policy ideas and plans accepted and realized. We have learned that both anticipating windows and the framing or ‘painting’ of windows can be effective xxxxxx- xxxx. The cases show, however, that usually it is a combination or a series of windows that produce a real opening for change to occur. More research is needed on how policy entrepreneurs exploit windows of opportunity that open simultaneously or successively. One of the striking observations in this book is the failure of implementation in most water policy transitions in the developing world. Donor agencies, such as the World Bank, face huge difficulties in implementi...
Research agenda. Research in the area of strategic entrepreneurship referring to the phenomenon of digital DIY is still in its infancy. A preliminary check on SCOPUS, ISI and Google Scholar reveals just a few papers on the topic, suggesting that it is a field of study in its inception. Nevertheless, at least three important scholars/schools have very recently converged in this area of research interest: • Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxx (2014; 2015) on Harvard Business Review stressed the impact of the digital do-it-yourself phenomenon on competitiveness and on smart manufacturing clusters; • Xxxxxxx (2014) – the leading scholar in entrepreneurship – has held a track at the last Academy of Management on the democratization of entrepreneurship and the transformation of entrepreneurial ecosystems after the makers revolution; • finally, Xxxxx (2014) at the Xxxxx School of Management, MIT has developed conceptual frameworks, methodologies and software to analyze collaborative open innovation networks in order to grasp the digital do-it-yourself phenomenon. With reference to the area of research interest, i.e. cluster initiatives, entrepreneurial ecosystems and innovation networks in clusters, literature focusing on the phenomenon of digital DIY – or to a larger extent to the one of the the maker movement – is almost inexistent. The present Project sets a research agenda in the field according to the research design reported hereafter.
