Paper short abstract:

The paper presents two case studies about decisions of technology innovation. Results show that indicators were mostly a complementary instrument of decision. Their use was influenced by adversity, capacity to support arguments and interests, and social relations of the decision makers.

Paper long abstract:

Despite increasing calls for evidence-based policies, knowledge about the practical use of evidence remains limited. This paper studies the process of construction of evidence in decisions of innovation policy to understand how indicators were used. It analysis the use of indicators and other evidence through interviews conducted to inquire about the two investment decisions: an electric mobility policy and a nanotechnology laboratory. Results show indicators and other evidence were brought to decision processes according to their availability and capacity to support the different interests of the actors and the stakeholders. Their role was influenced by the particular context of the decision makers. More importantly, the use of persuasive analytical evidence appears to be related with the adversity of the policy context. In addition, research suggests that indicators are one tool among others to foster innovation decisions. The relatively minor instrumental role of indicators suggests that indicators were mostly a complementary instrument of decision. But there are other significant influences that need to be taken into account to understand the specific role indicators play, such as adversity (e.g. controversies and disputes) indicators' faced during the decision process, capacity to support arguments and interests, and social relations of the decision makers.