Forging New Frontiers in Mission‑Oriented Innovation Policies

Annex G. Bibliometric analysis of mission-oriented and transformative innovation policy literature

This bibliometric study of the academic literature on mission-oriented and transformative innovation policies (MOIPs and transformative innovation policy) was conducted with the contribution of Caetano C. R. Penna (Center for Strategic Studies and Management, Brazil), whose work underpins Annex G. The analysis highlights the field’s intellectual structure, conceptual evolution and thematic contours. Drawing on 640 documents sourced from Scopus and Web of Science and complemented by expert-curated books, working papers and other grey publications, the analysis sheds light on the theoretical foundations underpinning contemporary innovation policies aimed at societal transformation (or “challenge-led innovation policy”, CLIP). The search strategy targeted literature addressing “mission-oriented (innovation) policy”, “mission-oriented R&D”, “transformative innovation policy” and “challenge-led innovation policy”, and involved subsequent data cleaning and standardisation to ensure consistency, relevance and reliability. The bibliometric analysis employed the software VOSviewer1 and Gephi. Gephi is also used for the thematic analysis, together with a specific plugin developed by the Brazilian Center for Strategic Studies and Management.

The temporal analysis reveals a dramatic acceleration in academic interest in challenge-led approaches since 2015 (Figure G.1). The number of publications has grown from less than 10 annually to over 140 in recent years – an exponential increase that reflects both the policy renaissance of mission-oriented approaches, particularly following the influential work of Mazzucato, and growing recognition of the need for transformative policies to address grand societal challenges.

While the academic community initially drew a distinction between MOIP and the more recent transformative innovation policy (TIP), recent trends indicate increasing convergence. Both MOIP and TIP have expanded rapidly since 2018, the year the European Commission published the Mazzucato Report and Schot and Steinmueller introduced the Three Frames for Innovation Policy. Rather than representing opposing frameworks, emerging scholarship suggests growing complementarity, as mission-oriented approaches gain traction within socio-technical transitions discourse and policy communities pursue systemic innovation strategies to address grand societal challenges.

Figure G.1. Exponential growth of the literature on challenge-led innovation policy

The rise of mission-oriented and transformative frames to innovation policy, annual publication trends (1945-2025)

Note: The number of articles for 2025 is an estimate based on the number of articles up to 28 July.

Source: Penna (forthcoming[1]).

The CLIP literature’s co-citation network (Figure G.2), which connects two authors who are often cited together, reveals a sophisticated intellectual architecture comprising four distinct but interconnected bodies of knowledge: 1) economics of innovation – the source for the more traditional mission-oriented research and development and the renewal of the approach in the 2010s; 2) geography of innovation – which develops a more local and regional challenge-led approach; 3) socio-technical transitions – the source for the TIP approach; and 4) transformative missions – a recently emerging cluster focused on contemporary mission-oriented approaches for systemic transformations. This cluster brings together key nodes within the broader challenge-led innovation policy network, drawing connections between the other three bodies of knowledge. Notably, the analysis also identifies a distinct Chinese perspective cluster at the periphery of the “economics of innovation” domain, reflecting the growing global engagement with mission-oriented approaches beyond their European and North American origins.

The structure demonstrates the interdisciplinary nature of mission-oriented research, drawing from established fields while developing its own distinct theoretical foundations and syntheses. The network is, however, fuzzy, and the boundaries between communities, fluid; hence, researchers at the periphery of a cluster could be associated with multiple domains.

Figure G.2. Five bodies of knowledge underpinning the challenge-led innovation policy research field

Note: Node size represents citation count in Google Scholar as of 29 August 2025 (citations are normalised by dividing the number of citations of an author’s document by the average number of citations of all documents published in the same year and included in the sample).

Source: Penna (forthcoming[1]).

Another way to look at the CLIP research field is by a co-authorship network (Figure G.3, panel A). Two patterns stand out through the analysis of the network’s statistics:

• The network is highly modular. The average local clustering coefficient (how densely connected an author’s collaborators are to each other) of the 15 detected communities is very high, signalling almost clique-like collaboration within each thematic subfield. In other words, once authors team up inside a cluster, they also tend to co-author with each other, creating tightly knit research circles.

• Structural centrality is not the same as scholarly visibility (citations). Rankings based on eigenvector (how well-connected an author is to other well-connected researchers, a measure of influence), betweenness centrality (how often an author acts as a bridge between other authors, indicates gatekeepers) and closeness centrality (how close an author is to all others in the network) single out a small corps of scholars who occupy the interstices of those dense clusters and keep them connected. Yet these brokers are not necessarily the citation superstars. Only one of the ten most cited authors appears among the ten most central nodes, and the correlation between normalised citations and eigenvector centrality (structural influence) is quite modest. Conversely, several authors in the top decile of betweenness centrality (gatekeepers) accumulate below median citation counts.

Taken together, the results suggest that while citation heavy hitters confer visibility on the field, its intellectual cohesion and knowledge diffusion depend heavily on less celebrated intermediaries who bridge clusters and facilitate cross-community exchange.

Figure G.3. The Network of collaborating authors in the CLIP research field

By co-authorship clusters (panel A) and by authors’ average year of publications (panel B)

Note: Node size represents citation count in Google Scholar as of Aug. 29^th, 2025 (citations are normalised by dividing the number of citations of an author’s document by the average number of citations of all documents published in the same year and included in the sample).

Source: Penna (forthcoming[1]).

Overlaying the network with the average publication year of each author (Figure G.3, panel B) reveals how the field has evolved structurally over time. It began around a small, cohesive pioneer group, but since 2021, many new teams have entered and formed their own collaboration circles. Most of these newer authors join the field through tightly connected thematic clusters, which exhibit high internal cohesion but limited cross-group ties, further reinforcing the network’s modular architecture. As the community expands, knowledge integration increasingly depends on a small number of bridging scholars – often mid-career researchers – who sustain the critical linkages between otherwise disconnected clusters.

The co-authorship dynamics raise important considerations for the field’s development. Without active support for cross-cluster collaboration, the risk of intellectual fragmentation grows. Ensuring that new entrants can connect across thematic boundaries will be essential to maintain coherence and foster cumulative learning in the CLIP research field.

The co-occurrence network of keywords (Figure G.4. ) reveals a densely interconnected field structured around four main thematic clusters. While the Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy (MOIP) cluster appears peripheral in structural terms, this is somewhat deceptive. In practice, the broader mission-oriented literature spans three distinct clusters – MOIP, Technological Missions, and Mission R&D – suggesting a rich and expanding ecosystem of mission-related discourse. Notably, cross-linkages between these mission-oriented clusters and the transformative innovation policy cluster are becoming increasingly frequent, reflecting a growing cross-fertilisation between agendas focused on transformative societal change and those emphasising targeted, goal-oriented innovation interventions.

Figure G.4. Co-occurrence of the keywords that define the field of challenge-led innovation policy

Note: The keyword analysis is based on an earlier iteration of the analysis, using a document corpus collected in October 2024.

Source: Penna (forthcoming[1]).

Derived from this network, we can build a thematic map of the CLIP field (Table G1), which is divided into four categories (based on density and centrality statistics):

• Crosscutting themes provide foundational concepts that span the entire field. Directionality and grand challenges serve as central organising principles, embodying the core mission-oriented premise that innovation policy should explicitly target specific societal objectives rather than remain technology-neutral.

• Motor themes represent established, high-density research areas driving much of the field’s theoretical development. Transformative innovation policy, sustainability transitions, wicked problems, mission-oriented policy, and industrial policy constitute the intellectual engines of the field, concentrating on complex, systemic challenges that require coordinated policy interventions.

• Emerging themes capture developing areas of research interest, including policy mix, governance, dynamic capabilities, scenarios, and co-creation. The growth of such themes signals the field’s increasing sophistication in addressing implementation challenges and developing new governance approaches and analytical tools.

• Niche themes encompass specialised research areas, including impact pathways, real-world/living labs, and sectoral applications in areas such as agriculture and artificial intelligence. Rather than representing marginal concerns, such themes often pioneer methodological innovations and test mission-oriented approaches in specific application domains.

Table G.1. Thematic Map of the CLIP Research Field

Note: The keyword analysis is based on an earlier iteration of the analysis, using a document corpus collected in October 2024.

Source: Penna (forthcoming[1]).

Implications for policy and research

This bibliometric analysis reveals several important insights for both researchers and policymakers working in the mission-oriented innovation space:

• Theoretical foundations are increasingly sophisticated, with the field evolving beyond its historical roots in defence R&D to encompass broader perspectives from sustainability transitions, innovation systems and transformative change theories. Such theoretical richness provides a strong foundation for policy development but also requires careful attention to concept integration and coherence.

• The field is genuinely interdisciplinary, drawing from economics, geography, political science, management studies and sustainability science. While interdisciplinarity enables holistic approaches to complex challenges, it also creates potential co-ordination problems if different research communities remain too isolated from one another.

• Global perspectives are developing, with increasing contributions from scholars outside the traditional European and North American centres of mission-oriented research. The globalisation of mission-oriented scholarship proves crucial for understanding how approaches can be adapted to different institutional and development contexts.

The bibliometric analysis thus reveals a field that has rapidly matured from its historical origins to become a sophisticated area of policy research with strong theoretical foundations, diverse methodological approaches and increasing practical relevance. As policymakers continue to grapple with complex societal challenges, this rich academic foundation provides valuable insights for designing and implementing effective MOIPs.

References

[1] Penna, C. (forthcoming), The Academic Landscape: A Bibliometric Analysis of Mission-Oriented and Transformative Innovation Policy Literature, Centre for Strategic Studies and Management, Brazil.

Note

← 1.  VOSviewer is a software for bibliometric analysis developed and published by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies of Leiden University. See: Van Eck and Waltman (2010).