Measuring and Evaluating Science—Technology Connections and Interactions

Towards International Statistics
  • Robert J.W. Tijssen


Abstract: Despite the generally acknowledged importance of science in many high-tech areas of major economic relevance, there are no science-related statistics to be found in high-profile international benchmarking reports such as the European Innovation Scoreboard. Why? This chapter aims to provide an answer by advancing our understanding of the possibilities of indicators quantifying linkages between science and technology. Central are the concepts of ‘innovation capability’ and ‘science/technology interface’, which are used to assemble a wide range of empirical studies and quantitative indictors to summarise their possibilities and limitations for producing comparative statistics. The review focuses on indicators dealing with flows of written (‘codified’) information, and indicators of inventiveness that capture the non-codifiable ‘tacit knowledge’ dimension. General conclusions will be drawn with a view towards further developments in the foreseeable future, suggesting new avenues for the design and implementation of patent-based and inventor-based statistics to describe and assess the complex and dynamic web of relationships between scientific research and technical development within the context of regional or national systems of innovation.


Research Policy Knowledge Creation Patent Citation Knowledge Flow Innovation Capability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, J. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, J., Stephan, P., Sumell, A. (2003). Capturing knowledge: the location decision of new PhDs working in industry. Presentation at the Roundtable for Engineering Entrepreneurship Research, Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, November 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Albert, M., Avery, D., Narin, F. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy, 20, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balconi, M., Breschi, S., Lissoni F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the location of university research: an exploration of Italian data. Research Policy, 33, 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brusconi, S., Criscuolo, P., Geuna, A. (2003). The knowledge bases of the world’s largest pharmaceuticals groups: what do the patent citations to non-patent literature reveal? SPRU report, University of Sussex, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, M., Narin, F. (1983). Validation study: patent citations as indicators of science and foreign dependence. World Patent Information, 5, 180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, W., Nelson, R., Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coombs, R., Hull, R. (1998). Knowledge management practices and path dependency in innovation. Research Policy, 27, 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EC (2003a). Third European Science and Technology Indicators Report. Brussel: European Commission.Google Scholar
  11. EC (2003b). European Innovation Scoreboard 2003. SEC(2003) 1255, Brussel: European Commission.Google Scholar
  12. Ernst H., Leptien, C., Vitt J. (2000). Inventors are not alike: the distribution of patenting output among industrial R&D personnel. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47, 184–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.Google Scholar
  14. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London.Google Scholar
  15. Glänzel, W., Meyer, M. (2003). Patents cited in the scientific literature: an exploratory study of ‘reverse’ citation relations. Scientometrics, 58, 415–428.Google Scholar
  16. Grupp, H., Schmoch, U. (1992). Perceptions of scientification of innovation as measured by referring between patents and papers: dynamics in science-based fields of technology. In: Grupp, H. (Ed.), Dynamics of science-based innovation. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Hicks, D. (2000). 360 Degree linkage analysis. Research Evaluation, 9, 133–143.Google Scholar
  18. Hicks, D., Breitzman, T., Olivastro, D., Hamilton, K. (2001), The changing composition of innovative activity in the US–a portrait based on patent analysis. Research Policy, 30, 681–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagedoorn, J., Link, A., Vonortas, N. (2000). Research Partnerships. Research Policy, 29, 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joanneum Research, in cooperation with ZEW and ARCS (2001). Benchmarking industry-science relations: the role of framework conditions. Vienna/Mannheim: Report to the European Commission (DG Enterprise) and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economy and Labour ( Scholar
  21. Lawson, M., Kemp, N., Lunch, M., Chowdhury, G. (1996). Automatic extraction of citations from the text of English language patents — an example of template mining. Journal of Information Science, 22, 423–436.Google Scholar
  22. Malo, S., Geuna, A. (2000). Science/technology linkages in an emerging research platform: The case of combinatorial chemistry and biology. Scientometrics, 47, 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McMillan, G., Narin, F., Leeds, D. (2000). An analysis of the critical role of pubic science in innovation: the case of biotechnology. Research Policy, 29, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meyer, M. (2000a). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature, Research Policy, 29, 409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer, M. (2000b). Patent citations in a novel field of technology — what can they tell about interactions between emerging communities of science and technology? Scientometrics, 48, 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation, 12, 17–27.Google Scholar
  27. Michel, J., Bettels, B. (2001). Patent citation analysis — A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports. Scientometrics, 51, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mumford, M., Simonton, D. (1997). Creativity in the workplace: people problems and structures. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 1–6.Google Scholar
  29. Narin, F., Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7, 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Narin, F., Breitzman, A. (1995). Inventive productivity. Research Policy, 24 (4), 507–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Narin, F., Hamilton, K., Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26, 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelson, R., Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  33. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. NOWT (2004). Science and Technology Indicators 2003 — Summary. Netherlands Observatory of Science and Technology (NOWT), CWTS/MERIT report to the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (see Scholar
  35. Noyons, E.C.M, Van Raan, A.F.J., Grupp, H., Schmoch, U. (1994). Exploring the science and technology interface — inventor author relations in laser medicine research. Research Policy, 23, 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Noyons, E.C.M, Buter, R.K., Van Raan, A.F.J., Schmoch, U., Heinze, T., Hinze, S., Rangnow R. (2003). Mapping excellence in science and technology across Europe — Life Science; — Nanoscience and nanotechnology. CWTS/FhG-ISI reports for EC/DG Research.Google Scholar
  37. NSF (2002) Science and Engineering Indicators 2002. Arlington: National Science Foundation, National Science Board.Google Scholar
  38. OECD (2002a). Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  39. OECD (2002b). Science, technology and industry outlook. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  40. OECD (2003). Science, technology and industry scoreboard 2003—towards a knowledge-based economy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  41. Rappa, M., Debackere, K. (1992). Technological communities and the diffusion of knowledge. R&D Management, 22, 209–222.Google Scholar
  42. Salter, A., Martin, B. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy, 30, 509–532.Google Scholar
  43. Saragossi, S., Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2003). What patent data reveal about universities: the case of Belgium. Journal of Technology Transfer, 18, 47–51.Google Scholar
  44. Schmoch, U. (1993). Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators. Scientometrics, 26, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmoch, U., Licht, G., Reinhard, M. (2000). Wissens-und Technologietransfer in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.Google Scholar
  46. Scott, S., Bruce, R. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.Google Scholar
  47. Tijssen, R.J.W., Buter, R.K., Van Leeuwen, Th.N. (2000). Technological relevance of science: validation and analysis of citation linkages between patents and research papers. Scientometrics, 47, 389–412.Google Scholar
  48. Tijssen, R.J.W. (2001). Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science/technology interactions and knowledge flows. Research Policy, 30, 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tijssen, R.J.W. (2002). Science dependence of technologies: evidence of inventions and their inventors. Research Policy, 31, 509–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tijssen, R.J.W. (2003a). The knowledge resources of inventions: towards a typology of organizational knowledge creation environments. Presentation at meeting of the INIR Network, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, January 2003.Google Scholar
  51. Tijssen, R.J.W. (2003b). Inventiveness by numbers: towards inventors statistics. Invited paper at the WIPO-OECD Workshop on Statistics in the Patent Field, Geneva, Switzerland, September 2003.Google Scholar
  52. Tijssen, R.J.W. (2004a). Is the commercialisation of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge? Global trends in the output of corporate research articles. Research Policy (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  53. Tijssen, R.J.W. (2004b). De universiteit als verborgen kennisbron: De (on)zichtbaarheid van Nederlandse universitaire co-uitvinders in bedrijfsoctrooien. CWTS report for the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.Google Scholar
  54. Van Vianen, B.G., Moed, H.F., Van Raan, A.F.J. (1990). An exploration of the science base of recent technology. Research Policy, 19, 61–81.Google Scholar
  55. Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M. (2003). Science cited in patents: a geographic ‘flow’ analysis of bibliographic citation patterns in patents. Scientometrics, 58, 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Verspagen, B. (2004). Rapport over de uitkomsten van het Nederlandse gedeelte van de PatVal enquête onder uitvinders van Europese patented ingediend vanuit Nederland. Report Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, Technical University Eindhoven.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J.W. Tijssen
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)Leiden Universitythe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations