Advertisement

Indicators for National Science and Technology Policy

Their Development, Use, and Possible Misuse
  • Hariolf Grupp
  • Mary Ellen Mogee

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to present a survey of the development of Science and Technology (S&T) indicators and their use in national policy making as well as to provide evidence of the vulnerability of S&T indicators to manipulation. A brief history of the development of S&T indicators begins with the United States followed by their worldwide diffusion, with particular emphasis on Europe. The current status of S&T indicators and newer developments towards composite indicators, benchmarking, and scoreboarding is discussed. To investigate the robustness of innovation scoreboards empirically a sensitivity analysis of one selected case is presented. It is shown that composite scores and rank positions can vary considerably, depending on the selection process. It seems not to be too difficult to argue for a ‘country friendly’ selection and corresponding weighting of indicators. Thus the use of scoreboards opens space for manipulation in the policymaking system. Further research is needed on alternative methods of calculation to prevent their misuse and abuse.

Keywords

Venture Capital Composite Indicator Patent Citation Technology Policy Rank Position 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BMBF (Ed.). (various years). Bundesbericht Forschung. Bonn/Berlin.Google Scholar
  2. Breitzman, A.F., Mogee, M.E. (2002). The many applications of patent analysis. Journal of Information Science, 28 (3), 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Camp, R.C. (1989). Benchmarking: the search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press.Google Scholar
  4. CSRS (Ed.). (1998). Technological innovation in Russia. Moscow: Centre for Science Research and Statistics.Google Scholar
  5. DTI (Ed.). (2003). Competing in the global economy. The innovation challenge. London: DTI.Google Scholar
  6. Edler, J., Kuhlmann, S., Behrens, M. (Eds.). (2003). Changing governance of research and technology policy — The European research area. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission (Ed.). (1994). The European report on science & technology indicators 1994. Brussels: EUR 15897 EN.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission (Ed.). (2001). European innovation scoreboard 2001. Luxemburg: SEC (2001), 1414.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission (Ed.). (2003). Third European report on science & technology indicators 2003. Brussels: EUR 20025 EN.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission (Ed.). (2003a). Biotechnology innovation scoreboard 2003. Brussels: Innovation/SMEs Programme.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission (Ed.). (2002). Benchmarking national research policies. Brussels: EUR 20494 ENGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (Ed.). (2003b). Towards a European research area science, technology and innovation — key figures 2003–2004. Brussels: EUR 20735 EN.Google Scholar
  13. Gokhberg, L.N. Gorodnikova and J. Wuttke (1999). Volkswirtschaft im Übergang — Ein Vergleich der FuE-Indikatoren in Russland und Deutschland. Moscow and Essen: CSRS and StifterverbandGoogle Scholar
  14. Griliches, Z. (1995). R&D and productivity: econometric results and measurement issues. In Stoneman (Ed.), (pp. 52–89).Google Scholar
  15. Grupp H., Legler, H., Gehrke, B., Breitschopf, B. (2003). Zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2002. Berlin: BMBF.Google Scholar
  16. Grupp, H. (1998). Foundations of the economics of innovation–theory, measurement and practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Kearnes, D.T. (1986). Quality improvement begins at the top, World, 20 (5), 21.Google Scholar
  18. Kodama, F. (1987). A system approach to science indicators. In Grupp (Ed.), Problems of measuring technological change (pp. 65–87). Köln: Verlag TÜV Rheinland.Google Scholar
  19. Management and Coordination Agency (Ed.). (various years). Report on the survey of research and development, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  20. National Science Board (Ed.). Science (& engineering) indicators, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  21. Narin, F., Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7, 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Niwa, F., Tomizawa, H. (1995). Integrated indicators: international comparisons of overall strengths in Science and Technology. In: NISTEP (Ed.), Science and Technology Indicators 1994 (pp. 345–365). Tokyo: Science and Technology Agency.Google Scholar
  23. OECD (Ed.). (2003). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  24. OST (Ed.). (various years). Science & Technologie — Indicateurs. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  25. Patel, P., Pavitt, K. (1995). Patterns of technological activity: their measurement and interpretation. In Stoneman (Ed.), (pp. 15–51).Google Scholar
  26. Pavitt, K. (1988). Uses and abuses of patent statistics. In: A.F.J. van Raan, Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology (pp. 509–536). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  27. Pohn-Weidinger, S., Gassler, H., Gruber, M., Polt, W., Schibany, A., Leo, H. (2001), Innovationsbericht 2001. Wien: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit.Google Scholar
  28. Republik Österreich (Ed.). (2003). Österreichischer Forschungs-und Technologiebericht 2003. Wien: Bericht der Bundesregierung an den Nationalrat.Google Scholar
  29. Stoneman, P. (Ed.). (1995). Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. Oxford and Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Tijssen, R.J.W. (2003). Scoreboards of research excellence. Research Evaluation, 12 (2), 91–103.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hariolf Grupp
    • 1
  • Mary Ellen Mogee
    • 2
  1. 1.Karlsruhe University and Fraunhofer ISIKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Mogee Research & AnalysisRestonUSA

Personalised recommendations