Advertisement

S&T Indicators for Policy Making in a Changing Science-Society Relationship

  • Rémi Barré

Abstract

This paper suggests that an understanding of the changing science-technology-innovation régime can provide a new role for necessarily imperfect S&T indicators. It is argued that it is precisely to the extent which they are questionable that S&T indicators can fulfil their role as mediator and S&T arena decision making instruments. Such a role of S&T indicators is highlighted by initiatives of benchmarking for public policy design and improvement, as shown by recent reports from the European commission and OECD. Finally, it is argued that it has implications for the work and responsibilities of the S&T indicators specialists.

Keywords

European Commission Innovation System Innovation Policy Venture Capital Investment European Research Area 
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. Barré, R. (2001a). The Agora model of innovation systems: S&T indicators for a democratic knowledge society. Research Evaluation, 10 (1), 13–18.Google Scholar
  2. Barré, R. (2001b). Sense and nonsense of S&T productivity indicators. Science and Public Policy, 28 (4), 1–8.Google Scholar
  3. Barré, R. (2002). S&T policy making fort the future: new rationales, new design tools. In: S&T policies in Europe: new challenges and new responses. STRATA Consolidating Workshop, Brussels 22–23 April 2002, Report EUR 20440, (pp. 86–134).Google Scholar
  4. Caracostas, P., Muldur, U. (1997). Society, the Endless Frontier. European Commission, EUR 17655, Brussels.Google Scholar
  5. Commission of the European Communities (2003). Investing in research: an action plan for Europe. COM(2003)226, Brussels.Google Scholar
  6. Commission services (2000). Development of an open method of coordination for benchmarking national research policies — objectives, methodology and indicators. SEC(2000)1842, Brussels.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission (2001). Key figures. http://www.cordis.lu/indicators/pressconf_kfbd.htm.
  8. European Commission (2001). Benchmarking reports. 2001 http://www.cordis.lu/era/benchmarking.htm.
  9. European Commission (2002). Scoreboard. http://www.cordis.lu/scoreboard/what.htm
  10. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, introduction to the special “Triple Helix” issue. Research Policy 29 (2), 109–123.Google Scholar
  11. Georghiou, L. (1999). Meta-evaluation: evaluation of evaluations. Special Issue on Proceedings of the Conference Science and the Academic System in Transition — An International Expert Meeting on Evaluation — Vienna, July 3–5, Scientometrics, 45, 523–530.Google Scholar
  12. Kuhlmann, S., et al. (1999). Improving distributed intelligence in complex innovation systems. ASTPP network — TSER Contract SOE1-CT96-1013, Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  13. Kuhlmann, S., Edler, J. (2003a). Scenarios of technology and innovation policies in Europe: Investigating Future Governance, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 70, 619–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuhlmann, S. (2003b). Evaluation as a source of’ strategic intelligence’. In Ph. Shapira, S. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation: Experiences from the United States and Europe (pp.352–379). Cheltenham: E. Elgar.Google Scholar
  15. Latour, B. (1999). Politiques de la nature — comment faire entrer les sciences en démocratie. La Découverte: Paris.Google Scholar
  16. Lundvall B-A. and M. Tomlinson, (2001). Learning by comparing: reflection on the use and abuse of benchmarking. In G. Sweeney (Ed.), Innovation, economic progress and quality of life. London: Elgar Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. May, R.M. (1998). The scientific investments of nations. Science, 281, 49–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nowotny, N., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science; knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press: Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  19. [OECD (2002). Benchmarking Industry-Science relationships. Paris.Google Scholar
  20. Smits, R. (2001). The new role of strategic intelligence. In A. Tubke, K. Ducatel, J. Gavigan, P. Moncada (Eds.), Strategic policy intelligence: current trends, the state of play and perspectives. JRC-ESTO, EUR 20137 EN 1-30, Brussels.Google Scholar
  21. STRATA-ETAN working Group (2002a). Benchmarking national RD policies: S&T productivity. European Commission: Brussels (http://www.cordis.lu/era/benchmarking.htm).Google Scholar
  22. STRATA-ETAN expert Group (2002b). Benchmarking national research policies; the impact of RTD on competitiveness and employment (IRCE). European Commission: Brussels (http://www.cordis.lu/era/benchmarking.htm).Google Scholar
  23. STRATA-ETAN working Group (2002c). Benchmarking national RD policies: Human resources in RTD. European Commission: Brussels (http://www.cordis.lu/era/benchmarking.htm).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rémi Barré
    • 1
  1. 1.Conservatoire National des Arts-et-Métiers (CNAM)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations