Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Informing public policy on science and innovation: the Advanced Technology Program’s experience

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) collected a unique source of data from highly innovative firms beginning in 1993. These data follow the OECD’s guidelines for collecting innovation data and provide important insights for understanding the innovation process within firms. Although the data are not representative of the population of firms, there is sufficient number of firms in the dataset to test hypotheses and to provide a starting point for calls for innovation metrics. Because of the confidential nature of the data, ATP worked with the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) to create a Data Enclave so that researchers could remotely access the ATP data in a secure environment. To initiate the use of ATP data in the Data Enclave, the ATP program funded researchers to undertake research projects that use ATP data. Other organizations have joined the Data Enclave, including the Department of Agriculture and the Kauffman Foundation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Science of Science & Innovation Policy Newsletter, Volume 1, issue 1, October 2008, http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/scisip/scisipnews1.pdf. Accessed 7 December 2008.

  2. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvyindustry/about/brdis/start.cfm. Accessed 5 December 2008.

  3. The United Nations (2007) prepared a publication Managing Statistical Confidentiality & Microdata Access Principles and Guidelines of Good Practice that describes core principles for researcher access to microdata. The publication also presents twenty case studies that demonstrate that there are a variety of ways to do this. Remote access to microdata is described for Australia, Canada, and Denmark.

  4. Data Enclave, go to: http://www.norc.org/DataEnclave/Datasets/NIST-TIP/.

  5. NORC Data Enclave Newsletter, Volume I, issues 3 and 4, July 2008, http://www.norc.org/NR/rdonlyres/81CDE8EB-438E-4689-A2BB-D2D7211C8E49/0/Newsletter34.pdf.

References

  • Campbell, S., Chang, C., & Wang, A. (2003). University Participation in the Advanced Technology Program, and Effect on R&D Project Outputs. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 2003.

  • Campbell, S., & Wang, A. (2004). Federal R&D Funding – Outcomes from Award Competition in the Advanced Technology Program. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 2004.

  • Cooper, R. S., & Merrill, S. A. (Eds.). (1997). Industrial Research and Innovation Indicators, Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • Department of Commerce (DOC). (2008). Advisory Committee on Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century. Innovation Measurement: Tracking the State of Innovation in the American Economy.

  • Dyer, J. H., & Powell, B. C. (2001). Determinants of Success in ATP-Funded R&D Joint Ventures: A Preliminary Analysis Based on 18 Automobile Manufacturing Projects, GCR 00-803. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., Powell, B. C., Sakakibara, M., & Wang, A. J. (2006). Determinants of Success in R&D Alliances, NISTIR 7323. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2002). Universities as Research Partners, NIST GCR 02–829. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, C., & Hamilton, E. (2004). “Is it Working? Assessing the Value of the Canadian Data Liberation Initiative.” Bottom Line, Vol. 17 (4), pp. 137–146 and Humphrey, C., in “e-Science and the Life Cycle of Research.” http://datalib.library.ualberta.ca/~humphrey/lifecycle-science060308.doc. Accessed 5 December 2008.

  • Jaffe, A. B. (2008). The science of science policy: Reflections on the important questions and the challenges they present. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 131–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerwin, J., & Campbell, S. (2007). Findings from the Advanced Technology Program’s Survey of ATP Applicants 2004, GCR 07-908. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J. (2007). Optimizing the use of micro-data: An overview of the issues. Journal of Official Statistics, 23(3). http://www.jos.nu/Articles/abstract.asp?article=233299. Accessed 7 December 2008.

  • Lane, J., & Shipp, S. (2007). Using a remote access Data Enclave for data dissemination. The International Journal of Digital Curation, 2(1). http://www.ijdc.net/ijdc/article/view/31/34. Accessed 7 December 2008.

  • Marburger, J. (2005). Wanted: Better benchmarks. Science, 308(May), 1087.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marburger, J. (2007). “The Science of Science and Innovation Policy.” Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators in a Changing World, Responding to Policy Needs. Paris, France: OECD Blue Sky II Forum, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

  • O’Brien, J., Wang, A., Shipp, S., & McTigue, K. (2006). Findings from the Advanced Technology Program’s Survey of Joint Ventures, GCR 06–889. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data (3rd ed.). Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2007). Science, Technology, and Innovation in a Changing World: Responding to Policy Needs. Paris, France: OECD Blue Sky II Forum, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. (2008). The Science of Science Policy: A Federal Research Roadmap, November. http://scienceofsciencepolicy.net/uploads/SoSP_Report.pdf. Accessed 7 December 2008.

  • Petrick, I. J., Echols, A. E., Mohammed, S., & Hedge, J. (2006). Sustainable Collaboration: A Study of the Dynamics of Consortia, GCR 06–888. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, J., & Moris, F. (2004). Different timelines for different technologies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(2), 125–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Survey of ATP Applicants 2000. (2003). Portfolio of Survey Factsheets, GCR 03-847. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Survey of ATP Applicants 2002. (2005). Portfolio of Survey Factsheets, GCR 05–876. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toynebee, A. J. (1961). A Study of History (12 volumes published between 1934 and 1961). http://nobsword.blogspot.com/1993_10_17_nobsword_archive.html. Accessed 7 December 2008.

  • United Nations. (2007). Managing Statistical Confidentiality & Microdata Access Principles and Guidelines of Good Practice. United Nations Publications, Sales No. E.07.II.E.7, ISBN 13: 987-92-1-116959-1, ISSN: 0069-8458. http://www.unece.org/stats/documents/tfcm/1.e.pdf. Accessed 7 December 2008.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Shipp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Campbell, S., Shipp, S., Mulcahy, T. et al. Informing public policy on science and innovation: the Advanced Technology Program’s experience. J Technol Transf 34, 304–319 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-008-9098-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-008-9098-7

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Navigation