Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: Quantitative science-policy studies in the United Kingdom

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes and references

  1. This point was recognized, for example, by the Chairman of the United States Science Policy Task Force in his introduction to the testimony by Ben Martin before the Task Force in 1985. SeeHearing Before the Task Force on Science Policy of the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Ninety-Ninth Congress, First Session, October 30, 1985, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., p. 1.

  2. J. ZIMAN,Science in a Steady State, Science Policy Support Group Occasional Paper No. 1, SPSG, London, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See P. HEALEY, H. ROTHMAN, P. K. HOCH, An experiment in science mapping for research planning,Research Policy, 15 (1986) 233. For a comprehensive review of recent developments in co-citation techniques, see J. FRANKLIN (1988) in A. F. J. VAN RAAN (Ed.),Handbook of the Quantitative Study of Science and Technology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988, while details of current co-citation work in Britain can be obtained from H.Rothman at Bristol Polytechnic.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See, for example, B. R. MARTIN, J. IRVINE, Assessing basic research: some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy,Research Policy, 12 (1983) 61.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See for example, H. F. MOED, W. J. M. BURGER, J. G. FRANKFORT, A. F. J. VAN RAAN, The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance,Research Policy, 14 (1985) 131.

    Google Scholar 

  6. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology,Civil Research and Development, Volume I — Report, Session 1986–87, 1st Report, HMSO, London (HL 20-1), 1986, p. 65.

  7. See B. MARTIN, J. IRVINE, R. TURNER, The writing on the wall for British science,New Scientist, 104 (No. 1429) (8 November 1984) 25. This article excited considerable public interest, and was discussed for example in a subsequent House of Lords debate on the state of British research. Similar articles reporting more recent data can be found in J. IRVINE, B. MARTIN, T. PEACOCK, R. TURNER, Charting the decline in British science,Nature, 316 (15 August 1985) 587; and B. R. MARTIN, J. IRVINE, F. NARIN, C. STERRITT, The continuing decline of British science,Nature, 330 (13 November 1987) 123.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See, for example, J. KRIGE, D. PESTRE, A critique of Irvine and Martin's methodology for evaluating big science,Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985) 525; R. BUD, The case of the disappearing caveat,ibid. J. KRIGE, D. PESTRE, A critique of Irvine and Martin's methodology for evaluating big science,Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985), p. 548; H. M. COLLINS, The possibilities of science policy,ibid. Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985), p. 554; B. R. MARTIN, J. IRVINE, Evaluating the evaluators; a reply to our critics,ibid. Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985), p. 558.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SPRU, University of Sussex, Falmer, BN1 9RF, Brighton, UK

    J. Irvine & B. R. Martin

  2. SPSG, c/o AFRC, 160 Great Portland Street, W1N 6DT, London, UK

    P. Healey

Authors
  1. P. Healey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Irvine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. R. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Healey, P., Irvine, J. & Martin, B.R. Introduction: Quantitative science-policy studies in the United Kingdom. Scientometrics 14, 177–183 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02020073

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02020073

Search

Navigation